5 ms·

"problematic person" eh... He's clearly a freethinker, and we have all gotten a lot of advantages from his courage doing his thing and making his vision for FO

"problematic person" eh... He's clearly a freethinker, and we have all gotten a lot of advantages from his courage doing his thing and making his vision for FOSS a reality. Now he's said his thoughts on this too... it's legitimate for him to do so and "problematic" everyone is in a huge panic to punish him in case the mob should get set on them.

xwolfi 7y ago
We all have second-hand stories of how, when Stallman came to our cities (in my case Paris) for a conference, he acted like the worst fucking person on earth towards his volunteering hosts. He was a terrible human being, and surely not very aware of how to treat other humans. He had no place in a research institution, or getting paid to pretend to be relevant on free software. Good riddance, whatever reason we can find in his statements (yeah sure, I was 18 when my wife was 17, it wasn't rape, surely... but is that really the point people were making about his nice friend of Epstein ?). People aren't for free speech, at all and anywhere: they are for people having the same opinion as them or follow an official line. He didn't do either, now he pays. For a genius like him, it should have been easy to understand you have to adapt if you want to lead, or you shut up if you see you can't lead.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pja 7y ago
  Yup. Friend hosted him locally & has nothing good to say about Stallman whatsoever. He’s had decades to listen to people telling him that his behaviour was unacceptable. The fact that he hasn’t changed at all is on him.
  - GFischer 7y ago
    My mother hosted him and I didn´t hear anything out of the ordinary for Stallman... I mean, you know he´s going to be monothematic about his beliefs, but I heard nothing besides that.
- rjf72 7y ago
  I think most people, especially in America, are very much for free speech. But inertia. And that inertia is especially pronounced when the mobs are going after somebody you don't agree with. Like the old poem goes: - First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. - Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. - Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. - Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me. That holds very true to this day in America. I really vehemently disagree with Stallman's views in many ways. So it's easy to not say anything, yet I do believe he has a right to say the things he does without getting depersoned. In any case I'd much rather the people that do abide his views do so publicly rather than in secret. But beyond this, I think he chose a reasonable hill to die on. He undoubtedly knew his comments would spark a mob in the zeitgeist of today, but they really are about as tepid as you could get. He was saying it was a bad idea for terms, even if legally accurate, to be used in general speech when they mislead people as to the nature of a situation. If that's the new standard for moving from words to 'let's get rid of this guy', we may not even have a standard. And I think that's a point that will resonate for more and more people. Even if these people might be afraid to speak out for fear of becoming the mobs' next target, it helps bring about a positive change in society. An analogy I love to consider is Lincoln. Did Lincoln end slavery and direct society accordingly or did society reach a point such that the creation of a Lincoln was, sooner or later, inevitable - even if by another name? And I think things like this bring us ever closer to creating our Lincoln because solving the problems of social media is not something that's going to be done in a clean fashion.
- grmp887 7y ago
  Really? He was a "terrible human being" because he said something ignorant and was socially awkward / a bit rude in person? I'm not defending what he said but this is a really backwards way to look at things. There are plenty of manipulative CEOs and public figures who are very careful with their speech while doing harm in their actions. Stallman turned down money for decades to do something good for the sake of public interest. There really aren't many people like that, in this industry or even on this site. It sucks he conflated his movement like this, but jumping to that conclusion based on something so shallow seems just as stupid.
- dangerface 7y ago
  > People aren't for free speech, at all and anywhere: they are for people having the same opinion as them or follow an official line. This just isn't true. Sure I want every one to respect my opinion but I don't want them to be a slave to it. I mean think about it if every one thought the same life would be boring as fuck.
  - body_count_one 7y ago
    xwolfi mentioned having sex with his future wife when she was 17. it's a safe bet to say that he sees being staggeringly boring as a moral imperative, or the natural way of things, or something to that effect. it would follow from there that he genuinely doesn't believe others are capable of holding to abstract values like free speech, that it's all just cover for petty self-interest all the time.
- noobermin 7y ago
  I hope this isn't a minority opinion, but making people uncomfortable should not be a reason to take their livelihood from them. If they actively mistreat people and abuse their power to hurt people, that is different. Being socially awkward and insufferable might make you not want to associate with them, but to me that's not enough of a reason to take their life from them.
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
    If you are in a leadership position part of your job is making sure people are comfortable associating with you. Firing someone is not taking their life from them.
    - noobermin 7y ago
      I don't agree with either of your statements. There is a dividing line, which I was pointing out, between making someone uncomfortable and being toxic. I'm not sure, tbh, but it sounds closer to rms was just socially uncouth, he didn't abuse his position of power or anything like that, he just was an unpleasant person. I don't mind may be some sort of intervention over that, similar to what Linus Torvalds faced. Perhaps he has been "called-in" so to speak but that hasn't been stated in this conversation so far. What I consider toxic is closer to retaliating professionally against subordinates you don't like, forcing subordinates to do unprofessional things like favors to curry good standing with you, etc. I could be proven wrong, but a lot of what I've read from rms is he was just annoyingly pedantic, silly at times with off-collar humor, and too much of a "true believer" in various causes. None of that I consider beyond the pale for being toxic, some of those traits (like the "true believer" bit) are actually somewhat commendable, and why extremists often are good in pushing us to better ourselves or at the very least question the foundations of the status quo. Also, firing someone is taking their livelihood from them. rms might be more comfortable than the average worker, but part of the reason there are special rules around work is in society today people need to work to survive. rms might be wealthy and have a cushion, I have no idea and so this might not apply to him. On the other hand however, free software has been his life's work, and he is being forced out of the organizations he started in order to further that cause. He probably will be hampered from ever contributing to free software moving forward. It might not be on the level of a walmart worker living paycheck to paycheck (which sure is a larger problem) but it is a wrong, at some level, to him if he is not offered a better deal or a chance to change.
- amyjess 7y ago
  It's also well-known that he would hit on any woman who moves. When conference organizers finally told him to stop coming up to women and asking them out, he started printing out "pleasure cards" with his contact information and an invitation to fuck on them and wordlessly handing them out to women instead. In order to ward off his advances, women faculty at MIT have taken to taking advantage of his phobia of plants. They decorate their offices with as many plants as they can and have even taken to wearing plants just to keep him from hitting on them. This is not and should never be acceptable behavior.
  - EForEndeavour 7y ago
    Wow... This makes RMS sound like a Batman villain who never quite made it big.
    - api 7y ago
      Epstein has always reminded me of someone Batman would fight. He even had henchmen and an island lair. A while back some friends and I came up with his super-villain name. Batman had The Riddler, but Epstein would be... drum roll... The Diddler! Now roll that into one of those old campy Batman episodes from the 60s and you'd have a hell of a skit. All I can do is laugh at this stuff sometimes. The alternative is to get depressed about the lack of judgement that seems to be routinely shown by otherwise very bright people who should know better. People seem to be such suckers for these charismatic psychopath types and their "energy."
      - Endy 7y ago
        In one (mostly non-canon-ish) novel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Ultimate_Evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Ultimate_Evil , he did take on a guy who was terrifyingly like Epstein; among others.
    - pvaldes 7y ago
      "I fear plants; my enemies will share my fears, because I'm Potman!" I hope he never has the occurence to disguise as Poison Lenny in the next halloween, My poor heart couldn't afford more jump-scares.
- Smithalicious 7y ago
  >We all have second-hand stories of how, when Stallman came to our cities (in my case Paris) for a conference, he acted like the worst fucking person on earth towards his volunteering hosts. No we don't. Your vague unspecified second-hand stories aren't any kind of evidence or argument. Come with specifics or this is just slander.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Come with specifics or this is just slander. Whether or not specifics are provided is irrelevant as to whether or not it's slander. Specifics may be relevant to whether you personally believe it, but that's also not relevant to whether it is factually slander.
    - Smithalicious 7y ago
      Ah, I wasn't aware, sorry. Is there an English word that constitutes an accusation against someone with no proof?
      - CocaKoala 7y ago
        Allegation is the word you're looking for. > a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.
bandrami 7y ago
I'm sorry, no. Women at CSAIL cultivated plants in their office because they knew it would keep him out of their offices. He's a train wreck and has needed to go for a while.

xwolfi 7y ago

We all have second-hand stories of how, when Stallman came to our cities (in my case Paris) for a conference, he acted like the worst fucking person on earth towards his volunteering hosts. He was a terrible human being, and surely not very aware of how to treat other humans. He had no place in a research institution, or getting paid to pretend to be relevant on free software. Good riddance, whatever reason we can find in his statements (yeah sure, I was 18 when my wife was 17, it wasn't rape, surely... but is that really the point people were making about his nice friend of Epstein ?). People aren't for free speech, at all and anywhere: they are for people having the same opinion as them or follow an official line. He didn't do either, now he pays. For a genius like him, it should have been easy to understand you have to adapt if you want to lead, or you shut up if you see you can't lead.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pja 7y ago
Yup. Friend hosted him locally & has nothing good to say about Stallman whatsoever. He’s had decades to listen to people telling him that his behaviour was unacceptable. The fact that he hasn’t changed at all is on him.
- GFischer 7y ago
  My mother hosted him and I didn´t hear anything out of the ordinary for Stallman... I mean, you know he´s going to be monothematic about his beliefs, but I heard nothing besides that.
rjf72 7y ago
I think most people, especially in America, are very much for free speech. But inertia. And that inertia is especially pronounced when the mobs are going after somebody you don't agree with. Like the old poem goes: - First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. - Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. - Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. - Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me. That holds very true to this day in America. I really vehemently disagree with Stallman's views in many ways. So it's easy to not say anything, yet I do believe he has a right to say the things he does without getting depersoned. In any case I'd much rather the people that do abide his views do so publicly rather than in secret. But beyond this, I think he chose a reasonable hill to die on. He undoubtedly knew his comments would spark a mob in the zeitgeist of today, but they really are about as tepid as you could get. He was saying it was a bad idea for terms, even if legally accurate, to be used in general speech when they mislead people as to the nature of a situation. If that's the new standard for moving from words to 'let's get rid of this guy', we may not even have a standard. And I think that's a point that will resonate for more and more people. Even if these people might be afraid to speak out for fear of becoming the mobs' next target, it helps bring about a positive change in society. An analogy I love to consider is Lincoln. Did Lincoln end slavery and direct society accordingly or did society reach a point such that the creation of a Lincoln was, sooner or later, inevitable - even if by another name? And I think things like this bring us ever closer to creating our Lincoln because solving the problems of social media is not something that's going to be done in a clean fashion.
grmp887 7y ago
Really? He was a "terrible human being" because he said something ignorant and was socially awkward / a bit rude in person? I'm not defending what he said but this is a really backwards way to look at things. There are plenty of manipulative CEOs and public figures who are very careful with their speech while doing harm in their actions. Stallman turned down money for decades to do something good for the sake of public interest. There really aren't many people like that, in this industry or even on this site. It sucks he conflated his movement like this, but jumping to that conclusion based on something so shallow seems just as stupid.
dangerface 7y ago
> People aren't for free speech, at all and anywhere: they are for people having the same opinion as them or follow an official line. This just isn't true. Sure I want every one to respect my opinion but I don't want them to be a slave to it. I mean think about it if every one thought the same life would be boring as fuck.
- body_count_one 7y ago
  xwolfi mentioned having sex with his future wife when she was 17. it's a safe bet to say that he sees being staggeringly boring as a moral imperative, or the natural way of things, or something to that effect. it would follow from there that he genuinely doesn't believe others are capable of holding to abstract values like free speech, that it's all just cover for petty self-interest all the time.
noobermin 7y ago
I hope this isn't a minority opinion, but making people uncomfortable should not be a reason to take their livelihood from them. If they actively mistreat people and abuse their power to hurt people, that is different. Being socially awkward and insufferable might make you not want to associate with them, but to me that's not enough of a reason to take their life from them.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
  If you are in a leadership position part of your job is making sure people are comfortable associating with you. Firing someone is not taking their life from them.
  - noobermin 7y ago
    I don't agree with either of your statements. There is a dividing line, which I was pointing out, between making someone uncomfortable and being toxic. I'm not sure, tbh, but it sounds closer to rms was just socially uncouth, he didn't abuse his position of power or anything like that, he just was an unpleasant person. I don't mind may be some sort of intervention over that, similar to what Linus Torvalds faced. Perhaps he has been "called-in" so to speak but that hasn't been stated in this conversation so far. What I consider toxic is closer to retaliating professionally against subordinates you don't like, forcing subordinates to do unprofessional things like favors to curry good standing with you, etc. I could be proven wrong, but a lot of what I've read from rms is he was just annoyingly pedantic, silly at times with off-collar humor, and too much of a "true believer" in various causes. None of that I consider beyond the pale for being toxic, some of those traits (like the "true believer" bit) are actually somewhat commendable, and why extremists often are good in pushing us to better ourselves or at the very least question the foundations of the status quo. Also, firing someone is taking their livelihood from them. rms might be more comfortable than the average worker, but part of the reason there are special rules around work is in society today people need to work to survive. rms might be wealthy and have a cushion, I have no idea and so this might not apply to him. On the other hand however, free software has been his life's work, and he is being forced out of the organizations he started in order to further that cause. He probably will be hampered from ever contributing to free software moving forward. It might not be on the level of a walmart worker living paycheck to paycheck (which sure is a larger problem) but it is a wrong, at some level, to him if he is not offered a better deal or a chance to change.
amyjess 7y ago
It's also well-known that he would hit on any woman who moves. When conference organizers finally told him to stop coming up to women and asking them out, he started printing out "pleasure cards" with his contact information and an invitation to fuck on them and wordlessly handing them out to women instead. In order to ward off his advances, women faculty at MIT have taken to taking advantage of his phobia of plants. They decorate their offices with as many plants as they can and have even taken to wearing plants just to keep him from hitting on them. This is not and should never be acceptable behavior.
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  Wow... This makes RMS sound like a Batman villain who never quite made it big.
  - api 7y ago
    Epstein has always reminded me of someone Batman would fight. He even had henchmen and an island lair. A while back some friends and I came up with his super-villain name. Batman had The Riddler, but Epstein would be... drum roll... The Diddler! Now roll that into one of those old campy Batman episodes from the 60s and you'd have a hell of a skit. All I can do is laugh at this stuff sometimes. The alternative is to get depressed about the lack of judgement that seems to be routinely shown by otherwise very bright people who should know better. People seem to be such suckers for these charismatic psychopath types and their "energy."
    - Endy 7y ago
      In one (mostly non-canon-ish) novel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Ultimate_Evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Ultimate_Evil , he did take on a guy who was terrifyingly like Epstein; among others.
  - pvaldes 7y ago
    "I fear plants; my enemies will share my fears, because I'm Potman!" I hope he never has the occurence to disguise as Poison Lenny in the next halloween, My poor heart couldn't afford more jump-scares.
Smithalicious 7y ago
>We all have second-hand stories of how, when Stallman came to our cities (in my case Paris) for a conference, he acted like the worst fucking person on earth towards his volunteering hosts. No we don't. Your vague unspecified second-hand stories aren't any kind of evidence or argument. Come with specifics or this is just slander.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Come with specifics or this is just slander. Whether or not specifics are provided is irrelevant as to whether or not it's slander. Specifics may be relevant to whether you personally believe it, but that's also not relevant to whether it is factually slander.
  - Smithalicious 7y ago
    Ah, I wasn't aware, sorry. Is there an English word that constitutes an accusation against someone with no proof?
    - CocaKoala 7y ago
      Allegation is the word you're looking for. > a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

bandrami 7y ago

I'm sorry, no. Women at CSAIL cultivated plants in their office because they knew it would keep him out of their offices. He's a train wreck and has needed to go for a while.