The FSF Doubles Down On Restoring RMS After His Non-Apology Apology (zdnet.com) 517
In late March, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) readmitted its founder Richard M. Stallman (RMS) to its board, catching everyone by surprise. Now, weeks later, RMS "offers a defensive non-apology apology for the words and actions that led to his resignation from the FSF," writes Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols via ZDNet. Slashdot reader destinyland shares an excerpt of his statement from the Free Software Foundation's official website: Looking back over his life starting as a teenager, Stallman writes: "I realized that I didn't understand the subtle cues that other people were responding to. Later in life, I discovered that some people had negative reactions to my behavior, which I did not even know about. Tending to be direct and honest with my thoughts, I sometimes made others uncomfortable or even offended them -- especially women. This was not a choice: I didn't understand the problem enough to know which choices there were."
"Sometimes I lost my temper because I didn't have the social skills to avoid it," Stallman adds. "Some people could cope with this; others were hurt. I apologize to each of them. Please direct your criticism at me, not at the Free Software Foundation. Occasionally I learned something about relationships and social skills, so over the years I've found ways to get better at these situations. When people help me understand an aspect of what went wrong, and that shows me a way of treating people better, I teach myself to recognize when I should act that way. I keep making this effort, and over time, I improve. Some have described me as being 'tone-deaf,' and that is fair. With my difficulty in understanding social cues, that tends to happen."
This is just an excerpt. But through eight short paragraphs, Stallman seems to want to offer up a larger context for his badly-received defense of Professor Minsky on an MIT mailing list. (And Stallman adds later that "I condemn racism and sexism, including their systemic forms, so when people say I don't, that hurts too...") "I've learned something from this about how to be kind to people who have been hurt," writes Stallman. "In the future, that will help me be kind to people in other situations, which is what I hope to do." "RMS did not, however, address the many other issues which caused people to regret his return to a position of leadership," writes Vaughan-Nichols. Soon after the RMS post appeared on the FSF's front page, the board spoke on why they'd brought him back. The unsigned document states: The voting members of the Free Software Foundation, which include the board of directors, voted to appoint Richard Stallman to a board seat after several months of thorough discussion and thoughtful deliberation.
We decided to bring RMS back because we missed his wisdom. His historical, legal and technical acumen on free software is unrivaled. He has a deep sensitivity to the ways that technologies can contribute to both the enhancement and the diminution of basic human rights. His global network of connections is invaluable. He remains the most articulate philosopher and an unquestionably dedicated advocate of freedom in computing.
RMS acknowledges that he has made mistakes. He has sincere regrets, especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the reputation and mission of FSF. While his personal style remains troubling for some, a majority of the board feel his behavior has moderated and believe that his thinking strengthens the work of the FSF in pursuit of its mission. We take full responsibility for how badly we handled the news of his election to a board seat. We had planned a flow of information that was not executed in a timely manner or delivered in the proper sequence. [...]
"Sometimes I lost my temper because I didn't have the social skills to avoid it," Stallman adds. "Some people could cope with this; others were hurt. I apologize to each of them. Please direct your criticism at me, not at the Free Software Foundation. Occasionally I learned something about relationships and social skills, so over the years I've found ways to get better at these situations. When people help me understand an aspect of what went wrong, and that shows me a way of treating people better, I teach myself to recognize when I should act that way. I keep making this effort, and over time, I improve. Some have described me as being 'tone-deaf,' and that is fair. With my difficulty in understanding social cues, that tends to happen."
This is just an excerpt. But through eight short paragraphs, Stallman seems to want to offer up a larger context for his badly-received defense of Professor Minsky on an MIT mailing list. (And Stallman adds later that "I condemn racism and sexism, including their systemic forms, so when people say I don't, that hurts too...") "I've learned something from this about how to be kind to people who have been hurt," writes Stallman. "In the future, that will help me be kind to people in other situations, which is what I hope to do." "RMS did not, however, address the many other issues which caused people to regret his return to a position of leadership," writes Vaughan-Nichols. Soon after the RMS post appeared on the FSF's front page, the board spoke on why they'd brought him back. The unsigned document states: The voting members of the Free Software Foundation, which include the board of directors, voted to appoint Richard Stallman to a board seat after several months of thorough discussion and thoughtful deliberation.
We decided to bring RMS back because we missed his wisdom. His historical, legal and technical acumen on free software is unrivaled. He has a deep sensitivity to the ways that technologies can contribute to both the enhancement and the diminution of basic human rights. His global network of connections is invaluable. He remains the most articulate philosopher and an unquestionably dedicated advocate of freedom in computing.
RMS acknowledges that he has made mistakes. He has sincere regrets, especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the reputation and mission of FSF. While his personal style remains troubling for some, a majority of the board feel his behavior has moderated and believe that his thinking strengthens the work of the FSF in pursuit of its mission. We take full responsibility for how badly we handled the news of his election to a board seat. We had planned a flow of information that was not executed in a timely manner or delivered in the proper sequence. [...]
the broad spoke (Score:3)
Good job editors.
L O L
Re: the broad spoke (Score:2)
The RMS "apology" sounds more like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The RMS "apology" sounds more like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for him. Let the snowflakes go fuck themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And this here is the fundamental issue in this entire conversation. This is barely about RMS to some, and more about screwing over a section of the population that is disliked.
RMS cannot hold the position effectively without drastically reducing the FSF ability to complete their stated mission. Full stop. This has been demonstrated by the very fact that these conversations are happening, as loudly and as presently as they are. And the choice to keep him in place is either horribly shortsighted, or an in
How have the people complaining supported the FSF? (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS cannot hold the position effectively without drastically reducing the FSF ability to complete their stated mission
That's' what you claim, yet how many of the people complaining about RMS have been donating to the FSF? I'd warrant the percentage is extremely low.
I've been donating to the FSF for over a decade now, and if RMS is gone so is my money.
In what way exactly do you see the FSF mission being impacted by those complaining? I can't see it altering anything at all.
I know he cannot effectively lead anymore as a result of it.
I know he can, like a sword that has been through the forge he will be strong for the experience.
Re: How have the people complaining supported the (Score:4, Insightful)
Since 80% of their donations came from corporations a lot.
Those companies walk away so does the money flow and then it isn't the snow flakes whining. It is the FSF whining they don't have any money.
The ESF the lawyer and legal team for the FSF thinks bringing stallman back is a bad move.
When your lawyers thinks it is bad then you lose abilities.
Re:How have the people complaining supported the F (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems you already stopped donating 3 years ago and have implied you dont even run that company anymore soo.
Re: (Score:3)
I sold the company in 2018.
Re: How have the people complaining supported the (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: How have the people complaining supported the (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really. It was my decision to donate when I ran the company, and it's my decision now not to donate either in my personal capacity or on behalf of my new company that I just started a couple of months ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How have the people complaining supported the F (Score:5, Interesting)
>Nobody can "eliminate Free Software" just by getting rid of RMS
They could however eliminate a powerful symbol of it - the father of the movement, and one of its most dramatically uncompromising advocates.
And incidentally, anyone who can compromise the integrity of the FSF board* could make proprietary forks of the vast majority of GPL software simply by released GPL v666 "All your code belongs to us" edition and exploiting the standard "or any later version" licensing option included in almost all GPL projects (offhand, Linux is the only major project that excluded that verbiage) Something that would be of great interest to a large number of corporate interests.
* I believe it's the FSF board that has the exclusive right to produce new versions of the GPL, but I'll admit I'm not completely certain.
Re: (Score:3)
What in particular made RMS to become stopper for you?
Re:How have the people complaining supported the F (Score:5, Informative)
I also believe that there's substance behind the allegations that he's creepy towards women.
This seems to be the most serious thing I have found. There's one case where he was making insensitive comments to women about "Emacs Virgins" which he later admitted were not being understood the way he meant them and toned down. He also handed out business cards talking about "pleasure", which women found creepy. In that case it turned out he was handing them out also to men and also with no apparent link to sex or anything.
If he is "on the spectrum", then these things are understandable. If he is trying to learn and change then these things are forgivable. Every direct source I have read has said that he never did any harm to anyone.
Do you have any better sources than that?
Re: How have the people complaining supported the (Score:5, Interesting)
So, I've never met RMS in person.
Yet here you are, judging him based on what other people heard other people heard him say (not a typo).
However, I find his responses to controversy very tone-deaf
He was asked about something that has nothing to do with Free Software - what difference does it make what his position is on the 2020 election, Covid mask recommendations, or who was or was not on Epstein's island and what they might or might not have done?
and don't believe he's a good person to lead an advocacy organization, given that such a leader needs to have very good people skills.
RMS NEVER had "good people skills" - EVER.
I also believe that there's substance behind the allegations that he's creepy towards women.
I'll go one better - I bet he's equally "creepy" to both men and women. RMS operates on the fringe of society, has a flawed set of coping skills for public situations, and lives by a rigorous set of personal rule that can, from time to time, cause him problems - for example, as I recall he got into this mess because he invited a group to ask him about "anything" he'd be happy to answer their questions. No one does that, but he does, and look where it got him.
If he just came out and said he was "on the (autism) spectrum" half his critics would likely back off, but being "on the spectrum" wasn't the cool thing when he was growing up.
Re: How have the people complaining supported the (Score:5, Insightful)
He was asked about something that has nothing to do with Free Software - what difference does it make
Nothing... If you're in a technical / employee position where all you're judged on is your expertise.
Everything however if you're like RMS, in a position that is heavily dependent on leadership and PR.
I regularly at work share the opinion that many of our customers can go get fucked. If I were the CEO or in the PR department, I would rightfully expect to lose my job over similar opinions. This is the distinction that you seem to be unable to recognise. When you work in certain positions you don't get to have public opinions. If you want to continue having those opinions then you should expect to lose your position if they aren't in the public interest.
Autism or not, at some point you have to learn to shut the fuck up. Even his apology sounds very much like a non-apology and could have seriously benefitted from having someone with actual PR skills proof read it. Truly smart leaders surround themselves with people who can help them effectively lead. RMS is not one of those people.
Re:How have the people complaining supported the F (Score:5, Informative)
Aha. So basically, you do not contribute anything to Free Software.
My company did use lots of free software. We didn't make all of our products Free Software, but we did make many of them including MIMEDefang [mimedefang.org]. I also am the author of Free Software like RP-PPPoE and Remind, as well as having contributed to Request Tracker.
Again, big shot... what have your contributions been? Anything at all?
Re:How have the people complaining supported the F (Score:4, Insightful)
If RMS is the FSF, that's even more reason not to support it. In that case, the FSF is a personality cult rather than a proper organization.
I gave Red Hat's donation as an example. The reality is that FSF's funding is going to dry up. You can rail against it all you want, but it's reality.
Once again: WHAT HAVE YOU CONTRIBUTED TO FREE SOFTWARE?
Re:How have the people complaining supported the F (Score:4, Insightful)
the crackhead down the street is as entitled to a say in the matter no less than you are
Yeah, creds matter. Not everyone is an expert, and some know more than others. As for your crackhead, they made some pretty poor decisions in like which is a great reason to question their opinions.
It's like asking "where's your medical degree" to shut down people who have an opinion on a medical matter.
Seems like a great way and valid reason to shut someone down, unless they are quoting from someone with a medical degree.
Quite frankly, you can take your attempts at an appeal to authority and use them as a rectal sex toy.
If I ever need information about rectal sex toys, I know where to find an expert.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, the question is not irrelevant. I'm directly responding to the OPs assertion Yeah you got what you wanted from Free Software and RMS. Fuck him, right? You got yours [slashdot.org] which (as I read it) implies that I take and don't contribute.
Re: (Score:3)
1) So I'm new to this thread, but a) I pay FSF membership fees, b) I work in tech support at a university and I'm one of the only two people who use Linux, so I'm already doing user support and advocacy. So I may not be a developer, but that's how I contribute. And if it weren't for RMS's tools, I'd be lost. And I admit it and I say so and that's another support I give.
2) Demanding of OP what THEY contribute, is NOT a direct response to "you got what you wanted you got yours". A direct response would be to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is only one viable path (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the FSF is harmed either way, is it not better to do what is right (support RMS, who has done nothing wrong), rather than bow to the people who scream loudest at the moment?
If you stand up against false accusation, nothing worse can happen to you. If you give in, they will simply keep coming back and taking out FSF staff one by one. After all, someone at FSF spoke up for Stallman, so logically they would be the next to go...
The only path forward that keeps the FSF around is, as the old anti-drug mes
Re:There is only one viable path (Score:5, Interesting)
Arguing that pedophilla is not harmful as long as it's voluntary is not doing anything wrong?
Is believing in god doing anything wrong?
Is not believing in god doing anything wrong?
Is believing in a god other than (insert here) doing anything wrong?
Is supporting abortion doing anything wrong?
Is supporting outlaw of abortion doing anything wrong?
Is supporting legalization of hookers and blow doing anything wrong?
Is supporting death penalty for hookers and blow doing anything wrong?
Is arguing the middle east should be converted into a "glass parking lot" doing anything wrong?
Is arguing the west should be converted into a "glass parking lot" doing anything wrong?
Is arguing for (insert system of governance here) doing anything wrong?
Is arguing against (insert system of governance here) doing anything wrong?
Why is it in societies best interests for people with (un)popular opinions to be disrespected and attacked/canceled for having them?
Society to me appears to be far better off when the "market place of ideas" is free, fearless, open and fiercely competitive rather than operated by lazy mobsters who will break your cowardly legs if you don't purchase whatever they happen to be selling.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I draw the line at things that harm others.
Arguing that I should be able to kill people is wrong.
Arguing that I should be able to have sex with someone unwilling is wrong.
Arguing that that people should be allowed to have sex with someone too young to understand the emotional repercussions is wrong
Not a hard concept. Someone who wanders the world advocating for a cause should have to understand to be able to do his job correctly. Also proof he wasn't being completely honest when he said he made ch
Re: (Score:3)
I draw the line at things that harm others.
Freely arguing and conveying opinions harm nobody. On the other hand curtailing the free conveyance of ideas has lead to the miserable deaths of countless millions.
Arguing that I should be able to kill people is wrong.
What specifically is the harm to others in arguing the point? Fear it will catch on and everyone will want to run around offing everyone they see?
Re:There is only one viable path (Score:5, Insightful)
> Sexual harassment is wrong, and right now the arguments from his supporters boils down, not to "He didn't do it" - because the accounts are too numerous and he himself isn't denying them - but "He lacks social cues because he has Asperger's".
Ridiculous. The problem is that the autistophobe mob is just throwing feces around in the hope that some will stick on RSM and nobody will examine it more closely. In this situation, examining ALL of it more closely is neither logically required for making a fair rational argument nor would it be remotely effective as a defense tactic against the mob's unfair tactics.
> but why on Earth you'd want Stallman in a leadership position at the FSF when he just isn't very good at it.
Again, ridiculous. Unless you actually have evidence for RSM being not very good AS A BOARD MEMBER (not a spokesman). In its statement, the FSF explained why he is so important AS A BOARD MEMBER. This apparent misrepresentation by you may have been unintentional, but it is part of the feces throwing I referred to.
> Before the trolls were demanding his return, they were posting snide comments about his personal hygiene to every Slashdot article mentioning him
Interesting statement. 1. Do you actually have evidence of some of the same trolls doing both things? I wouldn't be surprised, but taken purely as a statement of fact, it seems to me that it still needs evidence. 2. ... but you are evidently not saying it as a statement of fact but as a way to throw feces at those of RMS' defenders who are not actually trolls. (What would be the point of throwing feces at trolls? Unless you are one yourself, in which case I apologize to everyone for feeding you.)
To answer the rhetorical question at the end of that paragraph ("What the fuck is wrong with FOSS?"): What is 'wrong' with FOSS is that so long as it was a minority field in which you normally couldn't have a lucrative career, an extremely high percentage of those passionate for it were either on the autism spectrum or (like me) not quite neurotypical in other, somewhat autism-compatible ways. Which is why such people naturally became founders, then leaders of the movement. And why they actually were, and still are, particularly important in leadership positions. Not in externally facing positions such as spokespeople (unless they have exceptional social skills, which some do), but certainly as board members.
> What he doesn't deserve is a job he's not qualified for. If it truly is because he has Asperger's that he has these faults, then, well, I pity him, though find it hard to believe, but that doesn't mean he qualifies for a leadership position anymore than a blind person has a right to become an airline pilot.
Totally inept comparison. That's pretty close to saying no board members of an autism support organization may be on the spectrum. I realize that some people actually say that as well; it's just that in that case it's more openly autistophobe.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, we all lose.
RMS can still fix it. He's the only one who can. But it seems like he won't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And then he'd get slammed for covering up, whitewashing, deleting.
This way not only does he own up to what he wrote, he ALSO publishes his correction apology.
Which is a FAR more valuable lesson for the people of the future. So, I'm with "SJWs don't listen to people, you just spew your hate. And don't even think about what's genuinely good or true. SJWs are just another evil so reactionary and stupid it doesn't even realise how destructive it is... and has no real connection to genuine justice".
Re:How have the people complaining supported the F (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not sure what you are referring to, but I tried to google it. I could not find even a single comment defending pedophilia on his website. The closest thing I found was a statement of fact which, while being USABLE IN THE DEFENSE of pedophilia (absolutely not the same as actually defending pedophilia, unless you subscribe to the currently popular philosophy that there is a total war between groups going on which invalidates traditional principles of rational debate), appears to me to be offered in good faith, very likely factually correct, and just the kind of thing someone like RMS who feels very strongly about unjust prosecution would worry about. Which is absolutely legitimate.
I also feel very strongly about unjust prosecution, and I have worried about exactly the same things myself. I am European myself, but as an American, RMS is even closer to such unjust prosecution than I am. Such as young children getting life-destroying sentences for victimless or very minor 'crimes' such as taking photos of their own genitals or taking off their clothes in school. This is just the tip of the iceberg. For a lot of people, the rational part of their mind just shuts off as soon as the word pedophilia falls, and combined with stupidly drafted laws and the US' inane system of judges/prosecutors competing in public elections by showing how tough they are, it's a recipe for disaster.
Re: (Score:3)
but as an American, RMS is even closer to such unjust prosecution than I am. Such as young children getting life-destroying sentences for victimless or very minor 'crimes' such as taking photos of their own genitals or taking off their clothes in school.
Gosh if only there was a middle ground between puriticanically harsh sentences destroying kids lives and going "nah man being a pedo's cool".
Re:The RMS "apology" sounds more like... (Score:5, Interesting)
but I know he cannot effectively lead anymore as a result of it.
Why not? There are certainly a lot of people who share the view of "fuck the snowflakes" and if they are the people who actually do the work rather than complain about being offended by things then there's unlikely to be a problem.
Maybe a snowflake-based FSF is what is needed, a hard fork, and let's see which one succeeds in their mission. I'm sure one will have a detailed CoC targeting inclusivity and preventing anybody from being offended about anything and the other will probably just get on with the job.
Free Software is an interesting target for this sort of "woke" behavior, particularly because development and participation can be done in almost complete anonymity. Nobody knows about your "gender identity", your race, your sex, your nationality, your policitcal affliliations, etc. unless you decide to raise them as an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Any organization needs money, and corporate donations are unlikely to flow to a fuck the snowflakes organization. Therefore, such an organization will have a much harder time raising funds that one that decides not to fuck the snowflakes.
Free Software is an interesting target for this sort of "woke" behavior, particularly because development and participation can be done in almost complete anonymity.
Not really. Please name a major free software project (ie, one that is widely used and has multiple co
Re: (Score:3)
Any organization needs money, and corporate donations are unlikely to flow to a fuck the snowflakes organization. Therefore, such an organization will have a much harder time raising funds that one that decides not to fuck the snowflakes.
I strongly disagree. What's the point of an organization whose purpose for existing is corrupted by money? Sponsors like Red Hat (example: CentOS) are doing FSF a favor by pulling out.
Not really. Please name a major free software project (ie, one that is widely used and has multiple contributors) that has had a significant amount of code contributed by someone "almost completely anonymously". I sure wouldn't trust such a project.
I've never seen an open source project where any contributor had been vetted.
There is no effective difference between ticking some kind of 'I R Anonymous' box and establishing a random identity (throwaway email account..etc) accepted by others.
Re: (Score:3)
we live in a capitalist society, and whether you like it or not, a "fuck the snowflakes" Free Software organization is going to fail
Boy oh boy how the world has changed. We're depending on corporations to enforce our morals.
Re: (Score:3)
That's your definition of Social Justice. My definition (and the one found in the dictionary [dictionary.com] is "fair treatment of all people in a society, including respect for the rights of minorities and equitable distribution of resources among members of a community."
Re: (Score:3)
equitable distribution of resources among members of a community
LOL... funny as shit comrade.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously?
"Please name one"
*promptly names one, conveniently it's probably the most recognizable one on the planet right now*
"Well obviously that one doesn't count because I can't think of any others."
Please don't interpret the rush of others not bothering to engage with you as confirmation that you are right.
But you've answered your own question: bitcoin is an anomaly, but a very good example to the point being made. There is very little for most free software contributions to be done anonymously, but that
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The RMS "apology" sounds more like... (Score:5, Insightful)
By that logic, any mob could get anyone fired for any reason they dream up. This is nuts.
Re:The RMS "apology" sounds more like... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not a problem caused by RMS. It's a problem caused by that section of population. And yielding to them - letting them have their way - will only encourage them to hijack more entities they can hijack and cripple the ones they can't.
RMS is not reducing the FSF ability to complete their stated mission. The witch hunters are. And the solution is not to get rid of RMS, but to actively oppose the witch hunters.
Re: The RMS "apology" sounds more like... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Like people are doing to RMS, and a horde of other people who say nothing illegal or unethical, yet can be taken out of context, or just "Disagreed with and mob demand they be fired or we'll come and 'sort you out'"?
Re: (Score:3)
If you believe that then you will allow me to freely express my opinions in your bedroom at 3am with a bullhorn without any reprisals from you or the local constabulary.
I believe you are intentionally missing the point. Freedom of speech is the freedom to convey ideas and opinions without reprisal.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with tresspassing in strangers homes, violating local noise ordinances or granting of audiences.
Free speech means the government can't act against you.
The concept of free speech is by no means limited to government legal systems.
Free speech has never meant you will be guaranteed to keep your friends no matter what bullshit you spew.
Free speech is a concept not a guarantee.
Re:The RMS "apology" sounds more like... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is barely about RMS to some, and more about screwing over a section of the population that is disliked
Exactly. And the failure for FSF, RMS, or anyone involved on that side to actually address this is why a lot of groups are putting a bit of distance between them and the FSF.
RMS cannot hold the position effectively without drastically reducing the FSF ability to complete their stated mission
The FSF is an advocacy group. If there are people who aren't listening, then you are absolutely fucking right that they will fail at their mission of outreach. You do not have outreach if you do not have groups of people listening to you.
an intentional statement of "fuck the snowflakes" rather than anything about the ability for the FSF to be effective
And as HanzoSpam has demonstrated, this is absolutely the case. I've heard time and time again people say, "You're going to disrespect the man that (insert whatever) just because of what he thinks?" And the answer is, I've got nothing but respect for the man. I've met him several times at conventions, I've even got his dang book signed by him. And it's on my freaking desk all the time. The dude was effing inspirational for my opinions on FOSS. That said, he's a shit person at leading a diverse group and he's pretty horrible around women in general. And that's not a giant secret, a lot of people know that his gearbox for thinking is rooting in some old ass 1970s era college guy brew-haha thinking. And fine, he's too awkward to understand that he's a pig. Whatever. I'm sure the guy is fine in leading some college aged team back in the 1980s, he's just shit at doing it in the 2020s.
I went to college during the 1980s, I know what the thinking was in the CSCI halls about women at that time. It wasn't everyone who thought that way, but yeah the "male pig" kind of thinking was rampant and RMS is very much a product straight out of that era. And if he's too awkward to adjust to today, fine. He's still a champ in my mind for the things he's done, but if he's not willing to adjust for today's groups then he just needs to step back and let others lead the charge. There's no shame in that.
There's a group (not a big one, but goddamn if they ain't vocal as fuck) who just refuses to leave the 1970s/80s/and 90s thinking behind them. We're all pretty smart here. We should all understand the idea of adaptability. And shit like
Good for him. Let the snowflakes go fuck themselves.
Shows that people like this guy [slashdot.org] are unable to adapt and want to change the conversation from "what's best for the FSF" to "fuck a bunch of snowflakes". And that, that whole point is why everyone is distancing themselves from FSF, which in the long run will run their ability to advocate into the ground. RMS did a lot of shit, nothing but applause for that. But guy is incapable of running a team now a days and this admission now shows that he has no plans to adapt to today's groups. There's nothing wrong with his things he's accomplished, but he just lacks the skills to run a team effectively with today's groups and based on his lack of skills, the FSF should not put him in a position for which he lacks the skills for. GNOME, KDE, X.org, and so on have every right to associate or not associate with the FSF and if the FSF just wants to double down on someone who won't adapt, then those groups have every right to distance themselves while they watch the FSF go down on the boat they chose to ride down to the bottom of the abyss. There's a lot of better things to do than tip-toe around neckbeards that still carry some antiquated thinking about anything that is a different gender than themselves.
Trait agreableness, from Big 5 personality (Score:5, Interesting)
Shows that people like this guy [slashdot.org] are unable to adapt and want to change the conversation from "what's best for the FSF" to "fuck a bunch of snowflakes".
This is a debate between people who are high on the agreeableness scale, and people who are low.
Low agreeable people are the creatives (also high openness), who go against the grain. They are individuals who generally don't care what other people think, and go off and have new and interesting ideas. They are the artists who move into a run-down part of a city and make art, they are the entrepreneurs, songwriters, and playrights.
High agreeable people are group-ists: you value is only to the group, your value as an individual is zero, and you can be sacrificed for the good of the group. Marxists, and all the ideologies derived from it, are generally group-ists. If you're not a part of the group, if you don't have the same opinions, then you're a poisonous snake that must be attacked using any means necessary.
And that, that whole point is why everyone is distancing themselves from FSF, which in the long run will run their ability to advocate into the ground. RMS did a lot of shit, nothing but applause for that.
[Emphasis mine] Agreeableness is normally distributed, half the nerd population supports RMS and about half want to get rid of him (per community polling, don't have the reference at hand).
Realize that the other side doesn't hold your opinion not because they're stupid or because they don't understand your point, it's because they're different people. They have different values, they think different things are important, what's obvious to them is the opposite of what's obvious to you.
But guy is incapable of running a team now a days and this admission now shows that he has no plans to adapt to today's groups.
The fundamental basis for civilization is that people have rights, have transcendent worth independent of their group affiliation. This basic idea of individual rights lets us set up laws that are unbiased against the agreeableness score.
That's right. The fundamental basis of civilization is that the agreeableness score doesn't matter in day-to-day operations.
Without this central idea, that people have transcendent value, you have blood feuds, honor killings, witch hunts, and all the bad parts of communism. Anyone not deemed "part of the group" is a nazi/sex offender/racist, and it's OK to punch them.
Bollux.
Ignore his behaviour. RMS is *highly* creative(*), he's run FSF for decades and built it up to a high level, and he's done nothing wrong.
Get back into civilized behaviour. Allow others to have their own opinions.
(*) I should mention that there's a test for measuring creative ability (you can find it online and take it), and the median score is zero. Seventy percent of the population scores zero on the creative achievement test, and of the remaining 30 percent 21 percent only score 1 point. True creativity is exceedingly rare, and we shouldn't be casually attacking the highly creative types for no reason.
Re:Trait agreableness, from Big 5 personality (Score:4, Interesting)
Allow others to have their own opinions.
He's fine to have opinions. I mean Christ, I've got nothing wrong with him "having opinions". The thing is, he wants to be in a position to "spread his opinions" and so, the acceptability of his opinions is pretty much the fucking point.
Realize that the other side doesn't hold your opinion not because they're stupid or because they don't understand your point, it's because they're different people.
I'm NOT saying that anyone is stupid. Being different is fine. But being a leader requires a bit of buy in on your thinking, that's kind of how leadership works. The people listening need to believe what's coming out of your mouth hole in order for that leadership thingy to work. So just so you understand, my issue is NOT "I dislike what RMS thinks ergo he shouldn't be a leader". My issue is "RMS' opinions are not exactly widely accepted ergo he's not exactly the most ideal person for the position of leadership." And more specifically, "RMS' thinking on some subjects have been denounced by a lot of FOSS projects ergo those FOSS projects will be a lot less trusting of RMS in their group which doesn't seem like that's a good thing for the FSF."
RMS being in the right or wrong. Those FOSS projects being in the right or wrong. NONE OF THAT WITHSTANDING. You have the FSF and a lot of FOSS projects and they are two groups that need to work together and right now one is saying they won't work with the other because of some things. That's not exactly what I would call awesome leadership, but I mean fuck I'm cool to be wrong there. But it does seem that when two groups won't work together going forward, it's fair game to say that perhaps someone in leadership wasn't a good match.
Whatever their thinking or not being right or wrong, IDGF. One crew has changed, the other hasn't and clearly the lack of change in one or the change in the other has lead us to this. That doesn't require anyone to pass a right or wrong verdict to point out that, that is highly likely not a good thing for it to be where it is right now. If people are not listening to you, more than likely you aren't a very good leader. The right or wrong, the different or homogeneous thinking, or whatever other thing you want to try and turn this into doesn't matter. If people are not listening to you, you are not a good leader. You could have gold for ideas, but if no one listens to them, then your ideas go nowhere.
True creativity is exceedingly rare, and we shouldn't be casually attacking the highly creative types for no reason
The guy literally admitted to being unable to act normal around a category that makes up roughly 50% of the people on this planet. If he's like that at his home, cool. He could write a book or something! If he wants to lead people however, and he's got an issue with 50% of this planet. Going to be awfully hard to lead that 50%. No attack, just that's highly questionable as to how effective he's going to be as a leader when 50% of this planet knows that he's got issues not coming off as a male pig to them and he doesn't think it's his responsibility to adapt his behavior. I'm not passing judgement on if he should or shouldn't adapt, I'm just saying going to make that role of leader harder to do.
Simply wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Allow others to have their own opinions.
The thing is, he wants to be in a position to "spread his opinions" and so...
Yes, exactly.
Do not, do NOT prevent others from speaking. That's what you're tying to do, and it's wrong.
You don't like him, that's fine. You disagree with him, that's fine also. You don't want to interact with him? That's fine as well.
But DON'T curtail his ability to interact with others.
It's not your place to judge.
Cancel culture is simply wrong.
Re:Trait agreableness, from Big 5 personality (Score:4, Interesting)
He's fine to have opinions. I mean Christ, I've got nothing wrong with him "having opinions".
I must say, that's very broad-minded of you. I'm sure some of your best friends are people with opinions too!
The thing is, he wants to be in a position to "spread his opinions" and so, the acceptability of his opinions is pretty much the fucking point.
Yes, this kind of thing shouldn't be tolerated. I mean, we're upstanding, civilized people - we can't have this kind of degeneracy among us. Those people can have whatever opinions they want, as long as they don't air them about and push them in our faces. What, are we going to have "opinion pride" parades next? There really should be some kind of law against this kind of thing - we could call it "don't ask, don't tell".
Jokes aside - is it only me who sees how the whole progressive movement becomes more and more like a real life illustration of "Animal Farm"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fundamental basis of civilization is that the agreeableness score doesn't matter in day-to-day operations.
Bollocks. ...people who score low in agreeableness tend to be more hostile, antagonistic, and competitive. They also tend to have more difficult relationships that are riddled with disagreements and breakups. [verywellmind.com]
People with low levels of the agreeableness have been found to exhibit higher levels of ‘dark triad’ traits, a series of characteristics with negative associations, including M [psychologistworld.com]
Re:The RMS "apology" sounds more like... (Score:4, Insightful)
screwing over a section of the population that is disliked
More like screwing over privileged crybullies that claim to represent a "section" of something.
anything about the ability for the FSF to be effective
Kowtowing to pressure groups breeds more pressure groups until we can't have anything. The problem with you is so far you haven't been on the shit end of the stick yet. FSF is trying to save you from that fate; you're just too myopic to appreciate it.
Re: (Score:3)
I honestly cannot say... but I know he cannot effectively lead anymore as a result of it.
Well, the issue here is honesty. The accusations are bullshit and he is showing leadership by not buckling to them.
The choice to keep him in place is a intentional statement of "we don't give in to blackmail".
Re:The RMS "apology" sounds more like... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is barely about RMS to some, and more about screwing over a section of the population that is disliked.
As a member of that socially awkward section of the population I find I agree with you.
Fail to parrot the right mantras (which change day by day), fail to kneel to the current gods of probity, accidentally genuflect in the wrong direction and it's cancellation for you!
No space for people that think differently, that work with logic and rationale, and that aren't relentlessly seeking social acceptance irrespective of its stances.
Well... (Score:3)
The RMS "apology" sounds more like he is saying, ~~ it's not my problem, Get over it. ~~
Is he wrong?
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Well... (Score:3)
He says he lacks social skills. He should get some.
Telling an autistic person to "get some social skills" is like telling someone with Down's to "lose the extra chromosome" or telling an amputee to "just grow a new leg."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is that he should dump his Hercules graphics adapter and finally upgrade to EGA monochrome?
Re:Probably (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. It's a serious problem that people conflate totally broken people who penetrate babies in order to inflict pain on them, 18-year old young men with 17-year-old girlfriends, parents taking photos of their 4-year old child in the bathtub, middle-aged men grooming 6-year-old girls in order to use them sexually and discard them afterwards, adults whose mental development stopped at the age of 5 playing doctor with children their MENTAL age, and middle-aged men having sex with 17-year-olds. Apparently, all of these behaviors are pedophilia and therefore equally bad, and if you try to work out the differences you make yourself a target for a witch hunt because you are OBVIOUSLY a defender of pedophilia. And ditto if you are unwilling to participate in the witch hunt. And so on.
If it wasn't so serious for the victims of the resulting injustice, it would be ridiculous.
It's not his problem (Score:5, Informative)
RMS did nothing wrong, so a statement rather than an apology is in order.
All too often these days people accuse someone of a misdeed when they did nothing. Far too often the target apologizes for causing offense, even when they did nothing wrong. It's time for people that did nothing wrong to stop apologizing to these jackals that travel in packs seeking to bring innocent targets down.
Re:It's not his problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The accusation against RMS includes "a history of mistreating women and making them feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and unwelcome."
So, that would be an accusation of specific actions taken by RMS which were wrong. I personally am not in a position to know if they are true.
HOWEVER....
At the risk of having my own head bitten off for not being liberal enough, I will point out that "making someone feel" uncomfortable, unsafe, or unwelcome is an accusation that lacks substance. One can control one's own actions, but one CANNOT control someone else's feelings. People might feel uncomfortable without reason. People might feel unsafe when there is no danger at all. People might feel these things even though the other person did nothing wrong nor anything that would make "a reasonable person" feel this way. For example, if a professional body-builder walks down the street, his hulking muscles might make someone feel unsafe. But that does not mean the body-builder did anything wrong.
The "mistreatment" might have more substance, if we have confirmed incidences of behavior that is actually illegal. I don't know the weight of evidence here, but it seems like it would be much more the focus of the complaints if it was strong and compelling.
Instead the focus of the complaints seems to be about his speculation about what might have happened long ago, statements of his own opinions on downs syndrome, and hateful transphobic language written into his guidance policies for technical documentation.
The first and last of those three are bogus. There is nothing wrong with his speculation of what might have happened long ago (so long as one does not alter his words and change the meaning of what he actually said), and the transphobia accusation is utter bunk. It is just another example of an extreme liberal with an axe to grind complaining because his guidance on how to write technical document doesn't further their agenda enough. Obsessing over these two things really weakens the whole argument, because both are obvious mischaracterization and bogus.
If we are going to demonize someone, and expect to be believed and respected, then we should not pad our accusations with fluff. It just weakens the whole case. He said some hurtful things about Downs Syndrome and should apologize for that. If we have evidence of mistreatment of women (or of ANYONE), then we should take appropriate legal action against him, or just drop it.
Re:It's not his problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Telling an employee that you no longer need their services will certainly make them feel uncomfortable (even if they were reasonable people). But it is a perfectly reasonable to do this and in fact leaders must do this.
So my point is that the word "uncomfortable" is grossly overbroad. Sometimes real life makes us feel uncomfortable. Sometimes the actions that others MUST take will make us feel uncomfortable. And it is our responsibility to grow the backbone needed to cope with this.
So, instead of complaining about who was made to feel uncomfortable, perhaps we should instead focus on whether or not any given action is inappropriate. Instead of saying "Stallman has a history of making women feel uncomfortable" which is far too vague to get buy-in, the accusers should say "Stallman has a history of inappropriate behavior such as x, y, z, specifically, and here is the evidence of x, y, z."
Re: (Score:3)
There are specific incidents of inappropriate behaviour. For example, I consider this incident [wikia.org] to be pretty inappropriate in a conference setting. It appears that RMS didn't realize [gnome.org] how inappropriate it was---but still, someone who doesn't realize the inappropriateness of such behaviour is not a good person to be in a leadership role.
The fact is that RMS's behaviour really turned off [blogspot.com] at least one person from being in the Free Software community, which is precisely the opposite of the goal of the FSF.
Re:It's not his problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you, that is the sort of thing I am talking about. If we are going to make a big public push to have Stallman removed, we should have a hefty list of examples just like that one, the more recent the better, to demonstrate his established propensity for inappropriate action.
What we actually do have is a huge obsession over a specific recent quote in which he said something speculative and reasonable, but which has been deliberately twisted to seem to mean something that it clearly does not mean. That is the wrong thing to focus on, and the wrong way to focus on it. It is, in fact, deceptive, and because that is right at the forefront of the accusations, many people including myself are calling "bullshit" on the whole thing.
I feel the same way about the accusations of transphobia. The claim was that his "GNU Kind Communications Guidelines" contains transphobic language, which it does not and did not. They are upset that he refused to endorse "singular they." A refusal to accept "singular they." is clearly not the same thing as hating people for changing their gender identity. The accusation takes his reflection on what he considers the politically-neutral topic of "proper English" and twists that into an accusation of hatred. This really looks like bullying to me, and makes me sympathetic to the claims made by Stallman's defenders.
If there are solid grounds for his removal, then his accusers should focus on them. Since the accusations spend so much text on these unrelated and clearly misrepresented issues, I am inclined to agree that this is much more about character assassination in the name of a political agenda, than it is about his worth as a leader in the technical community.
Re:It's not his problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, the accusations of transphobia are nonsensical. That's one reason I didn't sign the anti-RMS letter on github. I feel that letter was really grasping at straws looking for ways to make RMS look bad, which was unnecessary; I think the actual documented things RMS did are sufficient and there's no need to make stuff up.
Re: (Score:3)
> And you can't take legal action against someone for that
True, and if you take action against an autistic person for acting in stereotypically autistic ways, they may even be able to take legal action against you (ADA).
One does not need to read between the lines to see that RMS is explaining that he has autistic behaviors. Violators beware.
If somebody finds these behaviours 'uncomfortable' - aren't we required to be tolerant?
I haven't looked into this event extensively but we've all heard about RMS over
Re: (Score:3)
As it should be. People rightly expect higher standards than "it's not actually illegal" in such roles.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
cause you to act like a giant creep around women, you can't be in a public-speaking/leadership position like this
Really, Cuomo, Biden and Trump prove you massively wrong on that front! Have you guys ever left your house and met real people?
Re:It's not his problem (Score:5, Informative)
So you're once again taking the article's claims at face value, which misrepresents the quotes.
Article: and then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.
Actual quote: she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
RMS statement: Likely scenario: Epstein coerces the girl into serving the guests and hiding from them that she is being coerced. She is forced to pretend to be willing.
Article statement: RMS said the girl was willing.
This is the type of grand lie used to cancel RMS you're buying into.
Re:It's not his problem (Score:5, Informative)
Why? It's the premise the article is built on.
When you attack the root axiom of something, because it's flawed, isn't cherry picking, it's showing an invalid point that invalidates all other points that reference it for validity. This is actually what debating is all about.
Re: (Score:3)
Well then, first you might want to provide evidence from someone who isn't clearly, unreasonably biased against him (the lady who wrote the article clearly is, by repeatedly misquoting the "presented herself as", and raising a hell about it - that automatically casts doubt onto all her other allegations; since she so heavily focuses on this non-issue quote, and doesn't firmly substantiate others).
Let's look at her "Addenum 1" though.
Point 1: "Richard Stallman has problematic opinions." This alleges "opinion
Re:It's not his problem (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Could you please point out these specific accusations in the linked article? It seems to be so diluted with expletive contents that any specific accusations of the kind you're insinuating seem to be hard to find in it. All I managed to find was a second-hand report that there's someone filtering Stallman's e-mails from his mailbox. That's not even an offense on Stallman's part.
Reports that he'd built a widespread reputation for hitting on students by the mid-'00s:
I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”
Before women figured out the vi trick, this happened:
“When I was a teen freshman, I went to a buffet lunch at an Indian restaurant in Central Square with a graduate student friend and others from the AI lab. I don’t know if he and I were the last two left, but at a table with only the two of us, Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him.
Photographic evidence of the "Richard Stallman: Knight for Justice (and also, hot ladies)" sign on the door to his office containing a mattress on the floor. [medium.com]
Because you probably didn't see the text about the mattress:
“He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it. Many female students avoided the corridor with his office for that reasonI was one of the course 6 undergrads who avoided that part of NE43 precisely for that reason. (the mattress was also known to have shirtless people lounging on it)”
That's a pretty bad combination right there. If you want to believe the writing on the door is a harmless joke, there's a mattress on the floor. If you w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
... he is saying, ~~ it's not my problem, Get over it. ~~
Yup. Heaven forbid people have different communication styles.
Understanding and acceptance goes both ways. The mob that's against him is full of people that seem to forget that when it's convenient for them.
Re:The RMS "apology" sounds more like... (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny, it didn't sound like that to me. It seems like a pretty accurate self-assessment, but again tone deaf -- it's almost like RMS and neurotypicals are speaking a different language -- or at least communicating in radically different modes.
Most normal people expect you to address their feelings first and foremost. This isn't just people on one side of the political spectrum or the other, it's across the board. The average person isn't very good at handling details or wading through context, which of course RMS puts first. If you communicate this way, you lose your audience, even though it's logical to start from facts and context and proceed to the conclusion, it's more *effective* to start at the conclusion and work your way back:
it was tone-deaf that I didn't acknowledge as context the injustice that Epstein did to women or the pain that caused.
Even that sentence needs to be restructured, he needed to start with the end, something like this:
I failed to acknowledge the injustice that Epstein did to women or the pain that caused and for that failure I am sorry.
Trying to put things in a logical order, to declare your variables before you use them, that sounds evasive to normal people.
Re:The RMS "apology" sounds more like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, LIAR, he is saying it is his problem and he is dealing with it as best as he can. Political correctness demands those on the autism spectrum can not be actively, violently, socially and economically discriminated against, destroyed in human social terms, actively mass attacked publicly humiliated and ostracised because of genetics (something out of their control).
Why, are they still attacked because the art class morons are insanely jealous of the intellect of those on the autism spectrum and demand they have not voice, their intellect enslaved for a pittance, that they are ridiculed and that ridicule celebrated publicly in all forms of media controlled by the art class morons.
Hey I am on that spectrum FUCKER and you know what I did not miss the social clues, I just saw them as ludicrous, entirely artificial, manipulated by psychopaths and narcissists and built around peer pressure bullying. I am a geek not a nerd so I fought back, refused to bow to bullshit and as I grow older refuse to live in denial to serve the ego of idiot art class morons and the hordes of failed jock strap douche bags and their idiot cheer leaders.
Nobody is more discriminated against than geeks and nerds (those on the autism spectrum) and this abuse is still celebrated and cheered on in all forms of media (add in colour and it is worse, add in economic class and it is worse yet again, on top of all the rest). This to favour art class morons and jock strap douche bags because they are so much more valuable to society than intellect (the reality petty jealously from high school still in the most political incorrect and biased and prejudiced manner expressed in adult life).
Did I do that https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] no you did you filthy fuckers and you still celebrate it to this day and continue to do so because jealously and ego. The desire of the stupid to ridicule the smart.
Re: (Score:3)
Naw, he's saying he's autistic without coming out and saying he's autistic.
RMS is a jerk... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Many of us slashdotters have Asperger tendencies to say what we think and/or not vet our ideas sufficiently before we utter them. We are more likely to cut a break for RMS types.
Even outside of tech, it's not a small movement, as the popularity of Trump's "anti-PC" stance shows. Maybe we shouldn't just accept all offensive speech, but also not do the extreme opposite and fire everybody. Allow them a chance to redeem themselves with apologies and counseling. Save real punishment for real crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we shouldn't just accept all offensive speech, but also not do the extreme opposite and fire everybody.
That's crazy talk. We should all just rabidly attack people we disagree with until they can't live normal lives anymore. Because how dare they have a different opinion.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's hard to say who is more of a jerk: him, or the people who are trying to make him look bad, worse than he is.
RMS attempts to be honest and sincere, which is something real and rare.
Re: (Score:3)
He's certainly strongly opinionated, particularly when it comes to FOSS, but I've never felt that he was trying to be a jerk about it. Frankly for someone who's got some views that are pretty far from the midpoint he's not much of a dick about it to other
Re:RMS is a jerk... (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone decides to post that they heard rsilvergun used some racial slurs once and years later the supposed evidence of that is this very post (which in case this does happen is not something that has actually ever happened to my knowledge) would be you okay getting railroaded over something as unsubstantiated as that?
At worst he sounds like that average nerd with Asperger's or some kind of autism spectrum disorder that inhibits his ability to understand social cues. Do you need to get caught in the crosshairs of some internet inquisition yourself before you realize what an awful thing it is? Does anyone believe that a digital witch hunt is going to turn out any better than all of the other times across human history this shit has happened and taken a turn for the worse. Maybe it's fine as long as you you're not the one getting burned, but you're a damned fool if you think for one minute the flames won't burn you just as easily.
Has anyone considered that (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
RMS may be on the autism spectrum?
Possibly, I suspect that what's he's trying to imply in his letter. Though there's a difference between forgiving someone's inappropriate behaviour and helping them to improve, and giving someone license to misbehave because they may be on the spectrum.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be nice if people stopped conflating with being on the spectrum with being an asshole. That is the actual disability shaming. Being on the spectrum doesn't make you a jerk.
Re: (Score:3)
Disagree. It vastly increases the likelihood of you acting in a way that neurotypical people do not understand and makes them uncomfortable as it assuredly doen't fit in with what is normally classified as "acceptable in society at large". So the chances of you, if you're evaluated as a neurotypical, being rated as "a jerk" are vastly higher.
However, because you're not neurotypical, they've misidentified the metric with which to actually work out how you're really behaving (kind of like trying to measure
Power Politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously (Score:2)
RMS is an asshole, he's embarrassing, he's dangerously un-self-aware, but he is 100% right about free software.
He named it, he articulated all of the important ideas, and he started the whole movement.
The idea of forcing him out of the FSF is ludicrous.
Do you want an apology for something he didn't do? (Score:5, Insightful)
He apologizes for things he did, knowingly and unknowingly.
He doesn't apologize for things that he did not do, regardless of the fact that he was accused of them.
Good (Score:5, Informative)
Kudos to the FSF for not bending the knee when faced with a smear campaign run by ideologically possessed bad actors.
Let's burn THEM ALL you cynical! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's burn the memory and statues of Gandhi, because he was a pederast who slept with his niece to "resist the temptation".
Let's burn the memory and statues of Mother Theresa of Calcutta, because she was a masochist who denied any painkiller to her patients because "pain puts to closer to God".
Let's burn the memory and statues of Nelson Mandela, because he was a terrorist who murder innocent people.
ETC.
If not, then FSF should publicly apologize!
Inclusion includes including people with autism (Score:5, Insightful)
As the father of an autistic son, and having spent plenty of time with autistic people, and having met Stallman on a number of occasions, I believe he very clearly exhibits the majority of the characteristics of someone fairly far along the autism spectrum. Not reading normally obvious social cues, not understanding when you are making someone uncomfortable and not having a filter for vocalizing thoughts that are likely to upset others are all attributes that I've seem firsthand from RMS, as well as from many of the kids at my son's school. People on the autism spectrum don't just come over as insensitive, they are in many ways genuinely "insensitive" to the social signals that most people expect others to send and receive. While it's possible for autistic people to learn to pick up on these signals, it's hard for them, even if they start young. To expect RMS to behave otherwise is probably unrealistic.
So, if one accepts that RMS is towards the end of the spectrum, the real question is what is his place in the FSF? He's an insensitive clod who frequently and consistently puts his foot in his mouth and doesn't spontaneously apologies when he upsets people. He's also the founder and driving force for many years, with a wealth of knowledge and insight. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do think that if your goal is to build a fully inclusive organization, then it needs to be inclusive towards people with autism as well.
No one is perfect (Score:3)
Just yesterday I was reading a Reddit thread (I know, I know), where people were "cancelling" someone who had privately admitted to voting against gay marriage. This person is otherwise apparently a great person, but the fact that they admitted to holding one non-PC opinion was enough to damn them.
The situation with RMS is similar: The man has done great things. The fact that he is socially awkward, however, is enough to send the hyenas after him.
Are people really so perfect? No single flaw in character
This is about apologies, not about rms (Score:3)
This gives a scale against which everyone can form their own opinion.
I no longer recommend this site, but there's plenty of good work from long ago in its archives.
https://ethicsalarms.com/rule-... [ethicsalarms.com]
Take Responsibility -- Me, I (Score:3)
This, in the summary, caught my eye:
"I've learned something from this about how to be kind to people who have been hurt [...]"
Okay, here's the change:
"I've learned something from this about how to be kind to people I have hurt [...]"
It's a small but important change.
Years ago, I inadvertently insulted somebody. I certainly didn't mean to. I was trying to be funny and it failed miserably. I like the person that I insulted.
A big step was to admit that I was sorry that I insulted him. Not that I was sorry that he misinterpreted what I meant. Not that I was sorry that he was insulted. I was sorry that I insulted him.
I kept holding on to those other two things--I didn't really mean to do anything bad, it just kind of happened. It's his fault for misinterpreting. I'm not the bad guy here. It's not my fault.
But I was the bad guy. It was my fault. Sure, maybe I didn't mean to, but I insulted him. It wasn't something that "just happened." It wasn't his fault for misinterpreting what I said. It was me. I did it. And I needed to acknowledge that it was my actions that caused the problem.
Because until you acknowledge that you can hurt people, you can't really understand the need to stop doing it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He literally is acknowledging that he hurt others and apologized. What is wrong with people? All of the sudden everyone is a saint and requires everyone else to be one too. I hate to break it to everyone: but you are not perfe