Richard Stallman's Blog Asks: Am I Doctor Stallman? (stallman.org) 291
Friday on Richard Stallman's personal web site, he posed the question: Am I Doctor Stallman?
He's received 15 doctorates honoris causa — doctorates "for honor" — in the company of others whose achievements impressed him... So I was shocked to read an article which describes this as a sleazy marketing scheme, and claims that recipients of these degrees are not supposed to call themselves "Doctor."
The article says that universities hand out "honorary doctorates" readily to donors who have essentially bought them, and to performing artists so that they will entertain the students at graduation...
But my experience is totally different. I am not an entertainer, except for a few minutes when I don the robe and halo of Saint iGNUcius, and that is comic relief for a long, serious talk. I never donated money to the universities that gave me doctorates, nor could they expect me to. What's more, I never saw such people receive degrees along with me. The other recipients, when there were others, were likewise being honored for their work, not as a quid-pro-quo.
Why this difference? My doctorates come from universities in other countries, not in the US. I conjecture that buy-a-doctorate and sing-for-your-doctorate are found in the US only. (How sad for the US...!)
[O]n reading that Florida Atlantic University explicitly says that recipients of doctorates honoris causa are not permitted the title of Doctor, I began to wonder about the policies of the universities which had given me degrees, so I asked people at some of those universities about their policies.
The replies were quite disparate. One said, like Florida Atlantic, that it was not permitted. Another said I should write "Dr.(h.c.)." Another said it had no objection. So it seems that I am entitled to call myself Dr. Stallman.
Why do I do that? The personal reason is that these doctorates recognize decades of work for an important cause, and I am proud of them.
The reason that is beyond personal is so that people who know little or nothing of my career may decide, based on the title of "Doctor", to pay a little attention to that work and that cause, which is the free software movement. That may help us defeat the totalitarian control that today's digital technology is designed to impose.
He's received 15 doctorates honoris causa — doctorates "for honor" — in the company of others whose achievements impressed him... So I was shocked to read an article which describes this as a sleazy marketing scheme, and claims that recipients of these degrees are not supposed to call themselves "Doctor."
The article says that universities hand out "honorary doctorates" readily to donors who have essentially bought them, and to performing artists so that they will entertain the students at graduation...
But my experience is totally different. I am not an entertainer, except for a few minutes when I don the robe and halo of Saint iGNUcius, and that is comic relief for a long, serious talk. I never donated money to the universities that gave me doctorates, nor could they expect me to. What's more, I never saw such people receive degrees along with me. The other recipients, when there were others, were likewise being honored for their work, not as a quid-pro-quo.
Why this difference? My doctorates come from universities in other countries, not in the US. I conjecture that buy-a-doctorate and sing-for-your-doctorate are found in the US only. (How sad for the US...!)
[O]n reading that Florida Atlantic University explicitly says that recipients of doctorates honoris causa are not permitted the title of Doctor, I began to wonder about the policies of the universities which had given me degrees, so I asked people at some of those universities about their policies.
The replies were quite disparate. One said, like Florida Atlantic, that it was not permitted. Another said I should write "Dr.(h.c.)." Another said it had no objection. So it seems that I am entitled to call myself Dr. Stallman.
Why do I do that? The personal reason is that these doctorates recognize decades of work for an important cause, and I am proud of them.
The reason that is beyond personal is so that people who know little or nothing of my career may decide, based on the title of "Doctor", to pay a little attention to that work and that cause, which is the free software movement. That may help us defeat the totalitarian control that today's digital technology is designed to impose.
Oh dear (Score:4, Insightful)
Richard, this may very well be a worthwhile topic for discussion, but I really don't think now's the time.
Re: Oh dear (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not? Just ignore the useless crybabies and go on with your business as usual.
This human junk needs to be ignored, it is the thing they hate the most and the thing that can actually destroy them.
Attention whores need attention to survive.
Good for Stallman to have understood it so early.
Textbook whataboutism (Score:2)
Who is crying? It seem like it is you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's everyone at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is crying? It seem like it is you.
Um, all the people trying to get, and keep, Stallman fired? That's not imaginary.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is crying? It seem like it is you.
Um, all the people trying to get, and keep, Stallman fired? That's not imaginary.
It's strange. The first wailing, gnashing of teeth and bawlbabying was today's crypto conservative Republican trump sycophants in tears about Jill Biden being called Doctor. Which she obviously and legally is a Doctor. But apparently these people are claiming that only MD's can be Doctors.
So now we have left wingers adopting the mantle of demanding absolute control over how a person must be addressed in manner of exclusion?
Hilarious - a group that demands that not referring to a person by anything other
Re: Oh dear (Score:4)
Why not? Just ignore the useless crybabies and go on with your business as usual.
I remind you that Richard's job at the FSF is one of Public Relations. He's in trouble because of bad Public Relations. Those "crybabies" have pulled funding and support from the FSF because of this bad public relations.
There's many cases in the world where doubling down is a sane move, but combatting bad public relations with worse public relations is not one of them and your post demonstrates why you (however smart you may be technically in your field) should never be put into a position of public relations... like Stallman.
The GP is correct, now is *definitely* not the time for Stallman to be navalgazing about his own brilliance.
Re: Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike hornets, they don't actually have a sting but what you willfully give them.
Confrontation is sometimes justified (Score:2, Interesting)
RMS is retirement age, has a history of decent public service and has more than earned the respect of th
Re:Confrontation is sometimes justified (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, yes, they very much shied away from it. Lots of older media was affected by various kinds of censorship. Such as the Comics Code, for instance. Many older cartoons were modified to please the moral guardians. For instance, the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon had a hamfisted "the group is always right" message that came from on top.
And they shied away from it because those people very much had real power, and if you pushed too much you'd have no cartoon/comic anymore.
Nothing about that changed in the modernity. Power exists. It can be challenged, but you'd be wise to pick the right battles.
Depends on who you ask. Apparently the guy is more appreciated in theory than in practice, and quite a few of people don't like to be in too close of a proximity.
There's one little flaw in that plan: Even if RMS can't get any more infamous and doesn't really care, anybody who associates with him very much can.
In particular this whole thing spells trouble for the FSF.
Which IMO means that RMS' return only damages his whole mission. The GPL is already not as popular as it used to be, and Stallman already was not that effective of a spokesman for it. His return fails to make anything better in that regard, and if anything is only likely to accelerate its and the FSF's decline.
Re: Oh dear (Score:3)
PETA is one of the most attention whoring organizations in an industry (political activism) built around attention whoring.
And Ingrid Newkirk had said some pretty crazy shit in her time. My favorite being the comparison of animal experiments in medicine and toxicity testing of commercial products to human slavery.
Try again.
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Informative)
There are many different ways to display your honorary degree after your name (Hon DArts, D.A. (h.c.), H'04, etc) in biographical listings, but these do not confer the privilege of being addressed as Doctor. A more in depth review of the practice can be read here: Honorary Doctorates [wthrockmorton.com]
--
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, you should not call yourself Dr if your only degree is honorary.
But "doctor" means "teacher", and RMS has travelled the world for decades giving well-attended lectures.
He certainly qualifies, even if he does not lecture at MIT. So much genuine recognition in those awards.
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you should not call yourself Dr if your only degree is honorary.
But "doctor" means "teacher", [...]
Yes, one of the meanings of the word "doctor" is just that, but "Dr"? No.
If you use the word as a title it means you have a doctorate degree in something.
By profession I am a teacher, and my equivalent degree is a master's degree, not a doctors' degree. I would never call myself Dr just because the etymological roots of the word "doctor" means teacher. Not unless I spoke latin to someone.
Re: (Score:2)
By profession I am a teacher, and my equivalent degree is a master's degree, not a doctors' degree.
You can get both doctorates and masters in education: the two are not equivalent.
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
But "doctor" means "teacher", [...]
So does "Rabbi", but he shouldn't call himself Rabbi Stallman, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I was saying that RMS has reached a higher status in the teaching realm.
He is famous and draws crowds. People may not agree with everything, but his ideas have earned an exceptional degree of respect.
His not just "any teacher", but a world-renowned thinker.
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Interesting)
I once went to a conference where the star speaker, alongside various academics and politicians and such, was Shakira.
The interviewer made all sorts of crude comments about her body, while she - clearly intimidated by the brainpower around her - answered politely and tried to speak about how we should be more committed to health care for children in third world countries. By the end I felt sorry for her, it must have been embarrassing or even humiliating to speak in a setting like this with the comments she got, but apparently she did it anyway because she felt obligated to use her star power for good.
Anyway, she is famous and draws crowds, and I respect her for saying what she said there - but I wouldn't call her a teacher and certainly not a Doctor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's honorary, you shouldn't call yourself "Dr". You can acknowledge that you have the honorary doctorate, but since you never graduated from whichever university recognised you with the honorary doctorate you're not entitled to call yourself "Dr" to imply "I graduated from this university with a PhD/MD/etc". Think of medals given to military personnel for bravery in combat vs. the same medal awarded to a visiting statesman as a courtesy, they're very different things.
Even then, you've got the MD vs. PhD distinction, I virtually never use my title because I think MD's are the real doctors and not PhDs. If you're an MD you put Dr. in front of your name to let people know you're licensed to practice medicine, but there's no reason to flash a PhD around unless you're trying to impress investors or someone else's management. "OK, so you have a PhD, just don't touch anything".
Honorary Degrees No Joke (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So most MD's are not doctors in your book?
Re: Oh dear (Score:2)
Except in very few situations you shouldnâ(TM)t call yourself doctor generally, itâ(TM)s pompous.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth noting that the simple presense of Dr beside someones name shouldn't be seen as anything special. Unless you know where they received that doctorate, and what it was for, then It really doesn't matter that they spent a bunch of time as a university to get the title. I've met plenty of people who are doctots, both PhDs and MDs who really aren't anyting exceptional in any field whatsoever. I've also met people who aren't doctors, and may who have no degree at all who are quite exceptional and
Re: Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll go one farther - Anyone who makes a point of you calling them "doctor" in a public setting, is a total douche.
There are exactly 3 situations where I will refer to someone as doctor
- Introducing them at an event
- If I'm an actual student of theirs
- If they are a medical doctor and I am there for a consultation
There are no other public situations where if you ask for me to refer to you as "Dr" that you do not come off as a poompous windbag and immediately lose all my respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another example of Betteridge's Law of Headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
This topic comes up occasionally and the general consensus is No, you should not call yourself Dr if your only degree is honorary.
What about what others call you? I've long been called Dr. Olsoc, with no active wish or demand on my part. Friends and colleagues. And I have neither a Doctorate degree, nor an honorary Doctorate. But I have no control over them.
Should I have little cards to hand out explaining that?
Right now I just say - "Please, just call me Ol, or Hey you".
But seeing how this is a ragetrigger, I don't want to offend anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oh dear (Score:4)
That's ridiculous and probably only true among M.D.s who tend towards being pompous assholes.
If you have a doctorate in archaeology or ancient China, you deserve to be called doctor as much as anyone. But you are absolutely not who the flight attendant is looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
"I am not an entertainer."
LOL.
If Richard Stallman wants to do the academic work to receive that honor, he should do so. Otherwise, yeah, he's basically just bought a title. Why not just buy one of those 1m^2 plots of a castle and call himself Lord Doctor Stallman, too? Or one of those certificates where you get a Star named after you and call himself Star Lord Doctor Stallman? It's about as meaningful.
No, he hasn't earned a title of Doctor in an accredited program from a University, but whatever. It's enter
Honorary doctorates are useless (Score:2)
Ask Dr Bill Cosby
Re: (Score:2)
Or Doctor No.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Honorary doctorates are useless (Score:3)
Dr Cosby earned his doctorate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Honorary doctorates are useless (Score:4, Interesting)
Much to my surprise, turns out he did earn his doctorate, Doctor of Education from the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Just because he earned a doctorate, though, does not excuse other behavior.
Re: Honorary doctorates are useless (Score:2)
Sure. Go ahead... (Score:3)
As long as you're not using your title of Doctor to dispense medical advice (which to my understanding, you're not doing), and as long as you received permission from the issuing educational institution, I think it's perfectly fine to use that title if that's what you want.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You've pointed another issue here: ellipsis.
People (as in "generic" people), do that a lot. When you wrote "doctor to dispense medical advice" you should have said "MEDICAL doctor to dispense medical advice".
Doctor is NOT a carrear. Doctor is a recognition of mastery in a study. So, following the US naming:
M.D. = Medicinae Doctor, Doctor en Medicina
Ph.D. = Philosophiae Doctor, Doctor en Ciencias
MPH = Master in Public Health, Maestria en Salud PUblica
So, when you wrote "doctor" you should have wrote "MD", wh
Re: (Score:2)
he hasn't sent a doctorate thesis, mandatory to use that title
Mandatory, according to who?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sure. Go ahead... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure. Go ahead... (Score:5, Informative)
Outside the US, a Medical Practitioner is not given Doctor as a salutation.
I'm not sure if you're missing a word or two in this sentence, or if you're just plain wrong.
Doctor (Dr.) is most definitely the title and salutation given to medical doctors in every part of the english speaking world I've lived in, with the exception of surgeons who, as an act of reverse snobbery, generally use the title Mister (Mr.) instead. Even then, surgeons are entitled to use the title Dr. they just elect not to, to distinguish themselves from their 'less accomplished' colleagues in other fields of medicine.
Re: (Score:3)
Outside the US, a Medical Practitioner is not given Doctor as a salutation.
Doctor (Dr.) is most definitely the title and salutation given to medical doctors in every part of the english speaking world I've lived in
And it is even more than just the English-speaking world (the French say 'docteur', the Germans "Herr/Frau Doktor", while I do think the latter is in the process of becoming antiquated). In many parts of the world, "doctor" is used as a synonym for "medical practitioner".
Re: (Score:2)
Doktor [wikipedia.org]
The title Doktor applies to those who hold a doctorate; other than Doctor in English, it is not correct to apply it per se to a physician who has completed his studies and received his approbation (though this usage often happens). However, most physicians do write a Doctor's thesis for precisely this reason, earning them the title of Dr. and, when they translate their titles into English, the title of medical doctor - but despite the existence of a thesis not usually the title PhD, given that doctor's theses in medicine are in most cases of significantly lower complexity than theses in other subjects.
Also:
Honorary degrees are distinguished as Doktor honoris causa, or "Dr. h.c.". For example, Ferdinand Porsche was the recipient of an honorary Doktoringenieur and would be referred to as "Dr. Ing. h.c. Ferdinand Porsche".
Surgeons originally were second class doctors (Score:5, Informative)
Europe too (Score:2)
Outside the US, a Medical Practitioner is not given Doctor as a salutation.
Some European countries do also colloquially use "Doctor" for medical practitioners, including, e.g.: Switzerland (Oh, hai!)
but...
That Americans are so insistent that someone with a Doctorate outside of Medicine isn’t a real doctor {...}
...some of this countries also tend to use "Doctor" for people who have submitted a PhD thesis.
To add extra confusion, there are also countries where medical specialisation aren't in the form of submitting doctorate thesis to universities, but specialisation titles handled out by private organisation.
(Switerland, again. It's thus technically possible to practice medicine, be call
Re: (Score:2)
Outside the US, a Medical Practitioner is not given Doctor as a salutation.
Can you be more specific? Because I'm originally from France and that's the way it was done there as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I think you misunderstood my post.
If you have a doctorate, you can call yourself a "Doctor", that's not my problem. My problem is usually based on context. It is when someone gives advice completely unrelated to their field of expertise and still insists on using their "Doctor" title to try to imply some kind of authority in that unrelated field.
And in medicine, this happens a lot. I can give you examples if you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside the US, a Medical Practitioner is not given Doctor as a salutation.
In Germany definitely! At least in verbal communication.
Re: (Score:2)
Dutch, Indonesian, Afrikaans all assimilated Doctor into Dokter and apply it to MD's. While written differently from Doctor, which they still use in the non-medical context, it sounds the same and many would not readily be able to explain you the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Thankful for Stallmanâ(TM)s work. (Score:5, Interesting)
Thereâ(TM)s a bunch of people competing for airspace, for various political issues. I canâ(TM)t open a browser or watch a streaming show without hearing about climate change, anti-tesla, anti-google, anti-facebook, anti-whichever president is in office, burning down the establishment, class action lawsuits, âoeelect meâ, âoedonâ(TM)t elect themâ, etc. Ads and stories written by armies of individuals who view themselves as soldiers for their cause. Fair play.
So when Stallman has a moment to talk about free software, which I have depended on all my life, and fighting against things like subscription model pricing for software, you know what? Iâ(TM)m going to give him a minute.
I donâ(TM)t know much about him personally, nor do I care really - just like the nameless horde of political warriors that would just as soon cut my throat if I opposed their cause, who force me to listen to their point of view on some random subject whether i like it or not (and some who would like to ruin my life if I disagreed). If i give all of those people a minute, Iâ(TM)ll give give him a minute.
Re: (Score:3)
If i give all of those people a minute, Iâ(TM)ll give give him a minute.
That's what you say, but you sound more like you're not really inclined to give "all those people" a minute. I also don't believe you were ever really forced to listen to anyone, either. Could it be that you just don't like what they say, while you don't find a better reason to oppose it than claiming their forcing you, and, even more ridiculously, that they "would cut your throat", when all they ever do is questioning what some people said and, possibly, whether they're the right person for a specific posi
Re: Thankful for Stallmanâ(TM)s work. (Score:2)
He probably meant "if I involuntary need to concede them one or the other mostly useless minute, I'll also give him a minute at least I know what it's useful for". But he cut it short so he wouldn't have to involuntarily concede more useless minutes than he actually positively needs to; everyone who needs to would know how it's meant anyway.
And oh, boy, I can sooo totally relate to that sentiment.
Why should he? (Score:2)
you sound more like you're not really inclined to give "all those people" a minute.
What have they done, that they are worth even a moment of thought?
Especially compared to Stallman who spent DECADES working for a cause so many of us support, at great personal sacrifice to himself.
Some people are simply worth more than others, judged by actions.
Some people in fact are so worthless, that not only do they not deserve a moment of thought but should be actively avoided - I submit those whose only aim is to tear
Re: (Score:2)
I donÃ(TM)t know much about him personally, nor do I care really
I DON'T REALLY CARE, DO U?
aka "nothing matters if it doesn't affect me"
I'm not going to rehash the arguments for/against Stallman etc. All I'm going to say is not caring is how the world goes to shit.
Re:Thankful for Stallman's work. (Score:2)
Some have said that while we have the right to free speech, we do not have the right to be heard. Pick and choose those to whom you would give a minute.
Regardless, there's also another saying "Treat everyone alike, just like sh*t." What that means is just because someone has a title doesn't mean they know jack squat about what their babbling on about. In this case, until I read this posting, I had no idea Stallman has bunchteen honorary degrees and I don't care. The work we do should be what distinguish
Re: (Score:3)
You can't even use a browser that supports text encoding properly.
âoeelect meâ, âoedonâ(TM)t elect themâ, etc
Whatever the fuck that said.
Honorary Degrees are B.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was 5, an airplane pilot put a set of wings on my shirt and made me a captain of airplanes. I don't go around referring to myself as "captain" because it was just a bit of silliness that we go through to make people feel better. It wasn't real. Neither are honorary doctorates. They are "rewards" that universities can give out that hardly cost anything and don't require anyone to do much. Some may be given out to recognize some achievement, but more are given out to stroke egos and convince someone to come and give a speech.
Stallman is welcome to go around referring to himself as "Doctor" Stallman, but if he didn't actually earn a degree associated with that title, it's just sad vanity, like a shitty toupee.
Re: Honorary Degrees are B.S. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't go around referring to myself as "captain"
You definitely should. As long as you're not taking control of an airplane, it's fine. People are too impressed by titles. In many disciplines, a doctorate isn't much more work than a diploma in others.
Re: Honorary Degrees are B.S. (Score:2)
Dr here.
They are "rewards" that universities can give out that hardly cost anything and don't require anyone to do much. Some may be given out to recognize some achievement, but more are given out to stroke egos and convince someone to come and give a speech.
I can assure you that's true for many "real" Drs aswell - everything but the "speech" part. Several European government actors will inadvertently agree.
Will cancel culture get him? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Instead of being inclusive with a person who's clearly on some spectrum, he's ending up with the short straw.
I get it, he's awkward, hard to deal with. Stubborn and principled.
Would someone less principled and more open to compromise truly be a better steward of future versions of the GPL?
Make no mistake, this is one of the results that the anti-RMS movement is gunning for. And they're getting the help of lots of useful idiots.
Of course R
Re: (Score:2)
Choosing your own title seems to fit right in there with choosing your own pronouns and race. Pretty woke, RMS!
Doctor? Who cares. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A better question is why you won't use Google. First result shows him speaking up [debian.org].
What is a doctorate about? (Score:3)
We all know what a PhD is for - it's for a specific piece of research that has occurred over a number of years and has advanced knowledge in the field. Higher doctorates, the ones earned by academics if they can be bothered to gain them, reflect years of contributions to the subject; the examining board looks at the candidate's published articles and decides that they, together, are evidence of a significant contribution to knowledge in the field of study overall.
Therefore it can be legitimately argued that some of the honorific degrees recognise a significant contribution to to knowledge in a specific field - and Stallman appears to be a classic example of such a candidate. Of course some don't; generous donors to a university are unlike to meet this condition. And there are marginal cases; artists who genuinely add to the toolset of an art have made such a contribution (James Joyce, Pink Floyd maybe) whilst others have used the existing toolset in their art. Perhaps the answer lies in universities offering real (non-honorific) doctorates to some people?
Re: (Score:2)
Pink Floyd is a group, not an individual.
Some other famous musicians (and not so famous, at least today) have also completed med school or achieved PhDs or other "terminal" degrees (ie, Brian May of Queen has his PhD in astrophysics).
There's a certain point, where it's equivalent (Score:2, Insightful)
If you've done something equivalent or even more, then therr is a point where it is universally acceptable.
E.g.: How many people do you need to help get their doctor's title in the first place, to be as respected or more than them? Certainly if they can only become doctors by consulting your higher wisdom, even they consider you above them, in terms of respect and skill, and would gladly call you "Doctor $name". Certwainly if you did equivalent research projects. (Most research done by students to get their
I suppose he could ... (Score:2)
"Doctor" is relevant to the circumstance (Score:2)
It always annoys me when academic doctors insist on using their title outside an academic setting -- or in an irrelevant academic settings -- as a way to highlight themselves. That is just elitism.
In my opinion, the title should only be used at general academic events, and in other settings for indicating knowledge about the subject in question.
A good example of the latter is the CEO of AMD: Dr. Lisa Su, who deserves to use it when representing AMD because she got her doctorate from research on silicon-on-i
To bad the wrong person is asking (Score:2)
There has to be a food producer (Score:2)
Who deserves to be named honorary Yokozuna.
Irrelevant (Score:2)
As he slides ever deeper into irrelevance, his cries for attention become ever more desperate.
Even the great Dr Johnson had only honorary doctor (Score:2)
Apparently he personally disliked using the title "doctor" but his admirers were keen to boost his eminence. Mind you, honorary doctorates from Trinity College and Oxford weren't handed out too freely in the 18th century.
Honorary degrees ARE a sleazy marketing scheme (Score:4, Interesting)
No doubt about it, giving away degrees to famous people, or people who bring money to a university is sleazy. These degrees are an insult to everyone who studied to earn a degree.
It's like working your ass off to get a promotion only to see the boss's lazy nephew promoted ahead of you.
Needs a professional to repair his "brand" (Score:3, Insightful)
I really found the post to be a very cringe worthy attempt by RMS to prove his worth now that it has become a liability to be associated with him.
Regardless of where you stand on the controversies surrounding him versus his contributions to the Free Software cause, it must be recognized that organizations are reluctant to be involved with him. You can call it "Cancel Culture" or whatever, but RMS is somewhat of a pariah right now and I'm sure the personal attacks on him, the loss of FSF sponsors as well as the loss of speaking engagements must hurt (on multiple levels).
Now that he's back on the FSF board, I would think that a professional could be hired to look at the situation and work at rehabilitating his image so that his past unfortunate statements aren't the first thing that comes to mind when his name comes up and that organizations involved with him don't have to defend that decision. I don't think it will be easy for him as his past behaviour indicates that he is pretty reluctant to take the suggestions and feelings of others into account.
Re:Needs a professional to repair his "brand" (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of where you stand on the controversies surrounding him versus his contributions to the Free Software cause, it must be recognized that organizations are reluctant to be involved with him.
That's a neat trick though. You tar and feather someone for nothing, and then afterward you say "well, even if he is innocent, look at all this controversy laying around?"
Re: (Score:3)
I really found the post to be a very cringe worthy attempt by RMS to prove his worth now that it has become a liability to be associated with him.
Regardless of where you stand on the controversies surrounding him versus his contributions to the Free Software cause, it must be recognized that organizations are reluctant to be involved with him. You can call it "Cancel Culture" or whatever, but RMS is somewhat of a pariah right now and I'm sure the personal attacks on him, the loss of FSF sponsors as well as the loss of speaking engagements must hurt (on multiple levels).
Now that he's back on the FSF board, I would think that a professional could be hired to look at the situation and work at rehabilitating his image so that his past unfortunate statements aren't the first thing that comes to mind when his name comes up and that organizations involved with him don't have to defend that decision. I don't think it will be easy for him as his past behaviour indicates that he is pretty reluctant to take the suggestions and feelings of others into account.
Yeah, the I think the main thing to take from this is that after causing a huge firestorm over saying dumb things rms is still saying dumb things.
In his entire post he doesn't mention the critical thing about the title of 'Doctor', that it represents years of dedicated (and poorly compensated) study on a topic with no concrete expectation of reward at the end. And there's a big difference between people who earned a doctorate through study and people who got an honourary doctorate as a recognition of other
A hourable doctor is a doctor (Score:2)
On a business card you would indicate what kind of doctor you are: e.g. rer. nat. if it is a scientific degree.
Or h.c. if it is a honourable one.
No idea why that even is a question.
Same for honourable black belts. If you receive 10th degree black belt in an art you never practiced, as a honourable degree: you are a 10th degree black belt of that art. Plain and simple. Everyone who cares: knows you never did the art and that it is a honourable degree.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah,no. Been in MA my whole life and anyone claiming to be such a black belt as that is seen as a poser. I've seen said posers asked to perform a form from that art just to make them admit they can't.
And will readily tell anyone else who mistakenly believes the belt i
Dr. != Dr. h.c. (Score:4, Informative)
Stallmans title is "Doctor honoris causa" which is a honorary degree (like an award). thus he is NOT entitled to call himself a doctor (using the title "Dr.", but he has to use the full title "Dr h.c." or nothing
"I am proud of them" (Score:2)
No, bought honorary degrees are not Doctors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fix is simple, just get a degree. (Score:2)
Many institutions, even pretty weighty ones, will give a degree based largely on an existing extra-academic body of work as long as there is (A) a minimum amount of time spent in the degree program, often a year, with full tuition, (B) passage of the necessary qualification tests, and (C) a written dissertation. I can't imagine that it would be too difficult for rms to find someone in a respected CS department at an institution that wasn't burned by Epstein, say Stanford, Caltech, CMU, U. Illinois, etc., t
Meh (Score:3)
Personally I find the gratuitous use of "doctor" annoying, but the rules are pretty dang fluid, so I wouldn't begrudge him.
Doctor MLK approves ...
(Yes, I know, MLKj had an actual doctorate ... in theology, which normally the /. zeitgeist would laugh at.)
All human titles are ultimately arbitrary ... some have legal or social rules attached, but as I mentioned the rules are pretty fluid on this one.
I would certainly trust Dr. Stallman much more than his critics - to interpret the GPL or defend free software, which is what matters in his field.
Don't know, don't care. (Score:2)
It is still "only" honorary. (Score:2)
That his doctorates are more merited than other honorary doctors, does not really matter. That he has possibly overseen, managed ir inspired hundreds, if not thousands of phd's doesn't really change anything. Or that he would be more than qualified to get one for himself the regular way. It dies not matter. I am sure Trump could get himself a a doctorate at liberty university, and it would be merited, given that nobody has furthered their style of bigoted skin deep holiness more.
Re: (Score:3)
That is what commercial entities have wanted us to do for a couple of decades. I am glad we didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
They've probably already started the process behind closed doors. He's likely aware of that, too. He's mentally preparing himself for losing those degrees.
Re: Guess he is about to lose some honorary doctor (Score:2)
I sure do hope so. I'd really like a list of weasely, spineless universities with a broken moral compass to avoid, in addition to the list of weasely spineless people I bow have.
It is sad to see someone crash and burn in public in such a spectacular way.
I know, right? And there's so many of them! And now so many educational institutions are about to join! So sad and pointless...
Re: (Score:2)
Stallman is an atheist.
Re: (Score:2)
Stallman wrote GNU Emacs. There were several Emacs [wikipedia.org] before that.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems pretty unfounded. Most people don't know who he is now. The bar to be remembered at even 100 years ago is pretty small for any technologist. 100 years ago you had Bell, Edison, Tesla and Wright. Maybe Westinghouse if that name hasn't faded so much, but most people would assume he (like Ford, etc.) were industrialists. In fact, if you leave out people who named giant companies after themselves you're left with - Edison, Tesla and Wright. A
Re: (Score:2)
As we saw, lots of these doctoral works were fake, invented data etc.
Lots of people just use their fellow students as 'patients' or whatever.
During school, I remember getting forms to fill out for 'research' papers with a clipped on description as to what to simulate when answering questions, alcoholism, sleep deprivation ow whatever.
That's exactly what is done when you are gathering pilot data to make sure your data collection and analysis methods are fully developed and correct, prior to collecting the actual data from real subjects. Maybe you forgot to tell us about that aspect? Or maybe you forgot to tell us that these research papers were just classroom exercises in a course on designing and running human psychophysics experiments? If they were real research papers, you have an ethical obligation to report them as fraudulent to