8 ms·

I would encourage you to read why Stallman resigned from MIT [1]. The emails that were “leaked” were not private discussions. They were sent to email lists that

I would encourage you to read why Stallman resigned from MIT [1]. The emails that were “leaked” were not private discussions. They were sent to email lists that included everyone in CSAIL and to be frank, were awful. Here is a link to the emails [2]. [1] https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... [2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient...

nverno 4y ago
He apologized for all this, though. His initial comments read, to me, as basically someone who is pretty clueless about those topics. But this is the exact kind of speech that should be protected- he wasn't trying to offend or antagonize people, but voicing his philosophy/opinions. He then heard other people's perspectives and they seem to have led him to him reassessing his own, which is how this sort of thing should work, instead of publicly shaming or what have you.
- chonkerz 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    Whose careers did her harm, how, and why would I care about his personal grooming or cleanliness?
  - ShredKazoo 4y ago
    As long as we're talking career impact, I'm pretty sure Stallman's net effect on peoples' careers has been massively positive. In all likelihood, GNU, Emacs, and the FSF have materially increased world GDP.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  I agree. I don't really think he should even need to apologise as that itself has a chilling effect on use of these freedoms. If your organisation believes that it knows which topics should be talked and thought about it's a church not a university.
  - nverno 4y ago
    Personally, I wouldn't require or expect an apology either, but as the OP said, the discussion was sent out to CSAIL mailing lists which hardly seems like the proper venue. I don't think social graces are Stallman's strong suit, but most people would know blunt discussion of pedophilia/sexual assault in that manner would probably offend a number of people in this public setting - nobody signs up for those lists expecting this sort of discussion - so I think an apology was in order [but shouldn't have been a requirement to keep his position]. He was hypothesizing their motives, and definitely down-playing the severity of the abuses, which understandably could offend people who have been in similar situations. I think part of his message was "don't jump to conclusions" which is good, but he went a lot further than that. In a leadership role, he should strive to be as unoffensive as possible imho - he doesn't want to alienate people.
    - psychphysic 4y ago
      That makes sense. Then perhaps a "retraction" would be better with a statement it wasn't the correct forum for such a discussion. On your second point however I must disagree. I'm afraid being inoffensive is a losing battle. If people see you try to avoid offense they simply start nitpicking harder. Desire to not offend should never stifle academic speech.
      - nverno 4y ago
        > On your second point however I must disagree No, I agree with you in general, and from an ideological point of view, but from a practical standpoint, you have to choose your battles - I think it's usually worth the effort, even when it seems tedious, to go out of your way to not offend people you're working with in order to reach your goals. Plus, once you've offended someone, you have very little chance of influencing them. Once you've established mutual respect, people won't take things you say in bad faith, so discussing controversial topics can actually be a discussion instead of a heated argument.
version_five 4y ago
People shouldn't, in general, have to resign for their mis-steps, even if somebody gets offended. Who benefits from a society where a mistake or unpopular view ends your career?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  That depends heavily on the severity of the mistake or the nature of the unpopular view. I personally like Google's approach to this internally: mistakes are to be expected and are often a sign of bad process, not faulty people. But egregious repetition of mistakes of the same kind indicates a failure to learn and grow that can slate someone for dismissal, and treating one's coworkers as less than human is also a short path to the door. (There are some outliers also. Crafting yourself into a walking Title VII violation ties the company's hands regardless of whether they'd be willing to let an employee grow and change, because the law isn't structured that way).
  - peanutcrisis 4y ago
    But what if their unpopular views are rooted in evidence, yet goes against what's morally fashionable (at present)? Who would adjudicate this and why should we trust their judgement, especially when bad optics could become a concern? For instance, biological sex is binary/bimodal for all intents and purposes. It is discrete, and very much not a spectrum. However, there are activists who are trying to override empirical findings to justify their ideas about gender (I have no horse in this race). Furthermore, their voices have found a home in organisations like big tech. In such a case, and given the zeal of these activists, wouldn't someone who remark that sex is binary (in a casual conversation about biology) be punished? Or to put it more precisely, how can we trust those in authority to fairly judge that the innocent remark made isn't a "mistake"? In a climate where "speech is violence" and "intent doesn't matter", people are free to project their views onto others and accuse them of tall crimes. Without free speech, the case I've mentioned above seems likely to end up in unjust persecution. Unfortunately, my hypothetical scenario isn't theoretical, but has happened in academia already. The system you proposed doesn't seem immune to this.
tzs 4y ago
Both of those links straight up lie about what Stallman said. The first even accurately quotes him and then proceeds to directly lie about what it just quoted.
cultureswitch 4y ago
Still now I fail to see how these emails could be intrepreted any other way than someone being pedantic with legal terms. Not good timing, yes. But there is no trace of malice. You'll read this as a defense of epstein or child trafficking if you want to read it as such, not if you're reading what's written. Are people incapable of keeping their heads cool and holding off their a priori judgments when reading something?

nverno 4y ago

He apologized for all this, though. His initial comments read, to me, as basically someone who is pretty clueless about those topics. But this is the exact kind of speech that should be protected- he wasn't trying to offend or antagonize people, but voicing his philosophy/opinions. He then heard other people's perspectives and they seem to have led him to him reassessing his own, which is how this sort of thing should work, instead of publicly shaming or what have you.

chonkerz 4y ago
[flagged]
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Whose careers did her harm, how, and why would I care about his personal grooming or cleanliness?
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  As long as we're talking career impact, I'm pretty sure Stallman's net effect on peoples' careers has been massively positive. In all likelihood, GNU, Emacs, and the FSF have materially increased world GDP.
psychphysic 4y ago
I agree. I don't really think he should even need to apologise as that itself has a chilling effect on use of these freedoms. If your organisation believes that it knows which topics should be talked and thought about it's a church not a university.
- nverno 4y ago
  Personally, I wouldn't require or expect an apology either, but as the OP said, the discussion was sent out to CSAIL mailing lists which hardly seems like the proper venue. I don't think social graces are Stallman's strong suit, but most people would know blunt discussion of pedophilia/sexual assault in that manner would probably offend a number of people in this public setting - nobody signs up for those lists expecting this sort of discussion - so I think an apology was in order [but shouldn't have been a requirement to keep his position]. He was hypothesizing their motives, and definitely down-playing the severity of the abuses, which understandably could offend people who have been in similar situations. I think part of his message was "don't jump to conclusions" which is good, but he went a lot further than that. In a leadership role, he should strive to be as unoffensive as possible imho - he doesn't want to alienate people.
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    That makes sense. Then perhaps a "retraction" would be better with a statement it wasn't the correct forum for such a discussion. On your second point however I must disagree. I'm afraid being inoffensive is a losing battle. If people see you try to avoid offense they simply start nitpicking harder. Desire to not offend should never stifle academic speech.
    - nverno 4y ago
      > On your second point however I must disagree No, I agree with you in general, and from an ideological point of view, but from a practical standpoint, you have to choose your battles - I think it's usually worth the effort, even when it seems tedious, to go out of your way to not offend people you're working with in order to reach your goals. Plus, once you've offended someone, you have very little chance of influencing them. Once you've established mutual respect, people won't take things you say in bad faith, so discussing controversial topics can actually be a discussion instead of a heated argument.

version_five 4y ago

People shouldn't, in general, have to resign for their mis-steps, even if somebody gets offended. Who benefits from a society where a mistake or unpopular view ends your career?

shadowgovt 4y ago
That depends heavily on the severity of the mistake or the nature of the unpopular view. I personally like Google's approach to this internally: mistakes are to be expected and are often a sign of bad process, not faulty people. But egregious repetition of mistakes of the same kind indicates a failure to learn and grow that can slate someone for dismissal, and treating one's coworkers as less than human is also a short path to the door. (There are some outliers also. Crafting yourself into a walking Title VII violation ties the company's hands regardless of whether they'd be willing to let an employee grow and change, because the law isn't structured that way).
- peanutcrisis 4y ago
  But what if their unpopular views are rooted in evidence, yet goes against what's morally fashionable (at present)? Who would adjudicate this and why should we trust their judgement, especially when bad optics could become a concern? For instance, biological sex is binary/bimodal for all intents and purposes. It is discrete, and very much not a spectrum. However, there are activists who are trying to override empirical findings to justify their ideas about gender (I have no horse in this race). Furthermore, their voices have found a home in organisations like big tech. In such a case, and given the zeal of these activists, wouldn't someone who remark that sex is binary (in a casual conversation about biology) be punished? Or to put it more precisely, how can we trust those in authority to fairly judge that the innocent remark made isn't a "mistake"? In a climate where "speech is violence" and "intent doesn't matter", people are free to project their views onto others and accuse them of tall crimes. Without free speech, the case I've mentioned above seems likely to end up in unjust persecution. Unfortunately, my hypothetical scenario isn't theoretical, but has happened in academia already. The system you proposed doesn't seem immune to this.

tzs 4y ago

Both of those links straight up lie about what Stallman said. The first even accurately quotes him and then proceeds to directly lie about what it just quoted.

cultureswitch 4y ago

Still now I fail to see how these emails could be intrepreted any other way than someone being pedantic with legal terms. Not good timing, yes. But there is no trace of malice. You'll read this as a defense of epstein or child trafficking if you want to read it as such, not if you're reading what's written. Are people incapable of keeping their heads cool and holding off their a priori judgments when reading something?