I know many people on here look up to RMS, and he has certainly achieved a lot of good in this world in the pursuit of establishing the free software movement.
I also know that it’s very hard to hear that people you look up to have done bad things, and it’s an uncomfortable pill to swallow sometimes.
Nevertheless, I implore people to carefully read this document before dismissing it. There are deeply concerning patterns of behaviour documented here, and the vast majority of it has been left unaddressed by RMS and ignored or minimised by the broader FOSS community.
Maybe, but who will replace him? Will we end up like BSD people, using macbooks at presentations? Sadly, we will have to replace him eventually, since he is not immortal, so we have to grapple with that question.
The problem, imho, is that the overall Linux community has latched onto politics as a central theme for most - even moreover than their technical application to Linux, to programming and anything related to tech. This is undebatable and is obvious to any rational person who investigates and examines it. While, it's completely reasonable to be alarmed when reading many of the posts RMS has made in recent years, it's difficult to overlook the political overtones and bias that the general/overall Linux community has taken - especially, since it's hard-line left - even far left - in many cases.
RMS a lot of 'Libertarian' viewpoints - views that share some conservative-based or perceived conservative perspectives - although, one can argue RMS has twisted many of them in spots - which is quite eye-opening and peculiar.
I'm not defending him in anyway lest someone misunderstands but I am very wary and quite concerned about the political focus by many in the Linux world - especially, when you see how they 'cancel' anyone who doesn't strictly adhere or completely concur/match their viewpoints and attitudes/mentalities.
Oh look, a "both-sides" argument! Stallman advocates for pedophilia and necrophilia to be legal; what's the "hard-line left" doing that's similar, in your eyes?
I was responding to the previous commenter's bizarre idea that the Linux world has a "hard-line left" (whatever that is) overtone. (As if somehow open source can be reconciled with conservative ideology.)
Fair enough. If you look here, though, there are a ridiculous amount of people calling Stallman a Libertarian, which is pretty laughable. All it shows is that they haven't read anything the man actually wrote, and, as per usual, are offended on a third hand basis.
His views on what he calls sexual freedom are definitely libertarian. No one on the left advocates for legalizing child abuse, whereas on the right it is done on the regular. Maybe he's more liberal on economic issues, I don't know and honestly don't give a shit.
Ever heard of right anarchism versus left anarchism? I guess not. I know you don't give a shit. You see what he wrote on one topic and that must make him a libertarian. He's closer to a Marxist than he is a Libertarian, but you'd actually have to have to read what he says. It's easier to not "give a shit" and make shit up, kind of like the fabrication that is this report.
Note it's been wiped clean from Reddit for a reason.
No answer? Are you alleging a public figure broke laws, without any evidence? Hide behind a pseudonym, and the "report" author won't sign it. Hope you guys get sued into oblivion.
I live in the U.S. , where defamation cases are very hard to win.
Beyond the already difficult task of winning any libel suit in the U.S., as RMS is a public figure, he would need to meet the much higher evidentiary bar of proving "actual malice" on my part.
Also, all of my statements have been, in legal terms, opinions based on disclosed facts (the ones in the page this entire post is about). That's a prima facie defense against libel.
But most glaringly, RMS is a strong advocate of Freedom of speech, and would abhor the idea of using the U.S. governments' power to try to quell speech that he doesn't like.
Please take some time to sit and think about why this has you "warning" me about the legal wrath of a person that you are trying to promote, and who I know would morally object to a libel or defamation case; Which is very much to his credit!
I don't plan to respond any further. You've presumably read the entire page and don't find it convincing, and there's not much more I expect that I could say as it's all laid out very clearly and methodically already.
I sincerely wish the best for you. Have a nice day.
It's also interesting how you appreciate no consequences for you for potentially violating civil law, yet have no problem vilifying (and alleging a crime by) someone who simply has an opinion you find abhorrent. That's good to know.
That may be, but one of those cases that is winnable is accusing someone of a crime in public without being able to back that up. Is it worth the risk?
The report is a nonsense, an unsigned, cowardly piece of trash. Someone is jealous and wants his position. It's just greed. That's why he won't identify himself.
The libertarians in here are going crazy. It's actually sickening and I hope people looking in don't see this as a reflection of the Linux community as a whole.
There are deeply concerning patterns of behaviour documented here, and the vast majority of it has been left unaddressed by RMS and ignored or minimised by the broader FOSS community.
Ok by why exactly should I care about his opinion on sexual topics. Or anything but FOSS actually. Let man live his own life and go on
Because he’s a figurehead for the free software movement, you don’t want people thinking about his comments about minors being able to consent every time he gives a talk.
I don't get it. Do you have so much free time so you can learn and remember every opinion of every single person you've met in your life? Why would I think about someone's personality when I'm listening to a technical conference presentation? Seems strange for me
Stallman regularly publishes his opinions on social and political topics; he is intentionally putting his ideas out into the world for people to read. Please read the report.
Stallman regularly publishes his opinions on social and political topics
So what? It's called freedom of speech. Unless he literally says "let's go fuck children" I don't see a reason to care about it. Heck, even if he does, there are people who get paid for discussing how illegal it is (some of them are called judges, for example)
I care about replying to people I'm talking with, not about random opinions
Just what exactly are you defending?
I wouldn't say that I'm actually defending anything, I'm just trying to comprehend why people care so much about others' things on basically any topic. As of now nobody gave me a single straightforward reason that could convince me. It's not even about RMS, I say this in many places and I don't get it
I literally said there are people other than me that will care (and get money for that) if he crosses it. But if I will, I guess it's not hard to deduce how this sentence differs from "just opinions" (i.e. without calls to [illegal] actions)
I can say: “go and rob a bank, eat the rich, commit various crimes” and that’s fine, right? Saying vile stuff like “go fuck children” feels very wrong in a very different way for obvious reasons. What I’m trying to say is that there’s very little difference from what he is currently saying, and that. Both are enabling sexual abuse of minors.
I know, right? People are quicker to toss around their red herring arguments in defense of this middle-aged man saying creepy sexual things about minors and dismissing S.A. from a position of influence, than they are to denounce it. I get the feeling this is why people look at Linux with a massive grain of salt.
No but I can remember that stallman said he thinks children can consent to sex with adults, I can remember it because it’s shocking and abhorrent. Every time he gives his same tired talk I just think of all the stupid things he’s said and done and I question why on earth anyone wants to listen to this man. Let’s be honest here people aren’t really listening to him because he has anything insightful to say but because he’s a spectacle, why would you want him as a figurehead?
Oh I guess it’s my fault for thinking about the fact that stallman said children can consent to sex with adults, I apologize. Clearly stallman is blameless here and we all just need to stop thinking of the countless abhorrent things he’s said when he gives talks.
Yes. If you're thinking about things like that while listening to a talk about free software and privacy, you have a real problem. I don't listen to a hockey commentator's political views. I don't listen to a mechanic's views about my exercise program. I don't tell the electrician how to wire the house, nor does he criticize my wallpaper choices.
This country is never going to get better until you people understand that not everyone who disagrees with you on topics is an enemy. As I already pointed out, I disagree with 99% of what Stallman says outside of software freedom and privacy. What else do you want?
Sorry but you're just a very unserious person if you expect people to not think about the fact RMS said children can consent when he gives talks. Like it's just not realistic to expect people to not think about things someone has publicly said when they see that person.
And I think you're a very immature person if you worry about a person's other viewpoints in something this narrow. I know it's in fashion to disrupt and protest every person who wishes to speak at a college. What I do know from experience is that said people will be feeling a lot of regret years down the road.
He's not running for office where I live. He's not my dad. I'm not asking him for dating advice. I'm not asking him to be my life coach. I know he's eccentric. I knew this many years ago. I accepted that I disagree with him on most of what he says outside of free software and privacy many, many years ago, in fact, decades ago.
The idea of being able to write one's opinions and share them, no matter what, is something that is lost to the current generation. Fortunately, I won't be around for said generation to reap the consequences of this.
The idea of being able to write one's opinions and share them, no matter what, is something that is lost to the current generation. Fortunately, I won't be around for said generation to reap the consequences of this.
Sorry but this was never the case that you get to say anything you want and it not have consequences if you work in a public facing role.
Also just wondering but do you actually think RMS is very effective at what he does nowadays? Or are you defending him based on some perverse principal that you should be able to say anything you want with zero ramification for your job?
There are jobs where it matters what you say, and the context does matter. If Stallman said, "Sorry, I've been using Windows all the time," that's a big problem and that would be a pressing reason to remove him. If it's someone in a position of real authority advocating something reprehensible, well, we have elections, we have recalls, and we have statutes covering such scenarios. When Stallman was writing things and saying things decades ago, then founded an organization years later, and continued to have much the same opinions, we start to lose legitimacy here.
The point isn't even really about the FSF itself. He's there, or he isn't, and that really doesn't matter all that much. If he left the organization/stayed out of the organization, would the anonymous hatchet man be satisfied? Or would there still be a campaign? I sense a lot of self interest in the "report."
Stallman's effectiveness in what he does - which is speeches - is really hard to quantify. People are idiots and buy cell phones and Windows devices left and right. He has said very correct and factual things about software and privacy, and people don't listen. Software gets more and more invasive. Privacy gets more and more breached. And people are fine with that. Every year, MS, Apple, Google, and Adobe each do something more reprehensible than the year before, and after a quick furor, people go along with it, more and more.
So, from that perspective, he's highly ineffective. People, by and large, are honestly not interested in their privacy, until something actually bites them in the ass. If their credit card information gets stolen or their bank account gets drained, all of a sudden, they concern themselves with privacy. Fifteen minutes before that, they were handing out credit card information to a site they never heard of to buy some garbage at a price that's too good to be true, or answering a ridiculous text message claiming to be from their bank.
Sure, Stallman's the bad guy. It's not the bank that leaves you on the hook or those that stole your money, or Adobe wanting to claim your work, or Google using your emails to feed you ads or using your content to train AI, or MS taking snapshots of your desktop, or Apple selling phones built by children. Stallman's the bad one here.
Cancel Stallman, sure. He's the real threat. Meanwhile, that's why I have a policy among people who know me from my business, and my friends, and my family. They know my technical skills. They know if they ask about their Windows, their iGarbage, their Google phone, their Facebook account, their Google drive, Adobe problems, I will do nothing for them, absolutely nothing, except tell them, these companies make a lot of money off of suckers like you, ask them for tech support. When you want to learn how to use technology properly, come talk to me.
If Stallman said, "Sorry, I've been using Windows all the time," that's a big problem and that would be a pressing reason to remove him.
https://imgflip.com/i/96tglu
It's not the bank that leaves you on the hook or those that stole your money, or Adobe wanting to claim your work, or Google using your emails to feed you ads or using your content to train AI, or MS taking snapshots of your desktop, or Apple selling phones built by children. Stallman's the bad one here.
Not whataboutism, hypocrisy. You're worried about thought crime. Yet, you have no problem with people, probably yourself included, using the proceeds of real life child abuse. Now, that's disgusting.
Also are you still going on about how if you use a cellphone like virtually everyone does you can't complain about someone saying children can consent? I wish you could understand how foolish you sound
No, stating an abhorrent opinion isn't as bad as actually participating in child labor. What you cell phone users do is actually worse. Stallman talks a lot of nonsense. You guys give money to people using child labor. Far worse.
As you continue to struggle to defend the indefensible you have to increasingly rely on whataboutism and ad hominems. Even if I am worse than RMS that ultimately doesn't matter, that doesn't take away from my points at all. I'm correct whether I'm a hypocrite or not.
And you conduct the indefensible. It's clearly not about vulnerable people or children, or you wouldn't use a cell phone made by child labor. You're in no position to tell anyone what to think on the topic, because of what you do.
At least he doesn't use a cell phone made by child laborers. Anyone can say all kinds of things. Doing the deed is worse. Hypocrisy.
No, I think 97% of Americans and over half the people on earth are hypocrites, and worry more about opinions rather than actual results and, accordingly, are in no position to criticize RMS, or much of anyone, for that matter. You can say what you will, but I completely dismiss when people talk about software freedom while using Windows, talk about privacy while using Google, or talk about protecting children while using a cell phone made by child labor.
All that tells me is that people are more interesting in talking and criticizing, rather than actually doing a damned thing about it. And, that's absolutely correct. People talk privacy, but stick to Google. They complain about Windows, but keep buying. They talk about children, and would absolutely flip their wigs if someone made their own kid work 12 hours days instead of going to school when they're not even old enough to be in high school, but have no problem using a device made by someone in the exact same position. I guess if it's across the world, it doesn't matter.
I believe in software freedom and privacy, and have made choices that are more difficult to make work. I don't deny the utility of a cell phone. However, it is one of the least necessary things in the world. My grandfather didn't have electricity until he was in his 70s, much less a cell phone.
Everyone wants to talk about justice or the topics in this "report." In the end, though, they want to talk, and have someone else do the actual hard work. I have no patience for that and I'll ridicule it every time I see it.
A couple weeks ago, a god daughter of mine was grumbling about how Google is tracking her. I told her, then get rid of your Google phone. She looked at me like I was speaking another language. The world is filled with clueless people that complain, but won't do. If you're worried about the meaningless position of a man you've never met and things he said 50 years ago, all based on a report that is absolutely biased, all the while you refuse to make a meaningful change yourself over a similar issue, that's a problem.
Stallman retracted many of the things he said. Have you cancelled your phone?
There was a time when computer hobbyists could say what they want and exchange ideas. There were no upvotes or downvotes. There was no company overseeing and searching for trigger words. We need to return to that.
Well, one reason to care is because he uses his role in the FOSS community to commit his harassment, and his role in the FOSS community gives him a platform to amplify his voice on the horrible opinions he has. It'd be more fine if he chose to speak his garbage anonymously, but he does not. He and others like him are directly responsible for a lot of people seeing the FOSS community as a disgusting and dangerous community.
I don't know much in terms of stats, and the stats I have seen e.g. from Stack Overflow finding that many find the community unwelcoming, are often so broadly phrased that it's impossible to learn anything useful from it.
Like a lot of newbies to programming, linux, or anything technical, find "this is a bad question", "you've not shared any useful details that would help solve your problem", downvoting, closing questions for being duplicates etc. "toxic". Should their opinion be listened to? Not really.
But then there's the kind of toxic behavior that normalizes ad-hominem attacks like Linus is famous for doing at least in his past, harassment, various forms of discrimination, and so on, which ARE real issues and very widespread but .. who's gathering stats on that? I wouldn't know.
Few of those mentioned there are dangerious or disgusting. Not very friendly or helpful (which isn't great) .. sure. If you'd have have said unfriendly or unhelpful to noobs then I wouldn't even ask for any more info.
Among these sources we have identified at least 567 separate victims of sexual misconduct whose experience was downplayed or dismissed by Stallman.
One of the most important factors that predicts severity of post-trauma symptomatology in any rape victim is the post-trauma response received from the environment. For example, where a victims’ experience of rape is ignored (deliberately or as a result of people simply not knowing), not recognised, minimised, or both; and where victims are blamed, judged as culpable, met with further violence, violation, or both. Lack of empathy and understanding can, therefore, reduce the prospects for a recovery. (Mason, Lodrick 2013)
The guy is old, basically near the end of his life. When you have lived your life what kind of a list could we compile of bad things you have said in 70 years? What i’m pretty sure we could do a character assassination of anyone by picking out of context quotes from a period of decades.
Most of the report seems to be just fluff. 100something comments about definition of children and minor wrt different questions are not problematic in the slightest. The same conversation is constantly being discussed in mainstream media and is very relevant with different laws having different age thresholds for responsibility. Or how child victims of war should be defined when 16 year olds are considered adults by the other side of the war. The authors then connect that with out of context quote about child sexual abuse and claim the quote actually says something else than what it seems. That is not valid reasoning.
Then there are the comments about child pornography laws. Many of those are relevant comments. Some of the proposed laws and systems around the world are problematic in many ways. Not the least because they assume American cultural context. Nudity alone is not considered sexual in a lot of cultures. There are countries where you would have to imprison practically the entire population if just possessing a nude picture of a child would be illegal. And stallman holds that mere possession of anything, morally objectionable or not, should not be crime. That is a valid, if somewhat libertarian, opinion and has nothing to do with protecting abusers.
Then there is discussion about the definition of sexual assault and some other crimes being too broad. I fully agree with and see no problem with that discussion. Too broad definitions cause misunderstandings. That discussion is not defense of any misconduct.
Then there is some quotes where he analyses the meaning of words and unclear allegations in some news articles. I cannot find the alleged defense of sexual misconduct in those either. There is one where he compares two “inappropriate” behaviors, one of sending letter to ask someone out and another rubbing your crotch to another person, and concludes those two are completely different. That is defense of sexual harassment according to this article.
I’m sure Stallman has said a lot of objectionable things and I did not read all of the hundreds of quotes in the article but what I did read does not fit the description the article gives them. Frankly after reading it I feel like most of the article is just lying. Stallman is a bit creepy weird old man with some strange libertarian opinions but that isn’t a reason to invent stuff about him.
That is the 'European version of' liberal or libertarian conclusion - even if you disagree or find his views revolting - that could be considered separate to his Linux/technical involvement? Unless, he's committing a crime or has actually participated in one of his 'beliefs' - then that's just what they are, opinions/beliefs and positions - as troubling or appalling as they are perceived to be.
I dunno what to think about it....it's just very unfortunate.
That's a totally different matter, isn't it? Thinking is one thing, talking about it is second, and doing it is third. Don't mix those. Of course free speech doesn't mean you're free to do whatever you want — that's anarchy
Yep, agreed. They don't like what he 'thinks' - so, they want him removed. Are they free to try to? Yes. But, ppl are free to evaluate whether they agree or not....or just what they think about it. The problem is that they are trying to 'convert' a number of ppl to their view - and get him 'canceled' - so, ppl can examine that and judge it, too, right? Free speech.
You are severely misguided if you think someone has to be convicted of a crime to be held accountable by an NGO. This isn't about left or right politics - it's about the platforming of a man who condones legal pedophilia and necrophilia, and the refusal by people like you to hold him accountable for his words
So, it's only those two topics - what about the others that they condemn on? Just curious. What do you mean by 'ppl like me?'
It does have to do with politics - they have judged him on other opinions, too. I didn't even make a judgement. The overreactions and quick-to-judgement by 'ppl like you' is what others are talking about here.
People who put words like "thinks", "convert", and "cancelled" in quotes because they know they're talking about an important topic, but either aren't mature enough or well-versed enough to know how to engage with it. That's what I meant by "people like you".
Free speech? What about free association? I have the right to hang out with whoever I want. Maybe the heads of the organization feel that way too because they don't want a bad image. Freedom doesn't just belong to you and those who think like you. You're talking about trying to "cancel" (oh gods it makes me cringe using that word) people. But "cancelling" is censoring or deplatforming, something that's happened for centuries against many minorities and such. I don't know why people think it needs to be a new word.
You are severely misguided if you think someone has to be convicted of a crime to be held accountable by an NGO. This isn't about left or right politics - it's about the platforming of a man who condones legal pedophilia and necrophilia, and the refusal by people like you to hold him accountable for his words.
felt this way for a long time now but unfortunately it's not likely to change. every time this discussion comes up an army of Stallman apologists come out of the woodwork to downplay and gloss over the most serious allegations against him and paint the whole thing as some kind of politically correct witch hunt.
An idiotic opinion is a "serious allegation" now? It is a witch hunt. It's not being painted as one, because it is one.
I do not care what his opinions are outside of free software and privacy. Is Stallman your dad? Are you looking at hiring him to be a life coach? Is he running for office where you live? Do you hang out with him on a regular basis? If the answer to all these questions is no, then why do you care about his opinion on anything, especially things well outside his areas of work and expertise?
Because he IS in contact with a lot of people in his role, he has been widely reported to use his role to conduct his abuse, and with him being put on a pedestal that gives his opinions much larger of an audience. Yes, his opinions have an impact on people even if he isn't your dad. This is just sad.
Oh, you must've skipped the section clearly labeled "credible allegations of sexual misconduct regarding Stallman". I wonder why you would do that?
Anyway, seems rather obvious you're not interested in an actual conversation, you're trying to shield a very disgusting person from criticism. I wouldn't know why, but it does seem reasonable to think that maybe you think his opinions are correct and thus need to be defended.
As it is, I see no point in wasting my time further with you.
You already said that you didn't see any of those disgusting abuses as abuse. You can lead a dork to Mountain Dew, but you can't make him not jack off to an anime pillow, or however the saying goes.
So, there's no crime. Where did someone advocate for sexual assault, or them to be normalized?
What is actionable in court is an unsubstantiated hatchet job done in public, even by an "editor" that hasn't the balls to sign his name to a "report."
Part of freedom is that people have objectionable opinions. Stallman has done nothing more than muse a bunch of nonsense. He's not running rallies or organizing to legalize any of these things, and he's especially not loudly advocating.
Claiming something that isn't happening is also fucking disgusting. It's also fucking disgusting when people who have cell phones made in sweat shops by children are upset by the writings of a crank. Stallman writes all kinds of nonsense on his website with which I disagree. In fact, outside of software freedom and privacy, I can hardly find a single thing with which I agree. And I don't care about that. I'm not expecting everyone to be clones of my thought processes.
I read it. That's tenuous at best. Someone wrote a report without signing it, and that has something to do with software freedom?
The subtitle of this thread and this report - fortunately this post has been yanked - should be 1984. Someone has opinions you don't like, and you want them cancelled. It's not going to happen.
What's he doing now? It's the only job he's ever had, before which he was homeless and living in a bus shelter and the MIT AI lab. It seems to me that the biggest reason he's kept on is so he doesn't die in a gutter somewhere.
Considering he founded the organization, I'm not a member of it, and don't contribute to it, my opinion on that matter is irrelevant. How much do you donate to the FSF? Are you a voting member or associate member?
I don't see how those questions relate to the point I made. Let me reiterate: some people can make judgements based on a broader or different concept than personal affliction.
I read it. Those take some serious mental gymnastics to call these "serious allegations." Social awkwardness by computer people, particularly in the days when Stallman was that young, is not a "serious allegation." Cluelessness is not maliciousness.
From the report:
I worked at the FSF from 2015-2018 & was shop steward for a while. I recall having a months-long conversation with [Executive Director] John Sullivan about why racist & sexist ‘hacker humor’ from the 90s needed to be removed from gnu.org. RMS didn’t get why it was harmful.
I come from that generation, too. What a load of tripe. Revisionism, again.
I’m curious about the reason behind the anonymous report (or am I missing the authorship credit ?) . Is it due to fear of retaliation? If the intention is to advocate for change, wouldn’t it be more impactful if it were signed or presented as an open letter?
Just some people who want to slander someone continuously until he loses his job. Likely not his direct colleagues either, just people that want to get others to do what they want, and they're not even exposing their identity this time. The lowest of the low.
A hit piece by an anonymous person. An anonymous person who instructed people on Mastodon to boost his posts. It's purpose is to make character assassination of a homeless old man with cancer over...
Off-color jokes made 50 years ago, an off-context quote he made regarding an MIT professor, anonymous accusations (or on other words, rumors) and controversial opinions he retracted publicly years ago.
Controversial options, I might add, that are far more tame than what esteemed philosophers (like Faoucualt) have said, printed and stood over.
The fact that people fall for such obvious tactics is sad.
It's Drew Devault. Some of his blogs have exactly the same language, his website has used the same name server and the first IP this website was available on is what currently hosts his blog.
There was a draft of the hit piece on [Drew's personal website]: (https://web.archive.org/web/20240929110752/https://rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com/)
News flash: Every person on the planet has opinions that many others would find abhorrent. Stallman isn't my life coach and he doesn't vote for me by proxy. Why would I care what his opinions are outside of software and privacy? I disagree with 99% of what Stallman says outside of software and privacy issues. So what?
No, I really wouldn't care. I might not agree with it completely; after all, he founded the organization. However, I am not a member, associate member, or a donor, so I have no say in the matter.
Because someone has written an unsigned hatchet job, and I guarantee you they want more than him off the FSF. And, when you make this public, instead of dealing with it privately, and publicize it in a sub I frequent, I'm going to comment about it.
I use only free software. I value my privacy. No one has done more in that regard for me than Stallman. I don't give a damn what other nonsense floats around in his head - and I know there's lots of nonsense; I read his site. I don't care. That doesn't matter. I'll never find anyone who agrees with me 100% on everything, so why try?
They've tried to deal with it privately many times over the years. It's also been tried to be dealt with publicly many times over the years. This is a culmination of many complaints over many years, which means that many people have an issue with Richard Stallman's behavior. This isn't about whether you agree with him or not. We should not give power to people that advocate for harm to those without power (e.g. children and animals.)
He defended Epstein only a few years ago. You've run out of arguments. He represents Open Source for a lot of people; he is the face that governments and organizations call on for advice. Do you realize that the FSF is a political organization?
Okay I actually agree that a lot of what Stallman sajd is problematic but Stallman did no such thing as defend Epstein.
In fact, the incident you are referring to a few years ago was where he said Epstein MANIPULATED a 17 year old into getting with Marvin Minsky. It just so happens that some sources liked to cut off the second half.
No, it's not. Stallman is talking about ideas. The people you mentioned held public office and actually did these things. They didn't talk about it from a philosophical standpoint.
This took no time to devolve into breaking Godwin's Law, I see.
And this is why Godwin's Law gets brought up. Stallman isn't Hitler. Stallman hasn't even run for office, let alone run a country. Stallman's entitled to be an asshole. He doesn't need your permission. Now, if you're accusing a public figure of being an abuser on a public forum from behind a keyboard and pseudonym, that's both a little bold and a little naive, all at once.
And, I will defend anyone's right to say what they like, no matter how much I disagree with what they're saying.
What consequences should he endure? He hasn't broken any laws. He hasn't done anything in bad faith for his actual work or betrayed the topic. He's not using Windows on his laptop and secretly carrying a cell phone.
Do you have a cell phone? He has bad opinions about children. People who buy cell phones actually send money to people profiting from child labor. Don't lecture me about this crap when the vast majority of people, especially in this hypocritical thread, are doing the exact same thing. When you guys stop paying for child labor, then talk.
Most people would have had no idea before the invention of the web browser when such things were published on his own home page. Even though it was rarely looked at until people pointed it out.
As it stands now, clearly, he is. I know I have no say in the matter. I'm not sure why I should care about the membership or structure of an organization I don't support financially and of which I am not a member, much less a voting one.
I don't care who's on the board of directors of Microsoft, either. I don't use their products, don't own any shares, and don't work there.
nope, no one is entitled to be in that position. he may have founded the org, but he does not own it and has to right to control it. point me to any law that says otherwise
just because you don't care who's on the BoD doesn't mean that no one else does
Point to me a law that doesn't. I never said others can't care about who's on the board of directors. How much do you donate to the FSF? Are you on the board of directors? Are you an associate member? If not, why does it matter to you?
It's curious that people see Stallman trying to rationally argue his points from libertarian/utilitarian priors and their first gut instinct is that the problem is with him and not the priors.
I really don’t understand what you guys get out of Stallman to be defending him like this, having him as a figurehead for the free software movement is such an embarrassment. If you’re gonna represent a bunch of people you are going to be held to higher standards
I'm not hear to represent anyone, and I don't give a damn about your opinions or anyone else's on the matter. I respect what Stallman has done for free software and privacy. Clearly, people don't understand privacy, much less any of the other issues. But I knew that already.
The embarrassment we have is the polarization that leads people to poke into every aspect of a person's personal philosophy and make that a prerequisite for even the most menial jobs. You don't like Stallman's views? You can't do a damned thing about it. He has that freedom.
I'm not hear to represent anyone, and I don't give a damn about your opinions or anyone else's on the matter.
Thank god. I was talking about RMS representing the FSF not you representing anyone.
The embarrassment we have is the polarization that leads people to poke into every aspect of a person's personal philosophy and make that a prerequisite for even the most menial jobs.
Why are you constantly trying to downplay the situation? I'm not poking into every aspect of Stallman's personal philosophy I'm being disgusted by the fact he said children can consent on his personal blog. And he does not have a menial job he's a figurehead for the FSF.
You can't do a damned thing about it. He has that freedom.
I also have the freedom to push for him to be removed from the FSF and for no one to sponsor his talks. He can say and think whatever he wants I just don't think anyone should ever listen to him.
He's always going to be a figurehead for the FSF. No matter what you do, his name is synonymous with the organization, because he founded it. Do you even know what figurehead means? It means, from the American Heritage Dictionary, "A person given a position of nominal leadership but having no actual authority." Unfortunately, you can't make his picture disappear from history in the Stalinist ways.
He's always going to have that. And, if you don't want to attend his talks, don't. How dare you tell me whether I, or anyone else, should not listen to him. What kind of 1984 nonsense is this?
What brand is your cell phone? You're worried about what a guy wrote in his personal writings, yet we have users here, and I'm wagering you're one of them, using a cell phone made by child labor. That's the height of hypocrisy.
I don't use a phone. And my computer was made in the USA. Sure, cancel Stallman, who looks out for software freedom and privacy, while using products made in Chinese sweatshops, that spy on you to boot. Idiocy and hypocrisy.
These people have zero moral authority to preach to me about anything. Grow up.
He briefly stepped down from the FSF, he wasn't the figurehead then. They should've never allowed him back on the board of directors but they do have the option to kick him out again.
How dare you tell me whether I, or anyone else, should not listen to him. What kind of 1984 nonsense is this?
I don't think you understand 1984...
That's the height of hypocrisy.
No it's not. Having a phone made by child labour is completely unrelated to me thinking that RMS should be kicked out of the FSF because of his disgusting views.
He would still be a figurehead, because he's the founder. He always was, he always would be. Oh, and I do understand 1984.
And it absolutely is the height of hypocrisy. Using something you know was created by children being abused - for that very purpose - is worse than disgusting views. Saying he has disgusting views about children when you use devices made by children working 12+ hour days, under physical abuse, being underfed, and underpaid, is that absolute peak of hypocrisy.
He has abhorrent views. People who use those devices are complicit in child abuse. That's far worse.
Is it called doxxing if I just post a link to archive.org on the domain where the draft of this was published? http://web.archive.org/web/20240929110810/https://rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com/
I still can't comprehend after how all these years literally anyone thought RMS was in any position to be a figurehead or doing public speaking arrangements. Even if you disregard the laundry list of questionable and bizarre things he's said and been accused of doing, he's so detached from reality that outside of "all software should be free" and "privacy good" there's this very apparent air of secondhand embarrassment almost every time he opens his mouth.
Maybe I'm the crazy one but just watching videos of his public speaking and him doing really cringey stuff it's crazy to me how people just went along with it.
You're not. There's definitely a weird personality cult here. I think most people who hold him and his ideas in such high regard have some fantastical illusion about him - they have a larger-than-life image of him that is completely detached from reality.
His ideas are completely unrealistically ideological and also have almost no intersection with the reality of how society and people and business - especially the software business - actually work.
Anyone can come up with ideas all they want. Usually, as in the case of "all software should be free", they're abjectly bad ideas.
If someone wants to make something and give it away, power to them. If someone else wants to sell their thing, power to them too.
There's room for both and everything in between. What we've never been able to figure out at scale is how people who make things can be compensated for their work by giving it away. Sure, there have been a few examples, sort of, but they are really the exception that proves the rule.
I understand the difference between free-as-in-liberty and free-as-in-beer.
I think "all software should be free" is abjectly ridiculous. Whether or not a particular software product (and it is a product) should be free (open) or not is completely up to the discretion of the person or people who produced it.
I'm not pushing my ideology on anyone else, and nobody else should push their ideology on me.
Just like religion, which is exactly what the ~~Cult of Stallman~~FSF is.
"All software should be free" includes software that I write. This makes the claim that the software that I write should be free, robbing me of the autonomy to decide what license or philosophy to apply to my software.
I'll grant to you that I don't know if Stallman wants to make closed source software illegal, if that's the case, fair enough, but as it is you're under no obligation to comply with whatever his opinions are on this. The take that I know he has is that closed source is unethical and no one should do closed source anymore. But that's all it is, an opinion about how the ideal world should be. It's your choice to agree with it or not and AFAIK no one wants you to have this choice taken from you.
That's exactly my argument: "all software should be free" is a bad idea because it removes the agency and autonomy of all software creators in support of ideology.
The argument (posted somewhere else in this thread and which I believe accurately reflects Stallman's view) is that software is an expression of information, and information should be free.
I disagree with both of those baseline assumptions.
Software is a product that exists to manipulate information. It is the implementation of algorithms and data manipulation logic. It is not itself raw information.
Additionally, the premise that all information is automatically free is absurd on its face. I possess a lot of information that should in no way be free, and I will go to great lengths, perhaps at risk of my life or safety, to keep private.
I agree with you that you should never be forced to give away your work for free. If that's your whole point, then there's nothing to discuss. But I perceive something more in your answer though. The issue is in a world where everyone benefits from free software is it seems wrong to take that value that was given to you for free and make something that only you can benefit from. It's self defeating. It's like you're being a parasite on an otherwise healthy system.
Software is simply one of many forms that information can be. The idea that this should be free is a fundamental requirement for scientific research and progress.
If you don't see this as a problem, I think you underestimate the progress humanity has made in the thousands years of existence because they actually shared knowledge with eachother.
The only reason to advocate for gatekeeping is for your own individual benefits over all others.
So demanding that software should be free is simply stating that people shouldn't be egoistic. If that's ideology or religion to you, cheers.
I still can't comprehend after how all these years literally anyone thought RMS was in any position to be a figurehead or doing public speaking arrangements.
Because he has been warning about EXACTLY THE PROBLEMS WE ARE FACING AS A SOCIETY, loudly, for over 40 years now. Yes, he's weird. But over and over again he's been proven right about closed source companies abusing their customers. Look at Windows 11, and how Microsoft is doing everything they can to violate the privacy of their users. Look at Google that has made that their entire business model. How much of the shitty parts of Windows 11 or Gmail would survive if they were FOSS? None. People would rip them out and make a better product that respected their users' freedom.
Unlike I think every other person in this thread, I've actually had Stallman stay at my house, and have hung out with the dude. He's weird, and also he's weird, but he can also be charming when he's engaging with you on non-technical topics (like he examined all of the art in my house and asked questions about them, and then went through my library)... and then he'll ignore you at dinner as he pops open his laptop and answers emails for 20 minutes, then close it and continue the conversation.
There is not a single other famous person that is advocating for software to respect the freedoms of its users. None. Linus is probably the closest, but he's bottled up in his own little world. He doesn't go on TV to advocate for us.
Given that this is a biased hit piece, I can only speculate who would do their damndest to try to misframe everything he's said in the worst light possible, so I'm not going to. But it's not honest, and people who are upvoting this crap should feel ashamed for casting shade at the only person who is famous enough to get TV interviews to talk about the harm that proprietary software does to us.
Somehow to the general public someone eating dead skin of their foot is more creepy than a company constantly taking screenshots along with tonnes of other data and sending it to their servers.
Please explain why he's being attacked "for freedom" and not for being an utter pig.
I've never heard anyone "attack RMS for freedom" beyond the late 90s when firms called anything FOSS "communism" but that still wasn't RMS as much s terror over topline revenues.
You either ignored the entire OP because of disingenuousness, or because you are a clown shoe with semi-tumescence for Free Software Jeebus. Have a day, bubba. You aren't a serious person.
When he showed up at my house he couldn't find a chocolate bar he'd gotten for me as a thank you for letting him stay over and he melted down over it. Then he found it, and... it was just a normal grocery store chocolate bar.
Yeah, it's really weird but people always pick up on personal habits more than actually important points. A classic example is JD Vance, he's got so much dirt on him and crazy shit he's said, but the one thing that really got traction was fucking a couch, which wasn't even true.
The former is a near objective form of direct individual repugnance that if observed, is hard to misinterpret. The latter is an abstraction often not perceived, and more difficult to induce repulsion.
Building a better GMail is a hosting problem more so than a software problem. Arguably RMS and the FSF at large failed to properly addressed the hosting problem, which is behind a whole lot of the ills of the modern Internet. Some attempts like FreedomBox exist, but they are doomed to fail right from the start on the modern Internet, since everybody is behind NAT.
If free software is so bad how that every big tech company is profiting from it? Gmail is trash compared to other solutions I guess you have no idea what you are talking about.
Went along with what? That really is all that's worthy of listening to - all software should be free and privacy is good. The rest is well outside his area of expertise, and who cares?
He's free to have whatever insane opinions he wants but he shouldn't be viewed as this deified figurehead if his opinions on FOSS consistently get overshadowed by how disturbing and unsettling he comes across.
Who's deifying him? I like his stances on free software and privacy. I disagree with him on just about every other thing he's ever talked about or written about.
Optics and perception are only everything to those who lack focus and don't understand the core message in the first place. Such people are as generally clueless about the core message as Stallman is about social mores.
The optics is this: The average person criticizing Stallman's opinions is carrying around a phone that was made by children in a sweatshop in China. I dismiss that type of hypocrisy out of hand.
There's a billion other people think the same things, why have represent foss, when all his other bs gives foss people who already have a bad rep, an even worse rep.
I don't care. I don't agree with any of his BS outside of free software and privacy. It's a good thing his job entails privacy and free software, because I don't care to take advice from him about those other things. That works pretty good, doesn't it?
He wasn't detached from reality, he was creating it. The dude wrote an unbelievably ridiculous amount of code, a lot of it you probably depend on without realizing.
I think it goes to show just far being incredibly prolific can take you. He coded and coded and coded, hundreds of thousands of lines of code, taking on entire companies single handedly.
For a long time there weren't many other people taking a public stand in this direction.
Even now, a lot of people take a "yeah it's better than it was, this is good enough" and not thinking about the implications.
Stallman's got a lot of problems, when it comes to the positions of (as you said) "all software should be free" and "privacy good", there are very few others actively pushing for that as strongly as he does. "Likely thousands" is hypothetical. Unless they're actually out there being proactive and pushing for things, then they're just numbers on a page.
Sadly for RMS, his message is diluted by all his other actions.
(my take has always and continues to be - I agree with the direction he wants the industry to move in, but I'm not convinced at the distance and absoluteness. But till some I reach my own "this is good enough" threshold, I think his message (on those narrow things) is still important.
I’m unsure, but perhaps you need to be extreme when spearheading a movement. In the sense that if you can influence people only halfway to your vision, you still have advanced things considerably.
I can't say I have a conscious sense of what I want the IT industry to look like exactly - I'm not driven that way, I just have a vague sense - and whatever that nebulous thing is, it's probably not something anyone would be driven and passionate about - because driven and passionate people tend to be aiming at the extremes.
I know I want the industry to be more open with the software, and more private with the personal information, than is currently the norm, so on that topic, I'll stand with others who are saying the same thing, fully conscious in the knowledge that halfway-there (or something) is when I'll hop off the train, even though the passionate leaders will never leave the train - meaning paradoxically, that they end up looking increasingly crazy and out of touch, even as the industry moves in the direction they want.
Anyway, I certainly dont push as strongly for stuff as I used to, and likely because of multiple reasons - f'instance the openness of software has improved (yay), I'm older and have other concerns vying for my attention (eugh, aging sucks), and so on. RMS' personality and personal views on things also make it difficult to stand with him because you end up getting the association of all the other things about him.
I'd like someone with RMSs passion about software and privacy, but without all his problematic sides, to step up and make a name for themselves and take over the mantle of pushing for that change. Till that time (and to stretch the analogy to it's breaking point), I'm not even really on the train any longer at all - but I'm walking on the tracks next to it in the same direction.
I was once in the security line at an airport in Belgium, when he cut the entire line acting like he was in a rush. We eventually get through to find him sitting at his gate with his Lenovo open, and a terminal prompt up.
It was cool to encounter him in the wild, but he’s doesn’t seem like the reliably rational type
Any time people like him seem to have a large public presence, I have always assumed it was because a group of people found them to be a useful lightning rod for all the good and bad they attract.
You aren't crazy. From the first time I met him in the late 90s (at the Atlanta Linux Showcase) I've found him an occasionally brilliant, but always insufferable boor, and cartoonishly creepy.
Your cell phone for starters. Probably your computer too. Don't tell Stallman what he should think when you use products that were created by children being forced to work for pennies a day.
It’s certainly weird they were able to collect so much material about his thoughts on sexuality.
Like, pick any other person and try to summarize their position on sex with minors and animals. Most folks know to not overshare, especially if their ideas are not mainstream.
People back in the day wrote all kinds of things. That was part of hacker culture, and it wasn't the 1990s, like the moron(s) who wrote the report suggested. Nothing like people who can't turn a computer on and weren't even alive at the time telling people how to behave.
Not to mention how "offended" everyone is about how awkward he was trying to get a date 50 years ago. Everyone who's ever offended a woman in dating should be sent to the moon. There won't be any men left here.
He wrote extensively about jaywalking laws in Tanzania too. I dare you to find anyone else who's written so much on the topic, especially one who's never been to Tanzania.
Which hunting. Because that did so well for Mozilla right?
People are entitled to their opinions. Should that be a reason to step down when their work is solid and the results are spot on?
As a woman this doesn't bother me at all. Meritocracy is a must, and I've seen good coworkers being fired by HR because some offended people said person x or y said this or that, without any proof while the people who got cut lose were solid workers, good devs, whilst those who "reported" are the most mediocre people I've met, work wise and personality wise.
I'd rather have a team of good workers than a team of political correct people. I don't go to my job to socialize, I go there to do my job and get payed, not to make friends.
I know I'll get downvoted for it but the pedant in me compels me to write it anyway:
Pedophilia is a mental condition / disorder and thus not illegal in itself.
What you hopefully mean to be illegal is child sexual abuse (in all its many forms) which in fact many pedophiles never do once in their entire life and also which is committed many many times by people who are not even pedophiles.
I hope you don't want to criminalize people with mental disorders just for having a mental disorder.
I'm not going to downvote you. You're not wrong, but it's not really an important distinction, is it? It's not possible to criminalize a thought disorder, so talking about legalizing it makes no sense either. Stallman advocated both legalizing child sexual abuse and destigmatizing pedophilia. Neither are things we want.
Stallman advocated both legalizing child sexual abuse ...
Except not really. At first he questioned if it was actually child sexual abuse if a child would consent assuming a child could actually give consent. He then admitted that assumption was wrong and changed his opinion. All that is left is him splitting hairs over terms like what is a child or an adolescent which I think is a meaningful differentiation to make. I have not seen a single statement of his that says abuse should be legal.
... and destigmatizing pedophilia.
I don't see what's wrong with destigmatizing a mental disorder. Stigmatizing leads to less treatment. Less treatment leads to more child sexual abuse.
He's said a lot of things about sex with minors, animals, corpses, etc and retracted very little of it.
Yes he talks about a lot of topics that are not his primary field of expertise. But we were talking about child sexual abuse and pedophilia. Why do you think sex with animals and necrophilia and his opinion about it are directly related to that?
The report is about all of those things. We are talking about all of those things. You can focus on children if you want, but then you'll be ignoring the rest of his problematic comments.
Why, are you a police officer?
If someone committed a crime, it's the duty of authority do act accordingly, not mine. I'm a team leader of a team of devs. I care for the work they provide and in the time I give to do so, I don't give a damn about what they do with their free time nor am I payed enough to care. I manage careers and goals.
We have a decades old saying:
Trabalho é trabalho, conhaque é conhaque.
I feel you. Unfortunately this is the wrong answer here, where the social justice of the bigotry department works. They love horizontal fights between the poorest so much.
I agree with you. In fact here there's the tendency to childishly downvote who doesn't have an aligned opinion. Reddit is good for information but absolutely the worst "social place" that shape toxicity in many weak minds.
In what precise context Stallman clearly states that he support pedophilia? I'm not taking nobody's defense here. You are communicating something wrong here. It's called inference in absence of evidence.
His push to differentiate a different set of rules for minors and teenagers which only came after he walked back remarks that people under should be consenting.
The report makes clear with lots of evidence of his default dispositions. If you cannot see this without assistance beyond the provided document, there isn't anything more a commenter can do for you. The evidence is compiled here with plenty of smoking guns.
I wouldn't leave the room with him and minors present or even young women after reading his publicly posted political comments. Dudes a creep that wishes he could be worse without getting put in jail. There's something wrong with him.
European laws already make the distinction. In most EU states it is legal for adults to have consensual sex with teenagers. But children can't express consent. Are you accusing our laws of promoting pedophilia?
Okay, your point is understandable and clear. I'm thinking why all this matter isn't afforded in the right context? Like a trial for example? If this guy is officially accused with evidence, the people that advanced the accuse must go public, right? Or am I missing something?
That depends on your bar for decision making about others and is down to the individual to make their own opinions. I hope he sees this compilation and I hope seeing support for a compilation like this helps him to see how these ideas cause more trouble than they are likely worth. How they do not track with the support for his other ideas and that perhaps it's worth exploring that within himself and maybe with other professionals.
For his alleged victims, there is often not enough evidence for these types of situations. Which is prerequisite for resource input decisions. So if there is nowhere to go from there then the next best thing is court or public opinion.
I'm waiting excuses from you. You cannot attack who you don't know just for the sake of binary way of thinking (black or white with no shades of gray). You are saying that I'm a pedo and that is false. C'mon, be a decent human being at least.
I don’t go to my job to socialize, I go there to do my job and get payed, not to make friends.
This here is why you’re getting downvoted, pretty sure.
These days there’s whole swathes of society that go to work not to actually work, but because the workplace and colleagues provide them with the illusion that they are other than dysfunctional and mentally ill.
In some ways I agree but people also have the right to free association and I believe in business rights. If someone's hurting the optics of the business, that business should have every right to disassociate the person. You can cry "meritocracy" all you want but merit also encompasses the ability to make the company more successfull.
People need to separate things, Stallman has some good points regarding software and freedom, maybe a bit extreme, but it is something worth to listen to. It does not mean that anyone should follow his sexual opinions or whatever he believes in that regard, the two things do not relate as far as I am aware. Sure his position as a political figure at an instition is very questionable if he doesn't adhere to its values, but it is a pragmatic PR issue.
It is the same as Elon Musk talking bs on X, guy's team caught a booster and landed a bunch before it, things nobody did before. It is a good thing he allocated assets towards that, arguably it wouldn't happen otherwise in the same timeframe, and anyone who read Sagan understand the importance of advancing space exploration. That does not mean that anyone should take Musk's advice on politics, or that anything else he does is any good because of it, but some places (on Reddit e.g.) simply hates on everything with no distinction because they disagree at some point.
We should care in policitizing things. If it were true that Einstein hit his wife, it should count nothing towards the merit of relativity theory - neither relativity theory should mean his marriage was any good, or anything related to women's rights - but I don't known whether it would be seen as such if it were published today. And this example brings us a very known example of a person that disregarded what people thought because of their culture or opinions: Hitler; he fought what he called jewish science, the scientists went to the opposing country, he lost a war and probably is not a good example of who we want to inspire ourselves on. Freedom of speech means you often will hear things you don't like, but it is still the better option. It just requires some critical thinking and recognizing bs, which some people are just not good at it.
Nobody has called for Richard Stallman's beliefs on free software to be rejected because he's abusive.
Many, myself included, have called for him to be removed from positions of power over others. Positions of power he has directly used, and will continue to use, to sexually assault and harass women.
You keep saying that Richard Stallman is actively harassing and sexually assaulting women, without providing the evidence. Who are these women and how has he directly used his position of power to commit these crimes and get away with it?
Not quite sure how the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines are transphobic but perhaps I am not parsing them correctly. Could someone link me a document?
I have challenged Stallman on this before. He uses people's preferred pronouns when told what they are, but also thinks genderless pronouns are a good default. Some trans people who know Stallman personally have confirmed this.
Frankly, the authors of this document have chosen to cynically use Stallman's language pedantry to mispresent his views in many respects. The transphobia claims are just another example of that they couldn't resist slipping in.
My experience with languages has made me a bit of an anti-realist for anything beyond an idiolect. If Stallman uses people's preferred pronouns when addressing them and he has been informed and otherwise attempts to use his weird gender neutral pronouns I see no harm in it.
"It is rare, and considered perverse, for adults to be physically attracted to children. However, it is normal for adults to be physically attracted to adolescents."
"Please do not use the word “children” or “child” to refer to anyone under age 18. A 17-year-old is not a child. A 13-year-old is a teenager."
Adults having sex with late teens is legal in Europe tho. It's not even a controversial topic. So in that instance Stallmann is almost fully within European law and mores.
13 may be too young anywhere in Europe but in some countries, eg Italy, AOC starts at 14, with further limitations applied only in cases where the adult is in charge of the teen.
Stallmann s statements are gross only by US standards where there is an absolute obsession with pedophilia.
I do not know if this is due to ignorance or malice, but your interpretation of those laws is completely out of historical and legal context.
I have absolutely no idea what you are alluding to here. The age of consent is 14 in Germany, age of the partner is not restricted. Some exception for position in power do apply (teacher, etc.), but that's about it. That's the law, that's about actual sex.
Ignoring those differences makes you sound like a idiot. Do you think there is some magical thing that happens when a 17 old turns 18? Puberty is the significant part in sexual development, everything after that is a pretty arbitrary drawn line (which for example Germany draws at 14).
the specific phrase "its ephebophilia not pedophilia" is tongue in cheek, it's what predators say to excuse their behavior, the above user isn't actually arguing this.
Is it really to excuse the behavior and not just a very typical bad faith defense people from all walks of life do when they are arguing from a bad faith position?
Since I've stumbled upon this plenty of times in politics, where suddenly we have to be so verbose, pedantic and hyper-specific that it feels like we're in a court of law?
Since that's always been my take-away whenever people do that form of correction, to try and throw a red herring.
Point is, who's the authority to question and classify that in the consumerism era? I think Stallman is particularly questioning/criticizing that aspect. What does he really want? A PEGI reform? What? :/
I think 'Distinction between "children" and other minors' is a weird category to include here. It's maybe pedantic, but doesn't seem wrong to me. I'm against sexual conduct between adults and any minors, so I don't agree with his use of that distinction in a lot of these statements, but using clear terminology is a reasonable idea.
Which is also very dependent on the context. An 18-year old having sex with a 17-year old is absolutely fine morally, but a 45-year old having sex with a 17-year old is absolutely not fine morally.
We gathered these citations specifically to provide supporting evidence for our interpretation of his 2019 retraction to only apply to minors under the age of 12 or 13, not to state that the distinction is necessarily wrong in and of itself.
Before the 90s boom, tech was a very uncool and not particularly lucrative field to be in. By and large, the whole generation of boomer free software pioneers were a bunch of poorly socialized hippies, anarchists, libertarians and general weirdos. I'm not excusing RMS here but I have to question why a sick old man is being singled out and not people who are actually in positions of power and influence in the tech industry today. Elon Musk and Peter Theil aren't any better, just richer.
Its so reoccurring here on Reddit that I think a campaign against RMS might be funded by someone. I cant come up with a good motive though, a license cant be annulled like you suggest. Maybe its one of many vectors in the authoritarian regimes Internet wartime trolling/propaganda effort to destabilize "the west". The end goal might not be tangible. All I know is Free Software is important, and we should strive for it without compromise.
If FLOSS is important to you, maybe the founder of FSF should be scrutinized?
So it doesn't become known as the group of dead skin munching pedos? So that software with privacy doesn't gain the label of software for people with something to hide?
Yes, but on the grounds of what's relevant to FLOSS. GFDL for example wasn't good and Creative Commons handled that much better and more broadly. The non-response to both cloud computing and mobile is another huge issue with the FSF. Just saying "don't use that" obviously isn't enough. We need to develop viable alternatives, and that isn't happening on the FSF side, not even on the philosophical aspect of it (e.g. how to deal with privacy on a computer you don't own). It's kind of shocking that the GDPR got this there first with actual law, while the FSF had nothing on offer.
This bullshit however is nothing more than a mean spirited harassment campaign or just a targeted attempt to discredit Free Software. Either way, it's deeply concerning how many people just fall for it.
RMS is not considered a pedophile either legally or psychiatrically. You're just being emotional.
I don't agree with him on that (just like I don't agree with him in most political topics) but that's normal. Everyone is entitled to having shitty, uninformed opinions and express them.
You know what would reflect badly on the free software movement? Firing the founder of the movement from the only job he's ever held in his life and leaving him to die in a gutter. He was homeless when he started working on free software.
If he still doesn't have wealth to retire with a roof stop his head I'm shocked.
Which is besides the point, the American system being trash shouldn't prevent firing people like him. I don't understand how degenerates come out en masse when he is criticised but that's unhinged behavior and so is defending it.
I wonder how much money would be required and if there are services readily available to have a Reddit post thread worked at by a couple of Internet trolls.
If you want them to come across as speaking English as a first language and be somewhat coherent, about $70k per year per troll. A rounding error on Microsoft's coffee budget.
GNU contributors are required to sign a CLA, giving the project the ability to relicense their code. There's a whole lot of people who would prefer someone easier to work with in charge of that.
oh god, again? please leave the old man free now. please don't bully him anymore.
I agree some of the arguments but I mostly don't agree with those critics and I believe that Stallman is currently getting more critics than he should have gotten.
Stallman has also incited numerous controversies for advancing a political agenda which normalizes sexual misconduct and advocates for reforming our social and legal understanding of sexual conduct in a manner which benefits the perpetrators of abuse.
What the hell is this sentence? The amount of roundabout language and preconditioning is insane. If you are trying to say what it seems like it wants to say... just say it? I have absolutely no idea how writing like this is supposed to contribute constructively to the conversation, and I can only interpet it as being in bad faith. Which immediatly makes it difficult to take the rest of the document in good faith.
It doesn't. RMS doesn't have a "political agenda" regarding age of consent laws nor is he advancing it; he's a man with a blog and he posts his opinions there.
I met the man in 1999 in Italy, at a conference where he was speaking, at which he refused the organizer's offer of a hotel room.
He rather insisted on spending the night in a sleeping bag in the conference hall, presumably causing great inconvenience to the organizers, because it's a lot easier to give you $200 or (400,000 liras, at the time) for a good hotel room, rather than arrange for personnel to watch the premises overnight so that if you decide at 3am that you want to leave there's at least someone to let you out, and you are not triggering any alarms.
But anyway.
The man of course showed up to his talk unwashed, and in wrinkled, probably smelly clothes. If he changed clothes, I don't know where, if not in the auditorium's public restrooms.
He insisted on selling printed literature, that it made no sense to buy for customers except to get autographed copies, and it made no sense for him to carry on a plane from California to Italy. The rational thing to do for any supporter is to give a $20 donation to your foundation and then print your emacs book at my local university, rather than paying you $20 for a 300-dpi spiral-bound copy of the emacs book that you carried on a flight from California probably inside your sleeping bag. But at the time the man was very focused on pushing the first waves (at least in Europe) of his "free as in freedom, not as in beer" message, and in that light, carrying hardcopies of open-source postscript files intercontinentally and selling them in person maybe made sense, to exemplify the message. Ok.
But anyway.
In the 15 minutes before the talk, he was sitting, basically by himself, in the entrance hall of the auditorium, working on a fashionably outdated laptop. In retrospect, he was intent in being seen doing that. I remember approaching him, and he made it clear that he was busy writing code and uninterested in talking to his fans. At the time I was very young, and all these quirks added to the allure of the character. Today I'd say that someone who, in the minutes preceding giving a talk, is busy writing code and displays zero interest in networking with international fans and audience, has less-than-impressive planning skills.
But anyway.
Nobody questions that the man is bright and, already at the time, had a big role in creating the many of the very concepts of the free software paradigm, but his rejection of the most basic conventions of society makes him a person that you can't use in any organization that deals with people, for profit or not, commercially or not, in a corporate environment or not.
This feels like a post accusing someone that is weird of doing things he never did. The guy is extremely weird, and that is not a crime. I had met people who is really weird in my life, everyone alienates them because their brain does not work like the rest of the people, they don't get that you can't say everything you think or people will hate you, and most of them are really nice people once you meet them. The "report" focuses so much on his distinction about child and adolescent that I It just feels like is written to make him look bad. At the same time I have read a lot of shit about him that had been taken out of context that is just sad, the only thing that I find really bad was the comment about consensual sex between an adult and a child, but he even retracted after about that comment and it felt like he said that without thinking too much about it and more as a "philosophical" (yet dumb and very bad comment) way, nonetheless he needed to be held accountable for the comment and he was and retracted. He had changed and retracted for a lot of things actually. I saw a card from the guy that some people found offensive which he changed to be less "offensive" and he did not need to do that since the card was an obvious joke.
I feel like Stallman does not understand that he does not need to give an opinion on everything but I guess he likes to talk and write and comment on shit that he should not, sometimes.
The worse part is people accusing him of things because he ate skin from his foot, That is gross but not a crime, that is weird but does not hurt anyone, that is really uncomfortable to watch but does not means that the guy is a bad person. He is just gross and you know what? A lot of people is REALLY gross in private, you just don't notice...
Most of the accusations are really stupid and just try too hard to make him look bad, the inclusion of the Betsy S. story is proof of that, how was that sexual misconduct?? The guy was unpopular with women at the time, he was heart broken and mentioned that he wanted to die when she rejected him, how is that "credible" proof of sexual misconduct? As I mentioned before he made a stupid comment about children which was stupid and wrong, but did he raped someone or have someone found illegal material in his possession? Because most "accusations" seem like shit taken out of context from a really weird and ugly guy that like to say everything that passes in his mind and likes to hear his own voice too much.
Should he be removed from being the head of an org? Yes because of his mouth. But this "report" just tries too hard to make him look like a sick criminal.
This is once agian just trying to bait people in to getting angry about someone who expresses non-mainstream sexual opinions in the post-2012 puritan culture. That's why it takes up half of the page and is placed first in the article.
Publishing what is effectively an anonymous twitlonger on its own website is incredibly self-important and simultaneously cowardly.
Yea, he reminds me of a number of scientists I've met over the years. They are experts in one subject, but for some reason think they are also experts in subjects they have little experience or information on.
But I don't believe that extends to artistic endeavors.
It does, actually. He thinks that all art should be free, with artists paid for out of a big pot of common money based proportionally on the log of their downloads.
I have the feeling that this is a conservative report made by people who felt menaced by Stallman because he's clearly criticizing the media in the way they mislead the concept (and subsequent classification) of children, teenager and adults in their own communication forms to the public opinion. Any Stallman quote in it (assuming is correctly reported) must be understood in the context. Because it's very easy to de-context it and misunderstood.
This is the classic situation where you can choose if be divided between the red pill and the blue pill inside a spectrum control OR you are really able to don't get victim of dualism, going further for a possible improvement in the society. Also, if Stallman support pedophilia just because he talks about it in a specific context, who are the accusers names? Eventually, they must respond to him in a trial, if things degenerate in a trial, of course.
After reading the document linked and comparing it to Stallman's own opinions expressed on his personal website, I can't tell which one looks worse.
On one hand, Stallman sure considers himself an expert in everything, from Australian coal mining to the domestic politics of Tunisia. (Meaning, he talks too much about the things he barely knows.) On the other hand, this 'report' does not seem to be written in good faith. FOSS has evolved into a huge business; this situation resembles the typical corporate infighting over the money.
I found the bit about "union organizing" to be particularly glaring. I've not read Stallman's brain droppings and I don't care to but I agree that the linked piece here at least is "typical" and reads like corporate fanfiction.
There was a lengthy part of the link that described how Stallman made unionization of the FSF workforce a priority. The section was so detailed that I got the sense it was a driving factor behind the publication of the report, or at the very least, the author(s) had an specific grievance.
RMS did not believe in providing raises — prior cost of living adjustments were a battle and not annual. RMS believed that if a precedent was created for increasing wages, the logical conclusion would be that employees would be paid infinity dollars and the FSF would go bankrupt.
RMS did not believe in providing bereavement leave. What if all your close friends and family die one after another? It’s conceivable you would be gone from the office for days, or weeks, if not months. What if you lie about who is dying?
That snippet shed some light on who Stallman was as a person and would almost be comical if the rest of the report didn't deal with such serious matters.
"A Raise? If I say yes, you'll eventually ask for more and ultimately, infinity dollars!" -- Paraphrase of the sort of thinker Stallman is. It's funny to me.
"A family member could pass away once a week for four hundred weeks! We'd never see you again!"
Silliness aside; I feel the author is more a disgruntled employee and less a altruistic, concerned citizen.
Like, I can understand his relevance as a developer and FOSS activist, but he has long overstepped the line with those remarks. It was out of place, it isn't normal, and it doesn't benefit FSF from having associations with someone who declared that and didn't even apologize. As much as it saddens me, it's time for him to pass the torch.
I don't know that person and what all this is about, but that's stupid.
So if Einstein or Darwin ate something of their foot, you wouldn't listen to their theories anymore? Now that is stupid.
I’d say that unless you lack arms, eating something off your foot — especially in public, in front of an audience — is some evidence that you might not be worth listening to. It is not proof.
So do you support the things he said about children?
Specifically, here is him talking about a 13 year old girl while she is next to him;
“I saw her experiment once. She actually typed Ctrl+V to scroll the screen. But I think that– at that point that’s like having kissed, so she’s still a virgin for now. [Stallman approaches the girl and places a hand on her shoulder.] But I hope to do something about that. And, by the way, that reminds me that one of the other advantages of the Church of EMACS is that being a saint in this church does not require celibacy.”
You’re cool with this? This is something you support?
We urge Stallman to reconsider his controversial political positions
From the context, it's pretty obvious that they mean the political positions about sex, children, and animals.
Still, that wording bothers me. "All software should be free as in freedom software" is a controversial political position. It's the thing he's famous for, in a good way. And it is a thing that we fight over, and that many people do want him to reconsider.
This is much less serious than the other stuff, but the man also ate something off of his foot in front of a live audience. He’s done a lot of good, but he also needs serious help.
People calling this a witch-hunt are not only pedophile apologists but also do not know the definition of witch-hunt and are probably libertarian morons.
I'm not his family, nor am I his friend, and I could not care less about his personal life or opinions outside of what concerns Free Software. Leave me out of political witch hunts.
Oh hah, rare case where I was pre-emptively thinking "oh man I bet this report is not what it really deserves to be based on the name" and was positively surprised. Thanks, I was under the impression that guy was thrown out eons ago because of .. well all of the things that had already been widely publicized long ago.
Same! I thought it was going to be that "report" that came out a few months ago from Stallman's friend, defending him across the board. Big sigh of relief!
Your organization more and more resembles either the All-Union Leninist Communist Youth Union (“VLKSM”) or the Chinese Hongweibin with their trials of “enemies of the people,” etc. I'm sick of it.
Your account does not have high enough karma to make a top level post. Please feel free to comment around r/linux to get a feel of the community. Please note there are other rules, such as verified email and account age, which may not allow you to comment as well.
Please note that if you're here to post about a support question the proper subreddit is either /r/linuxquestions or /r/linux4noobs.
gihutgishuiruv@reddit
I know many people on here look up to RMS, and he has certainly achieved a lot of good in this world in the pursuit of establishing the free software movement.
I also know that it’s very hard to hear that people you look up to have done bad things, and it’s an uncomfortable pill to swallow sometimes.
Nevertheless, I implore people to carefully read this document before dismissing it. There are deeply concerning patterns of behaviour documented here, and the vast majority of it has been left unaddressed by RMS and ignored or minimised by the broader FOSS community.
yo_99@reddit
Maybe, but who will replace him? Will we end up like BSD people, using macbooks at presentations? Sadly, we will have to replace him eventually, since he is not immortal, so we have to grapple with that question.
abcmecba@reddit
The problem, imho, is that the overall Linux community has latched onto politics as a central theme for most - even moreover than their technical application to Linux, to programming and anything related to tech. This is undebatable and is obvious to any rational person who investigates and examines it. While, it's completely reasonable to be alarmed when reading many of the posts RMS has made in recent years, it's difficult to overlook the political overtones and bias that the general/overall Linux community has taken - especially, since it's hard-line left - even far left - in many cases.
RMS a lot of 'Libertarian' viewpoints - views that share some conservative-based or perceived conservative perspectives - although, one can argue RMS has twisted many of them in spots - which is quite eye-opening and peculiar.
I'm not defending him in anyway lest someone misunderstands but I am very wary and quite concerned about the political focus by many in the Linux world - especially, when you see how they 'cancel' anyone who doesn't strictly adhere or completely concur/match their viewpoints and attitudes/mentalities.
ilovetacos@reddit
Oh look, a "both-sides" argument! Stallman advocates for pedophilia and necrophilia to be legal; what's the "hard-line left" doing that's similar, in your eyes?
jr735@reddit
Stallman is hard line left. I don't think you've read anything he's written.
ilovetacos@reddit
I was responding to the previous commenter's bizarre idea that the Linux world has a "hard-line left" (whatever that is) overtone. (As if somehow open source can be reconciled with conservative ideology.)
jr735@reddit
Fair enough. If you look here, though, there are a ridiculous amount of people calling Stallman a Libertarian, which is pretty laughable. All it shows is that they haven't read anything the man actually wrote, and, as per usual, are offended on a third hand basis.
ilovetacos@reddit
His views on what he calls sexual freedom are definitely libertarian. No one on the left advocates for legalizing child abuse, whereas on the right it is done on the regular. Maybe he's more liberal on economic issues, I don't know and honestly don't give a shit.
jr735@reddit
Ever heard of right anarchism versus left anarchism? I guess not. I know you don't give a shit. You see what he wrote on one topic and that must make him a libertarian. He's closer to a Marxist than he is a Libertarian, but you'd actually have to have to read what he says. It's easier to not "give a shit" and make shit up, kind of like the fabrication that is this report.
Note it's been wiped clean from Reddit for a reason.
MouseJiggler@reddit
What has he actually, you know, done?
Has he assaulted anyone? Has he committed a crime?
These hungweibing-style public shamings are ridiculous.
is_this_temporary@reddit
Has he assaulted anyone? Yes
Has he committed a crime? Also yes
jr735@reddit
No answer? Are you alleging a public figure broke laws, without any evidence? Hide behind a pseudonym, and the "report" author won't sign it. Hope you guys get sued into oblivion.
is_this_temporary@reddit
I live in the U.S. , where defamation cases are very hard to win.
Beyond the already difficult task of winning any libel suit in the U.S., as RMS is a public figure, he would need to meet the much higher evidentiary bar of proving "actual malice" on my part.
Also, all of my statements have been, in legal terms, opinions based on disclosed facts (the ones in the page this entire post is about). That's a prima facie defense against libel.
But most glaringly, RMS is a strong advocate of Freedom of speech, and would abhor the idea of using the U.S. governments' power to try to quell speech that he doesn't like.
Please take some time to sit and think about why this has you "warning" me about the legal wrath of a person that you are trying to promote, and who I know would morally object to a libel or defamation case; Which is very much to his credit!
I don't plan to respond any further. You've presumably read the entire page and don't find it convincing, and there's not much more I expect that I could say as it's all laid out very clearly and methodically already.
I sincerely wish the best for you. Have a nice day.
jr735@reddit
It's also interesting how you appreciate no consequences for you for potentially violating civil law, yet have no problem vilifying (and alleging a crime by) someone who simply has an opinion you find abhorrent. That's good to know.
jr735@reddit
That may be, but one of those cases that is winnable is accusing someone of a crime in public without being able to back that up. Is it worth the risk?
The report is a nonsense, an unsigned, cowardly piece of trash. Someone is jealous and wants his position. It's just greed. That's why he won't identify himself.
MouseJiggler@reddit
When?
ilovetacos@reddit
He advocates for pedophilia and necrophilia to be legal.
runesbroken@reddit
The libertarians in here are going crazy. It's actually sickening and I hope people looking in don't see this as a reflection of the Linux community as a whole.
ilovetacos@reddit
Yeesh, the number of shitty replies I'm getting now... It's like, do any of you realize how awful you're being? Is it fun for you?
IkuruL@reddit
Left: we shouldn't have inequity in our society
Richard Stallman: we should be able to fuck children
Left: that's wrong! here's why
Some weirdo in reddit: wow, so much for the tolerant left
emurange205@reddit
got em
xezo360hye@reddit
Ok by why exactly should I care about his opinion on sexual topics. Or anything but FOSS actually. Let man live his own life and go on
derangedtranssexual@reddit
Because he’s a figurehead for the free software movement, you don’t want people thinking about his comments about minors being able to consent every time he gives a talk.
xezo360hye@reddit
I don't get it. Do you have so much free time so you can learn and remember every opinion of every single person you've met in your life? Why would I think about someone's personality when I'm listening to a technical conference presentation? Seems strange for me
ilovetacos@reddit
Stallman regularly publishes his opinions on social and political topics; he is intentionally putting his ideas out into the world for people to read. Please read the report.
xezo360hye@reddit
So what? It's called freedom of speech. Unless he literally says "let's go fuck children" I don't see a reason to care about it. Heck, even if he does, there are people who get paid for discussing how illegal it is (some of them are called judges, for example)
Too busy for that. Maybe someday later
ilovetacos@reddit
How do you know what he's said if you won't read the report?
xezo360hye@reddit
I don't. And I don't care
ilovetacos@reddit
You obviously do care or you wouldn't be commenting here. Just what exactly are you defending?
xezo360hye@reddit
I care about replying to people I'm talking with, not about random opinions
I wouldn't say that I'm actually defending anything, I'm just trying to comprehend why people care so much about others' things on basically any topic. As of now nobody gave me a single straightforward reason that could convince me. It's not even about RMS, I say this in many places and I don't get it
jdiez17@reddit
If you don’t care about his previous comments, why would you care if he says that?
xezo360hye@reddit
What?
jdiez17@reddit
Why is that the line that he has to cross for you to care about it?
xezo360hye@reddit
I literally said there are people other than me that will care (and get money for that) if he crosses it. But if I will, I guess it's not hard to deduce how this sentence differs from "just opinions" (i.e. without calls to [illegal] actions)
jdiez17@reddit
I can say: “go and rob a bank, eat the rich, commit various crimes” and that’s fine, right? Saying vile stuff like “go fuck children” feels very wrong in a very different way for obvious reasons. What I’m trying to say is that there’s very little difference from what he is currently saying, and that. Both are enabling sexual abuse of minors.
freenullptr@reddit
I don't really meet pedophile apologists
runesbroken@reddit
I know, right? People are quicker to toss around their red herring arguments in defense of this middle-aged man saying creepy sexual things about minors and dismissing S.A. from a position of influence, than they are to denounce it. I get the feeling this is why people look at Linux with a massive grain of salt.
Desmaad@reddit
He's in his 70s; I think we can categorically call him old.
derangedtranssexual@reddit
No but I can remember that stallman said he thinks children can consent to sex with adults, I can remember it because it’s shocking and abhorrent. Every time he gives his same tired talk I just think of all the stupid things he’s said and done and I question why on earth anyone wants to listen to this man. Let’s be honest here people aren’t really listening to him because he has anything insightful to say but because he’s a spectacle, why would you want him as a figurehead?
jr735@reddit
If they're thinking about sexual matters while Stallman is giving a lecture, I suggest they have a lot bigger problems than they're willing to admit.
derangedtranssexual@reddit
Oh I guess it’s my fault for thinking about the fact that stallman said children can consent to sex with adults, I apologize. Clearly stallman is blameless here and we all just need to stop thinking of the countless abhorrent things he’s said when he gives talks.
jr735@reddit
Yes. If you're thinking about things like that while listening to a talk about free software and privacy, you have a real problem. I don't listen to a hockey commentator's political views. I don't listen to a mechanic's views about my exercise program. I don't tell the electrician how to wire the house, nor does he criticize my wallpaper choices.
This country is never going to get better until you people understand that not everyone who disagrees with you on topics is an enemy. As I already pointed out, I disagree with 99% of what Stallman says outside of software freedom and privacy. What else do you want?
derangedtranssexual@reddit
Sorry but you're just a very unserious person if you expect people to not think about the fact RMS said children can consent when he gives talks. Like it's just not realistic to expect people to not think about things someone has publicly said when they see that person.
jr735@reddit
And I think you're a very immature person if you worry about a person's other viewpoints in something this narrow. I know it's in fashion to disrupt and protest every person who wishes to speak at a college. What I do know from experience is that said people will be feeling a lot of regret years down the road.
He's not running for office where I live. He's not my dad. I'm not asking him for dating advice. I'm not asking him to be my life coach. I know he's eccentric. I knew this many years ago. I accepted that I disagree with him on most of what he says outside of free software and privacy many, many years ago, in fact, decades ago.
The idea of being able to write one's opinions and share them, no matter what, is something that is lost to the current generation. Fortunately, I won't be around for said generation to reap the consequences of this.
derangedtranssexual@reddit
Sorry but this was never the case that you get to say anything you want and it not have consequences if you work in a public facing role.
Also just wondering but do you actually think RMS is very effective at what he does nowadays? Or are you defending him based on some perverse principal that you should be able to say anything you want with zero ramification for your job?
jr735@reddit
There are jobs where it matters what you say, and the context does matter. If Stallman said, "Sorry, I've been using Windows all the time," that's a big problem and that would be a pressing reason to remove him. If it's someone in a position of real authority advocating something reprehensible, well, we have elections, we have recalls, and we have statutes covering such scenarios. When Stallman was writing things and saying things decades ago, then founded an organization years later, and continued to have much the same opinions, we start to lose legitimacy here.
The point isn't even really about the FSF itself. He's there, or he isn't, and that really doesn't matter all that much. If he left the organization/stayed out of the organization, would the anonymous hatchet man be satisfied? Or would there still be a campaign? I sense a lot of self interest in the "report."
Stallman's effectiveness in what he does - which is speeches - is really hard to quantify. People are idiots and buy cell phones and Windows devices left and right. He has said very correct and factual things about software and privacy, and people don't listen. Software gets more and more invasive. Privacy gets more and more breached. And people are fine with that. Every year, MS, Apple, Google, and Adobe each do something more reprehensible than the year before, and after a quick furor, people go along with it, more and more.
So, from that perspective, he's highly ineffective. People, by and large, are honestly not interested in their privacy, until something actually bites them in the ass. If their credit card information gets stolen or their bank account gets drained, all of a sudden, they concern themselves with privacy. Fifteen minutes before that, they were handing out credit card information to a site they never heard of to buy some garbage at a price that's too good to be true, or answering a ridiculous text message claiming to be from their bank.
Sure, Stallman's the bad guy. It's not the bank that leaves you on the hook or those that stole your money, or Adobe wanting to claim your work, or Google using your emails to feed you ads or using your content to train AI, or MS taking snapshots of your desktop, or Apple selling phones built by children. Stallman's the bad one here.
Cancel Stallman, sure. He's the real threat. Meanwhile, that's why I have a policy among people who know me from my business, and my friends, and my family. They know my technical skills. They know if they ask about their Windows, their iGarbage, their Google phone, their Facebook account, their Google drive, Adobe problems, I will do nothing for them, absolutely nothing, except tell them, these companies make a lot of money off of suckers like you, ask them for tech support. When you want to learn how to use technology properly, come talk to me.
derangedtranssexual@reddit
https://imgflip.com/i/96tglu
Whataboutism
jr735@reddit
Not whataboutism, hypocrisy. You're worried about thought crime. Yet, you have no problem with people, probably yourself included, using the proceeds of real life child abuse. Now, that's disgusting.
derangedtranssexual@reddit
No this is textbook whataboutism
Also are you still going on about how if you use a cellphone like virtually everyone does you can't complain about someone saying children can consent? I wish you could understand how foolish you sound
jr735@reddit
No, stating an abhorrent opinion isn't as bad as actually participating in child labor. What you cell phone users do is actually worse. Stallman talks a lot of nonsense. You guys give money to people using child labor. Far worse.
derangedtranssexual@reddit
As you continue to struggle to defend the indefensible you have to increasingly rely on whataboutism and ad hominems. Even if I am worse than RMS that ultimately doesn't matter, that doesn't take away from my points at all. I'm correct whether I'm a hypocrite or not.
jr735@reddit
And you conduct the indefensible. It's clearly not about vulnerable people or children, or you wouldn't use a cell phone made by child labor. You're in no position to tell anyone what to think on the topic, because of what you do.
At least he doesn't use a cell phone made by child laborers. Anyone can say all kinds of things. Doing the deed is worse. Hypocrisy.
derangedtranssexual@reddit
Do you think all 97% of Americans and over half of all people on earth do not care about children and are in no position to criticize RMS?
jr735@reddit
No, I think 97% of Americans and over half the people on earth are hypocrites, and worry more about opinions rather than actual results and, accordingly, are in no position to criticize RMS, or much of anyone, for that matter. You can say what you will, but I completely dismiss when people talk about software freedom while using Windows, talk about privacy while using Google, or talk about protecting children while using a cell phone made by child labor.
All that tells me is that people are more interesting in talking and criticizing, rather than actually doing a damned thing about it. And, that's absolutely correct. People talk privacy, but stick to Google. They complain about Windows, but keep buying. They talk about children, and would absolutely flip their wigs if someone made their own kid work 12 hours days instead of going to school when they're not even old enough to be in high school, but have no problem using a device made by someone in the exact same position. I guess if it's across the world, it doesn't matter.
I believe in software freedom and privacy, and have made choices that are more difficult to make work. I don't deny the utility of a cell phone. However, it is one of the least necessary things in the world. My grandfather didn't have electricity until he was in his 70s, much less a cell phone.
Everyone wants to talk about justice or the topics in this "report." In the end, though, they want to talk, and have someone else do the actual hard work. I have no patience for that and I'll ridicule it every time I see it.
A couple weeks ago, a god daughter of mine was grumbling about how Google is tracking her. I told her, then get rid of your Google phone. She looked at me like I was speaking another language. The world is filled with clueless people that complain, but won't do. If you're worried about the meaningless position of a man you've never met and things he said 50 years ago, all based on a report that is absolutely biased, all the while you refuse to make a meaningful change yourself over a similar issue, that's a problem.
Stallman retracted many of the things he said. Have you cancelled your phone?
There was a time when computer hobbyists could say what they want and exchange ideas. There were no upvotes or downvotes. There was no company overseeing and searching for trigger words. We need to return to that.
VelvetElvis@reddit
You really want him fired from the only job he's every held, before which he was homeless?
Neoptolemus-Giltbert@reddit
Well, one reason to care is because he uses his role in the FOSS community to commit his harassment, and his role in the FOSS community gives him a platform to amplify his voice on the horrible opinions he has. It'd be more fine if he chose to speak his garbage anonymously, but he does not. He and others like him are directly responsible for a lot of people seeing the FOSS community as a disgusting and dangerous community.
Business_Reindeer910@reddit
I had not seen any stats on this at all. I'm not making any excuses for stallman's personal behavior, but I've seen no stats on this at all.
Neoptolemus-Giltbert@reddit
I don't know much in terms of stats, and the stats I have seen e.g. from Stack Overflow finding that many find the community unwelcoming, are often so broadly phrased that it's impossible to learn anything useful from it.
Like a lot of newbies to programming, linux, or anything technical, find "this is a bad question", "you've not shared any useful details that would help solve your problem", downvoting, closing questions for being duplicates etc. "toxic". Should their opinion be listened to? Not really.
But then there's the kind of toxic behavior that normalizes ad-hominem attacks like Linus is famous for doing at least in his past, harassment, various forms of discrimination, and so on, which ARE real issues and very widespread but .. who's gathering stats on that? I wouldn't know.
emurange205@reddit
I think those problems are found throughout the software development community, and are not unique to the FOSS community.
Business_Reindeer910@reddit
Few of those mentioned there are dangerious or disgusting. Not very friendly or helpful (which isn't great) .. sure. If you'd have have said unfriendly or unhelpful to noobs then I wouldn't even ask for any more info.
stallman_report@reddit (OP)
-- The editors
jaaval@reddit
The guy is old, basically near the end of his life. When you have lived your life what kind of a list could we compile of bad things you have said in 70 years? What i’m pretty sure we could do a character assassination of anyone by picking out of context quotes from a period of decades.
Most of the report seems to be just fluff. 100something comments about definition of children and minor wrt different questions are not problematic in the slightest. The same conversation is constantly being discussed in mainstream media and is very relevant with different laws having different age thresholds for responsibility. Or how child victims of war should be defined when 16 year olds are considered adults by the other side of the war. The authors then connect that with out of context quote about child sexual abuse and claim the quote actually says something else than what it seems. That is not valid reasoning.
Then there are the comments about child pornography laws. Many of those are relevant comments. Some of the proposed laws and systems around the world are problematic in many ways. Not the least because they assume American cultural context. Nudity alone is not considered sexual in a lot of cultures. There are countries where you would have to imprison practically the entire population if just possessing a nude picture of a child would be illegal. And stallman holds that mere possession of anything, morally objectionable or not, should not be crime. That is a valid, if somewhat libertarian, opinion and has nothing to do with protecting abusers.
Then there is discussion about the definition of sexual assault and some other crimes being too broad. I fully agree with and see no problem with that discussion. Too broad definitions cause misunderstandings. That discussion is not defense of any misconduct.
Then there is some quotes where he analyses the meaning of words and unclear allegations in some news articles. I cannot find the alleged defense of sexual misconduct in those either. There is one where he compares two “inappropriate” behaviors, one of sending letter to ask someone out and another rubbing your crotch to another person, and concludes those two are completely different. That is defense of sexual harassment according to this article.
I’m sure Stallman has said a lot of objectionable things and I did not read all of the hundreds of quotes in the article but what I did read does not fit the description the article gives them. Frankly after reading it I feel like most of the article is just lying. Stallman is a bit creepy weird old man with some strange libertarian opinions but that isn’t a reason to invent stuff about him.
abcmecba@reddit
That is the 'European version of' liberal or libertarian conclusion - even if you disagree or find his views revolting - that could be considered separate to his Linux/technical involvement? Unless, he's committing a crime or has actually participated in one of his 'beliefs' - then that's just what they are, opinions/beliefs and positions - as troubling or appalling as they are perceived to be.
I dunno what to think about it....it's just very unfortunate.
xezo360hye@reddit
That's a totally different matter, isn't it? Thinking is one thing, talking about it is second, and doing it is third. Don't mix those. Of course free speech doesn't mean you're free to do whatever you want — that's anarchy
abcmecba@reddit
Yep, agreed. They don't like what he 'thinks' - so, they want him removed. Are they free to try to? Yes. But, ppl are free to evaluate whether they agree or not....or just what they think about it. The problem is that they are trying to 'convert' a number of ppl to their view - and get him 'canceled' - so, ppl can examine that and judge it, too, right? Free speech.
runesbroken@reddit
You are severely misguided if you think someone has to be convicted of a crime to be held accountable by an NGO. This isn't about left or right politics - it's about the platforming of a man who condones legal pedophilia and necrophilia, and the refusal by people like you to hold him accountable for his words
abcmecba@reddit
So, it's only those two topics - what about the others that they condemn on? Just curious. What do you mean by 'ppl like me?'
It does have to do with politics - they have judged him on other opinions, too. I didn't even make a judgement. The overreactions and quick-to-judgement by 'ppl like you' is what others are talking about here.
runesbroken@reddit
People who put words like "thinks", "convert", and "cancelled" in quotes because they know they're talking about an important topic, but either aren't mature enough or well-versed enough to know how to engage with it. That's what I meant by "people like you".
jojo_the_mofo@reddit
Free speech? What about free association? I have the right to hang out with whoever I want. Maybe the heads of the organization feel that way too because they don't want a bad image. Freedom doesn't just belong to you and those who think like you. You're talking about trying to "cancel" (oh gods it makes me cringe using that word) people. But "cancelling" is censoring or deplatforming, something that's happened for centuries against many minorities and such. I don't know why people think it needs to be a new word.
runesbroken@reddit
You are severely misguided if you think someone has to be convicted of a crime to be held accountable by an NGO. This isn't about left or right politics - it's about the platforming of a man who condones legal pedophilia and necrophilia, and the refusal by people like you to hold him accountable for his words.
Uhhhhh55@reddit
RMS cannot continue to be a figurehead of the FOSS community. This article really hit it home for me.
shake-sugaree@reddit
felt this way for a long time now but unfortunately it's not likely to change. every time this discussion comes up an army of Stallman apologists come out of the woodwork to downplay and gloss over the most serious allegations against him and paint the whole thing as some kind of politically correct witch hunt.
jr735@reddit
An idiotic opinion is a "serious allegation" now? It is a witch hunt. It's not being painted as one, because it is one.
I do not care what his opinions are outside of free software and privacy. Is Stallman your dad? Are you looking at hiring him to be a life coach? Is he running for office where you live? Do you hang out with him on a regular basis? If the answer to all these questions is no, then why do you care about his opinion on anything, especially things well outside his areas of work and expertise?
Neoptolemus-Giltbert@reddit
Because he IS in contact with a lot of people in his role, he has been widely reported to use his role to conduct his abuse, and with him being put on a pedestal that gives his opinions much larger of an audience. Yes, his opinions have an impact on people even if he isn't your dad. This is just sad.
jr735@reddit
What abuse did he conduct? Be specific. You're accusing a public figure of this in a public forum? Stand up and own what you say.
Neoptolemus-Giltbert@reddit
I dunno, maybe read the report instead of asking me to repeat the information easily available for you right there on the thing you're commenting on.
jr735@reddit
I read the report. There's no abuse there.
Neoptolemus-Giltbert@reddit
Oh, you must've skipped the section clearly labeled "credible allegations of sexual misconduct regarding Stallman". I wonder why you would do that?
Anyway, seems rather obvious you're not interested in an actual conversation, you're trying to shield a very disgusting person from criticism. I wouldn't know why, but it does seem reasonable to think that maybe you think his opinions are correct and thus need to be defended.
As it is, I see no point in wasting my time further with you.
whaleboobs@reddit
I dont take out anything from the report in that section that constitutes abuse.
Book_Guard@reddit
That says a lot more about you than it does about us.
whaleboobs@reddit
Feel free to quote it yourself then!
Book_Guard@reddit
You already said that you didn't see any of those disgusting abuses as abuse. You can lead a dork to Mountain Dew, but you can't make him not jack off to an anime pillow, or however the saying goes.
whaleboobs@reddit
Such as? Im looking for a productive discussion but all I get is false statements not being backed up by any quotes.
Book_Guard@reddit
You said you read it and didn't see those disgusting things as abuse.
Your own words.
You're just sea lioning.
whaleboobs@reddit
What things? Cant you quote?
Book_Guard@reddit
Sea lioning. Bye.
jr735@reddit
Is there any crime?
Book_Guard@reddit
Pedophilia, zoophilia, and sexual assault are often criminal acts, and the loudly advocating for them to be normalized is fucking disgusting, JR.
jr735@reddit
So, there's no crime. Where did someone advocate for sexual assault, or them to be normalized?
What is actionable in court is an unsubstantiated hatchet job done in public, even by an "editor" that hasn't the balls to sign his name to a "report."
Part of freedom is that people have objectionable opinions. Stallman has done nothing more than muse a bunch of nonsense. He's not running rallies or organizing to legalize any of these things, and he's especially not loudly advocating.
Claiming something that isn't happening is also fucking disgusting. It's also fucking disgusting when people who have cell phones made in sweat shops by children are upset by the writings of a crank. Stallman writes all kinds of nonsense on his website with which I disagree. In fact, outside of software freedom and privacy, I can hardly find a single thing with which I agree. And I don't care about that. I'm not expecting everyone to be clones of my thought processes.
Book_Guard@reddit
I'm not reading all of that apologia. Sorry it happened, or congrats or whatever.
jr735@reddit
I read it. That's tenuous at best. Someone wrote a report without signing it, and that has something to do with software freedom?
The subtitle of this thread and this report - fortunately this post has been yanked - should be 1984. Someone has opinions you don't like, and you want them cancelled. It's not going to happen.
VelvetElvis@reddit
When in the past 5-10 years? Is he doing speaking engagements again?
VelvetElvis@reddit
What's he doing now? It's the only job he's ever had, before which he was homeless and living in a bus shelter and the MIT AI lab. It seems to me that the biggest reason he's kept on is so he doesn't die in a gutter somewhere.
jr735@reddit
His job is giving public speeches. What are you talking about?
btsck@reddit
One can still deem someone unfit for beiing in this position at the FSF even if one is not his son or affected by him in a direct way.
jr735@reddit
Considering he founded the organization, I'm not a member of it, and don't contribute to it, my opinion on that matter is irrelevant. How much do you donate to the FSF? Are you a voting member or associate member?
btsck@reddit
I don't see how those questions relate to the point I made. Let me reiterate: some people can make judgements based on a broader or different concept than personal affliction.
OurLordAndSaviorVim@reddit
There are serious allegations not just of having shitty opinions, but of accusations of predatory and harassing behavior. Read the article.
jr735@reddit
I read it. Those take some serious mental gymnastics to call these "serious allegations." Social awkwardness by computer people, particularly in the days when Stallman was that young, is not a "serious allegation." Cluelessness is not maliciousness.
From the report:
I come from that generation, too. What a load of tripe. Revisionism, again.
zackyd665@reddit
Well we don't have anyone else as idealistic and already correct to view corporations with contempt to replace him
zordtk@reddit
This has been known for many years, yet he still is.
Constant-Might521@reddit
The only deeply concerning thing here is that we let people get away with such harassment campaigns.
Richard_Masterson@reddit
What "bad things" has he actually done?
jr735@reddit
How much of an asshole does an "author" of a report have to be to get Lunduke to defend someone as left as Stallman?
inifinite-breadsticc@reddit
I’m curious about the reason behind the anonymous report (or am I missing the authorship credit ?) . Is it due to fear of retaliation? If the intention is to advocate for change, wouldn’t it be more impactful if it were signed or presented as an open letter?
jr735@reddit
Hatchet jobs are anonymous or use false names.
dobbelj@reddit
So who's behind that site? Is it people like the habitual liar and character assassin MJG?
You're all doing the work of proprietary software proponents when you resort to things like this to discredit someone. This community is a joke.
vancha113@reddit
Apparently people figured out who it was: http://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2024/10/16/Drew_DeVault_Behind_Stallman_Report_org_Hit_Piece.shtml
ivosaurus@reddit
https://youtu.be/9jkxnM0gJdo
Drew Devault
vancha113@reddit
Just some people who want to slander someone continuously until he loses his job. Likely not his direct colleagues either, just people that want to get others to do what they want, and they're not even exposing their identity this time. The lowest of the low.
throwaway234f32423df@reddit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jkxnM0gJdo
jr735@reddit
Why does the "editor" of this report not have the balls to actually sign the thing?
ivosaurus@reddit
Drew Devault probably thinks having the attack as anonymous would serve better than from him as an already outspoken critic.
jr735@reddit
Interesting, thanks.
Richard_Masterson@reddit
So let me see...
A hit piece by an anonymous person. An anonymous person who instructed people on Mastodon to boost his posts. It's purpose is to make character assassination of a homeless old man with cancer over...
Off-color jokes made 50 years ago, an off-context quote he made regarding an MIT professor, anonymous accusations (or on other words, rumors) and controversial opinions he retracted publicly years ago.
Controversial options, I might add, that are far more tame than what esteemed philosophers (like Faoucualt) have said, printed and stood over.
The fact that people fall for such obvious tactics is sad.
ivosaurus@reddit
It's Drew Devault. Some of his blogs have exactly the same language, his website has used the same name server and the first IP this website was available on is what currently hosts his blog.
Richard_Masterson@reddit
There was a draft of the hit piece on [Drew's personal website]: (https://web.archive.org/web/20240929110752/https://rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com/)
jr735@reddit
News flash: Every person on the planet has opinions that many others would find abhorrent. Stallman isn't my life coach and he doesn't vote for me by proxy. Why would I care what his opinions are outside of software and privacy? I disagree with 99% of what Stallman says outside of software and privacy issues. So what?
ilovetacos@reddit
Okay great! So you won't care if the FSF removes him from power because the members don't think he's fit to respresent them?
jr735@reddit
No, I really wouldn't care. I might not agree with it completely; after all, he founded the organization. However, I am not a member, associate member, or a donor, so I have no say in the matter.
ilovetacos@reddit
Then why are you commenting on this issue at all?
jr735@reddit
Because someone has written an unsigned hatchet job, and I guarantee you they want more than him off the FSF. And, when you make this public, instead of dealing with it privately, and publicize it in a sub I frequent, I'm going to comment about it.
I use only free software. I value my privacy. No one has done more in that regard for me than Stallman. I don't give a damn what other nonsense floats around in his head - and I know there's lots of nonsense; I read his site. I don't care. That doesn't matter. I'll never find anyone who agrees with me 100% on everything, so why try?
ilovetacos@reddit
They've tried to deal with it privately many times over the years. It's also been tried to be dealt with publicly many times over the years. This is a culmination of many complaints over many years, which means that many people have an issue with Richard Stallman's behavior. This isn't about whether you agree with him or not. We should not give power to people that advocate for harm to those without power (e.g. children and animals.)
jr735@reddit
And most of this stuff is absolutely dated as hell. What power does he have? Be specific.
ilovetacos@reddit
He defended Epstein only a few years ago. You've run out of arguments. He represents Open Source for a lot of people; he is the face that governments and organizations call on for advice. Do you realize that the FSF is a political organization?
Aiden-Isik@reddit
Okay I actually agree that a lot of what Stallman sajd is problematic but Stallman did no such thing as defend Epstein.
In fact, the incident you are referring to a few years ago was where he said Epstein MANIPULATED a 17 year old into getting with Marvin Minsky. It just so happens that some sources liked to cut off the second half.
jr735@reddit
Don't care what he defended, it was retracted. It's a political organization, not about sexual politics.
misterolupo@reddit
How many of the commenters in this thread do you think are donors or members of the FSF?
ilovetacos@reddit
This many 🥱
daredevil82@reddit
stallman's getting the p-diddy/weinstein treatment. good riddance, long overdue and fuck those who covered for him
jr735@reddit
No, it's not. Stallman is talking about ideas. The people you mentioned held public office and actually did these things. They didn't talk about it from a philosophical standpoint.
This took no time to devolve into breaking Godwin's Law, I see.
daredevil82@reddit
because its pretty applicable, lol. even if you can't realize that. guess it must be nice to be selectively amoral.
but hey, nothing changes. every asshole and abuser has their defenders and apologists.
jr735@reddit
And this is why Godwin's Law gets brought up. Stallman isn't Hitler. Stallman hasn't even run for office, let alone run a country. Stallman's entitled to be an asshole. He doesn't need your permission. Now, if you're accusing a public figure of being an abuser on a public forum from behind a keyboard and pseudonym, that's both a little bold and a little naive, all at once.
And, I will defend anyone's right to say what they like, no matter how much I disagree with what they're saying.
Business_Reindeer910@reddit
but that doesn't make you free from consequences
jr735@reddit
What consequences should he endure? He hasn't broken any laws. He hasn't done anything in bad faith for his actual work or betrayed the topic. He's not using Windows on his laptop and secretly carrying a cell phone.
Do you have a cell phone? He has bad opinions about children. People who buy cell phones actually send money to people profiting from child labor. Don't lecture me about this crap when the vast majority of people, especially in this hypocritical thread, are doing the exact same thing. When you guys stop paying for child labor, then talk.
Business_Reindeer910@reddit
You don't have to break laws to have people mad at you though. Never have. People have resigned over non illegal things all the time.
jr735@reddit
He had and expressed these opinions when he started the FSF. Anyone who joined or would join or donate should have known.
Business_Reindeer910@reddit
Most people would have had no idea before the invention of the web browser when such things were published on his own home page. Even though it was rarely looked at until people pointed it out.
-NVLL-@reddit
But to what extent? What would be the fair consequence or what power do bad taste give the public to punish who expressed it?
Business_Reindeer910@reddit
Not death certainly, but being kicked out of a position of power isn't out of bounds.
jr735@reddit
"Houseless," huh? 1984 doublespeak. The homeless are still the homeless.
D3PyroGS@reddit
but what he isn't entitled to be is on the FSF board of directors
jr735@reddit
As it stands now, clearly, he is. I know I have no say in the matter. I'm not sure why I should care about the membership or structure of an organization I don't support financially and of which I am not a member, much less a voting one.
I don't care who's on the board of directors of Microsoft, either. I don't use their products, don't own any shares, and don't work there.
D3PyroGS@reddit
nope, no one is entitled to be in that position. he may have founded the org, but he does not own it and has to right to control it. point me to any law that says otherwise
just because you don't care who's on the BoD doesn't mean that no one else does
jr735@reddit
Point to me a law that doesn't. I never said others can't care about who's on the board of directors. How much do you donate to the FSF? Are you on the board of directors? Are you an associate member? If not, why does it matter to you?
intercaetera@reddit
It's curious that people see Stallman trying to rationally argue his points from libertarian/utilitarian priors and their first gut instinct is that the problem is with him and not the priors.
is_this_temporary@reddit
It's pretty clear that there are problems with the priors and with him.
izaac@reddit
The Volkswagen was a good one for instance. Even though, well you know.
derangedtranssexual@reddit
I really don’t understand what you guys get out of Stallman to be defending him like this, having him as a figurehead for the free software movement is such an embarrassment. If you’re gonna represent a bunch of people you are going to be held to higher standards
jr735@reddit
I'm not hear to represent anyone, and I don't give a damn about your opinions or anyone else's on the matter. I respect what Stallman has done for free software and privacy. Clearly, people don't understand privacy, much less any of the other issues. But I knew that already.
The embarrassment we have is the polarization that leads people to poke into every aspect of a person's personal philosophy and make that a prerequisite for even the most menial jobs. You don't like Stallman's views? You can't do a damned thing about it. He has that freedom.
derangedtranssexual@reddit
Thank god. I was talking about RMS representing the FSF not you representing anyone.
Why are you constantly trying to downplay the situation? I'm not poking into every aspect of Stallman's personal philosophy I'm being disgusted by the fact he said children can consent on his personal blog. And he does not have a menial job he's a figurehead for the FSF.
I also have the freedom to push for him to be removed from the FSF and for no one to sponsor his talks. He can say and think whatever he wants I just don't think anyone should ever listen to him.
jr735@reddit
He's always going to be a figurehead for the FSF. No matter what you do, his name is synonymous with the organization, because he founded it. Do you even know what figurehead means? It means, from the American Heritage Dictionary, "A person given a position of nominal leadership but having no actual authority." Unfortunately, you can't make his picture disappear from history in the Stalinist ways.
He's always going to have that. And, if you don't want to attend his talks, don't. How dare you tell me whether I, or anyone else, should not listen to him. What kind of 1984 nonsense is this?
What brand is your cell phone? You're worried about what a guy wrote in his personal writings, yet we have users here, and I'm wagering you're one of them, using a cell phone made by child labor. That's the height of hypocrisy.
I don't use a phone. And my computer was made in the USA. Sure, cancel Stallman, who looks out for software freedom and privacy, while using products made in Chinese sweatshops, that spy on you to boot. Idiocy and hypocrisy.
These people have zero moral authority to preach to me about anything. Grow up.
derangedtranssexual@reddit
He briefly stepped down from the FSF, he wasn't the figurehead then. They should've never allowed him back on the board of directors but they do have the option to kick him out again.
I don't think you understand 1984...
No it's not. Having a phone made by child labour is completely unrelated to me thinking that RMS should be kicked out of the FSF because of his disgusting views.
jr735@reddit
He would still be a figurehead, because he's the founder. He always was, he always would be. Oh, and I do understand 1984.
And it absolutely is the height of hypocrisy. Using something you know was created by children being abused - for that very purpose - is worse than disgusting views. Saying he has disgusting views about children when you use devices made by children working 12+ hour days, under physical abuse, being underfed, and underpaid, is that absolute peak of hypocrisy.
He has abhorrent views. People who use those devices are complicit in child abuse. That's far worse.
thepewpewdude@reddit
Is it called doxxing if I just post a link to archive.org on the domain where the draft of this was published? http://web.archive.org/web/20240929110810/https://rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com/
ScootSchloingo@reddit
I still can't comprehend after how all these years literally anyone thought RMS was in any position to be a figurehead or doing public speaking arrangements. Even if you disregard the laundry list of questionable and bizarre things he's said and been accused of doing, he's so detached from reality that outside of "all software should be free" and "privacy good" there's this very apparent air of secondhand embarrassment almost every time he opens his mouth.
Maybe I'm the crazy one but just watching videos of his public speaking and him doing really cringey stuff it's crazy to me how people just went along with it.
bitspace@reddit
You're not. There's definitely a weird personality cult here. I think most people who hold him and his ideas in such high regard have some fantastical illusion about him - they have a larger-than-life image of him that is completely detached from reality.
His ideas are completely unrealistically ideological and also have almost no intersection with the reality of how society and people and business - especially the software business - actually work.
Business_Reindeer910@reddit
The world needs people like this! I don't find this a downside at all. It's the rest I do.
bitspace@reddit
Anyone can come up with ideas all they want. Usually, as in the case of "all software should be free", they're abjectly bad ideas.
If someone wants to make something and give it away, power to them. If someone else wants to sell their thing, power to them too.
There's room for both and everything in between. What we've never been able to figure out at scale is how people who make things can be compensated for their work by giving it away. Sure, there have been a few examples, sort of, but they are really the exception that proves the rule.
Business_Reindeer910@reddit
All software should be capital F Free is the idea, not necessarily free in the monetary sense.
bitspace@reddit
I understand the difference between free-as-in-liberty and free-as-in-beer.
I think "all software should be free" is abjectly ridiculous. Whether or not a particular software product (and it is a product) should be free (open) or not is completely up to the discretion of the person or people who produced it.
I'm not pushing my ideology on anyone else, and nobody else should push their ideology on me.
Just like religion, which is exactly what the ~~Cult of Stallman~~FSF is.
StonyShiny@reddit
I don't get it. Who's pushing Stallman's ideology on you?
bitspace@reddit
"All software should be free" includes software that I write. This makes the claim that the software that I write should be free, robbing me of the autonomy to decide what license or philosophy to apply to my software.
This is exactly trying to impose ideology on me.
StonyShiny@reddit
I'll grant to you that I don't know if Stallman wants to make closed source software illegal, if that's the case, fair enough, but as it is you're under no obligation to comply with whatever his opinions are on this. The take that I know he has is that closed source is unethical and no one should do closed source anymore. But that's all it is, an opinion about how the ideal world should be. It's your choice to agree with it or not and AFAIK no one wants you to have this choice taken from you.
bitspace@reddit
That's exactly my argument: "all software should be free" is a bad idea because it removes the agency and autonomy of all software creators in support of ideology.
The argument (posted somewhere else in this thread and which I believe accurately reflects Stallman's view) is that software is an expression of information, and information should be free.
I disagree with both of those baseline assumptions.
Software is a product that exists to manipulate information. It is the implementation of algorithms and data manipulation logic. It is not itself raw information.
Additionally, the premise that all information is automatically free is absurd on its face. I possess a lot of information that should in no way be free, and I will go to great lengths, perhaps at risk of my life or safety, to keep private.
StonyShiny@reddit
I agree with you that you should never be forced to give away your work for free. If that's your whole point, then there's nothing to discuss. But I perceive something more in your answer though. The issue is in a world where everyone benefits from free software is it seems wrong to take that value that was given to you for free and make something that only you can benefit from. It's self defeating. It's like you're being a parasite on an otherwise healthy system.
TheJackiMonster@reddit
Software is simply one of many forms that information can be. The idea that this should be free is a fundamental requirement for scientific research and progress.
If you don't see this as a problem, I think you underestimate the progress humanity has made in the thousands years of existence because they actually shared knowledge with eachother.
The only reason to advocate for gatekeeping is for your own individual benefits over all others.
So demanding that software should be free is simply stating that people shouldn't be egoistic. If that's ideology or religion to you, cheers.
Business_Reindeer910@reddit
Nonense. That's how society works. You can just disagree with those you don't like.
ShakaUVM@reddit
How do you know what reality is in this case? Hit pieces like the OP? Have you met RMS?
gihutgishuiruv@reddit
You realise that the source for most of it is public posts & mailing list messages from RMS himself, right?
ShakaUVM@reddit
You realize that the whole thing is a hit piece designed to construe everything he's said in a negative light, right?
And in other words, you've never met the guy and are talking out of your ass like you know him.
gihutgishuiruv@reddit
OP: posts things that RMS has literally posted himself
Weird Reddit edgeloṟds: It’S a HiT PiEcE!!!
hazyPixels@reddit
I wonder if he stepped in anything just before doing that
Ok_Historian_2381@reddit
maybe some tomato sauce
ShakaUVM@reddit
Because he has been warning about EXACTLY THE PROBLEMS WE ARE FACING AS A SOCIETY, loudly, for over 40 years now. Yes, he's weird. But over and over again he's been proven right about closed source companies abusing their customers. Look at Windows 11, and how Microsoft is doing everything they can to violate the privacy of their users. Look at Google that has made that their entire business model. How much of the shitty parts of Windows 11 or Gmail would survive if they were FOSS? None. People would rip them out and make a better product that respected their users' freedom.
Unlike I think every other person in this thread, I've actually had Stallman stay at my house, and have hung out with the dude. He's weird, and also he's weird, but he can also be charming when he's engaging with you on non-technical topics (like he examined all of the art in my house and asked questions about them, and then went through my library)... and then he'll ignore you at dinner as he pops open his laptop and answers emails for 20 minutes, then close it and continue the conversation.
There is not a single other famous person that is advocating for software to respect the freedoms of its users. None. Linus is probably the closest, but he's bottled up in his own little world. He doesn't go on TV to advocate for us.
Given that this is a biased hit piece, I can only speculate who would do their damndest to try to misframe everything he's said in the worst light possible, so I'm not going to. But it's not honest, and people who are upvoting this crap should feel ashamed for casting shade at the only person who is famous enough to get TV interviews to talk about the harm that proprietary software does to us.
PersimmonHot9732@reddit
Somehow to the general public someone eating dead skin of their foot is more creepy than a company constantly taking screenshots along with tonnes of other data and sending it to their servers.
ShakaUVM@reddit
Imagine if someone photographed you picking your nose and the world used that as an excuse to not listen to your message.
RMS is definitely weird. But that doesn't make him wrong when it comes to respecting freedom.
zeruch@reddit
The freedom part isn't what people are repulsed by. See also, the OP.
ShakaUVM@reddit
No, but it's probably why he's being attacked
zeruch@reddit
No, it's because he has exhibited a clear pattern of reprehensible habits and statements, as the OP report outlines. Try again.
ShakaUVM@reddit
Nope. Try again.
zeruch@reddit
Please explain why he's being attacked "for freedom" and not for being an utter pig.
I've never heard anyone "attack RMS for freedom" beyond the late 90s when firms called anything FOSS "communism" but that still wasn't RMS as much s terror over topline revenues.
You either ignored the entire OP because of disingenuousness, or because you are a clown shoe with semi-tumescence for Free Software Jeebus. Have a day, bubba. You aren't a serious person.
ShakaUVM@reddit
Just quoting you got my comment removed by the automoderator.
I will simply say that this whole think reeks of an astroturfing campaign.
zeruch@reddit
And I will simply say your commentary reeks of blind fealty.
Euphoric_Protection@reddit
Apart from picking your nose being a different level of quality than excusing sexual assault.
reddi7er@reddit
wondering if being weird is his inherent archetype or is he simulating all the weird-ity on purpose
ShakaUVM@reddit
He's inherently weird.
When he showed up at my house he couldn't find a chocolate bar he'd gotten for me as a thank you for letting him stay over and he melted down over it. Then he found it, and... it was just a normal grocery store chocolate bar.
PersimmonHot9732@reddit
Yeah, it's really weird but people always pick up on personal habits more than actually important points. A classic example is JD Vance, he's got so much dirt on him and crazy shit he's said, but the one thing that really got traction was fucking a couch, which wasn't even true.
zeruch@reddit
The former is a near objective form of direct individual repugnance that if observed, is hard to misinterpret. The latter is an abstraction often not perceived, and more difficult to induce repulsion.
Euphoric_Protection@reddit
If the only thing stopping people from building a better Gmail is its closed sourceness, how come nobody just built a better one themselves?
ShakaUVM@reddit
Gmail is closed source - they can't just fork it, as they could if it was FOSS.
Constant-Might521@reddit
Building a better GMail is a hosting problem more so than a software problem. Arguably RMS and the FSF at large failed to properly addressed the hosting problem, which is behind a whole lot of the ills of the modern Internet. Some attempts like FreedomBox exist, but they are doomed to fail right from the start on the modern Internet, since everybody is behind NAT.
aled5555@reddit
If free software is so bad how that every big tech company is profiting from it? Gmail is trash compared to other solutions I guess you have no idea what you are talking about.
Euphoric_Protection@reddit
So use the better options then. Why bother about Gmail?
aled5555@reddit
What are you even arguing here lmao. Ok I guess
Tweenk@reddit
I don't think you actually understand Google's business model.
Maybe because he realizes that big tech companies drive most of the investment in Linux.
ShakaUVM@reddit
Their business model is spying on everyone who uses their products to build a profile of them that they can then use to advertise.
linuxhiker@reddit
He is an idealogue with a cult following of fanatics.
That means he gets away with things us normies would never get away with.
Kind of like one of the candidates for President.
whaleboobs@reddit
Its fanatically good though. Not fanatically evil as Trump is.
linuxhiker@reddit
Good and evil is entirely subjective
emurange205@reddit
Which one is Trump?
whaleboobs@reddit
Lets us discuss whats not good about FLOSS and what is good about Trump.
SitaroArtworks@reddit
Who tells you that you are in the "normies" side? Never overestimate yourself :)
linuxhiker@reddit
Fair. I would consider myself a normie on the open source spectrum :D
jr735@reddit
Went along with what? That really is all that's worthy of listening to - all software should be free and privacy is good. The rest is well outside his area of expertise, and who cares?
ScootSchloingo@reddit
He's free to have whatever insane opinions he wants but he shouldn't be viewed as this deified figurehead if his opinions on FOSS consistently get overshadowed by how disturbing and unsettling he comes across.
Optics is everything. Perception is everything.
jr735@reddit
Who's deifying him? I like his stances on free software and privacy. I disagree with him on just about every other thing he's ever talked about or written about.
Optics and perception are only everything to those who lack focus and don't understand the core message in the first place. Such people are as generally clueless about the core message as Stallman is about social mores.
The optics is this: The average person criticizing Stallman's opinions is carrying around a phone that was made by children in a sweatshop in China. I dismiss that type of hypocrisy out of hand.
susiussjs@reddit
There's a billion other people think the same things, why have represent foss, when all his other bs gives foss people who already have a bad rep, an even worse rep.
jr735@reddit
I don't care. I don't agree with any of his BS outside of free software and privacy. It's a good thing his job entails privacy and free software, because I don't care to take advice from him about those other things. That works pretty good, doesn't it?
minus_minus@reddit
These goobers
jr735@reddit
Imaginary meme writers?
frownyface@reddit
He wasn't detached from reality, he was creating it. The dude wrote an unbelievably ridiculous amount of code, a lot of it you probably depend on without realizing.
frownyface@reddit
I think it goes to show just far being incredibly prolific can take you. He coded and coded and coded, hundreds of thousands of lines of code, taking on entire companies single handedly.
nemothorx@reddit
For a long time there weren't many other people taking a public stand in this direction.
Even now, a lot of people take a "yeah it's better than it was, this is good enough" and not thinking about the implications.
Stallman's got a lot of problems, when it comes to the positions of (as you said) "all software should be free" and "privacy good", there are very few others actively pushing for that as strongly as he does. "Likely thousands" is hypothetical. Unless they're actually out there being proactive and pushing for things, then they're just numbers on a page.
Sadly for RMS, his message is diluted by all his other actions.
(my take has always and continues to be - I agree with the direction he wants the industry to move in, but I'm not convinced at the distance and absoluteness. But till some I reach my own "this is good enough" threshold, I think his message (on those narrow things) is still important.
RunOrBike@reddit
I’m unsure, but perhaps you need to be extreme when spearheading a movement. In the sense that if you can influence people only halfway to your vision, you still have advanced things considerably.
nemothorx@reddit
oh quite likely!
I can't say I have a conscious sense of what I want the IT industry to look like exactly - I'm not driven that way, I just have a vague sense - and whatever that nebulous thing is, it's probably not something anyone would be driven and passionate about - because driven and passionate people tend to be aiming at the extremes.
I know I want the industry to be more open with the software, and more private with the personal information, than is currently the norm, so on that topic, I'll stand with others who are saying the same thing, fully conscious in the knowledge that halfway-there (or something) is when I'll hop off the train, even though the passionate leaders will never leave the train - meaning paradoxically, that they end up looking increasingly crazy and out of touch, even as the industry moves in the direction they want.
Anyway, I certainly dont push as strongly for stuff as I used to, and likely because of multiple reasons - f'instance the openness of software has improved (yay), I'm older and have other concerns vying for my attention (eugh, aging sucks), and so on. RMS' personality and personal views on things also make it difficult to stand with him because you end up getting the association of all the other things about him.
I'd like someone with RMSs passion about software and privacy, but without all his problematic sides, to step up and make a name for themselves and take over the mantle of pushing for that change. Till that time (and to stretch the analogy to it's breaking point), I'm not even really on the train any longer at all - but I'm walking on the tracks next to it in the same direction.
niceandBulat@reddit
He is also a nightmare to play host to.
ShakaUVM@reddit
I've hosted him, and he was fine.
niceandBulat@reddit
You might be in the minority.
zeruch@reddit
Yes, and also I suspect he has the same hygiene and other similar habits, in which case RMS is "fine"
broknbottle@reddit
Are you insinuating that eating stuff off your foot during a talk is not normal?
Techno_Peasant@reddit
I was once in the security line at an airport in Belgium, when he cut the entire line acting like he was in a rush. We eventually get through to find him sitting at his gate with his Lenovo open, and a terminal prompt up.
It was cool to encounter him in the wild, but he’s doesn’t seem like the reliably rational type
AngryHoosky@reddit
Any time people like him seem to have a large public presence, I have always assumed it was because a group of people found them to be a useful lightning rod for all the good and bad they attract.
SuchRevolution@reddit
Toenail eating intensifies
zeruch@reddit
You aren't crazy. From the first time I met him in the late 90s (at the Atlanta Linux Showcase) I've found him an occasionally brilliant, but always insufferable boor, and cartoonishly creepy.
sqlphilosopher@reddit
Imagine apologizing for allegations just to satisfy the crowd. Prove it, go to trial. Come on, I'll wait.
jr735@reddit
It's not only that, they want him to apologize for his thoughts.
Kartonrealista@reddit
I want him to apologize for being a nonce, or for him to stop being one
jr735@reddit
I want you to stop buying products that were created in Chinese sweatshops. And to apologize for it. And stop doing it.
_Sp000n@reddit
What the fuck are you talking about?
jr735@reddit
Your cell phone for starters. Probably your computer too. Don't tell Stallman what he should think when you use products that were created by children being forced to work for pennies a day.
mzalewski@reddit
It’s certainly weird they were able to collect so much material about his thoughts on sexuality.
Like, pick any other person and try to summarize their position on sex with minors and animals. Most folks know to not overshare, especially if their ideas are not mainstream.
Richard_Masterson@reddit
Weird how? He has a personal blog where he has written daily for the past 30 years about any and all topics.
jr735@reddit
u/mzalewski and the writer of the hatchet piece don't understand. They're too young.
jr735@reddit
People back in the day wrote all kinds of things. That was part of hacker culture, and it wasn't the 1990s, like the moron(s) who wrote the report suggested. Nothing like people who can't turn a computer on and weren't even alive at the time telling people how to behave.
Not to mention how "offended" everyone is about how awkward he was trying to get a date 50 years ago. Everyone who's ever offended a woman in dating should be sent to the moon. There won't be any men left here.
Zoo-Recover-7446@reddit
He wrote extensively about jaywalking laws in Tanzania too. I dare you to find anyone else who's written so much on the topic, especially one who's never been to Tanzania.
Inside-Comedian-364@reddit
Which hunting. Because that did so well for Mozilla right? People are entitled to their opinions. Should that be a reason to step down when their work is solid and the results are spot on? As a woman this doesn't bother me at all. Meritocracy is a must, and I've seen good coworkers being fired by HR because some offended people said person x or y said this or that, without any proof while the people who got cut lose were solid workers, good devs, whilst those who "reported" are the most mediocre people I've met, work wise and personality wise.
I'd rather have a team of good workers than a team of political correct people. I don't go to my job to socialize, I go there to do my job and get payed, not to make friends.
ilovetacos@reddit
So you're cool with pedophiles?
MouseJiggler@reddit
Has he committed any acts of pedophilia?
ilovetacos@reddit
I don't know, have you?
He advocates for pedophilia to be legal. Why isn't that bad enough?
DoucheEnrique@reddit
I know I'll get downvoted for it but the pedant in me compels me to write it anyway:
Pedophilia is a mental condition / disorder and thus not illegal in itself.
What you hopefully mean to be illegal is child sexual abuse (in all its many forms) which in fact many pedophiles never do once in their entire life and also which is committed many many times by people who are not even pedophiles.
I hope you don't want to criminalize people with mental disorders just for having a mental disorder.
ilovetacos@reddit
I'm not going to downvote you. You're not wrong, but it's not really an important distinction, is it? It's not possible to criminalize a thought disorder, so talking about legalizing it makes no sense either. Stallman advocated both legalizing child sexual abuse and destigmatizing pedophilia. Neither are things we want.
DoucheEnrique@reddit
Except not really. At first he questioned if it was actually child sexual abuse if a child would consent assuming a child could actually give consent. He then admitted that assumption was wrong and changed his opinion. All that is left is him splitting hairs over terms like what is a child or an adolescent which I think is a meaningful differentiation to make. I have not seen a single statement of his that says abuse should be legal.
I don't see what's wrong with destigmatizing a mental disorder. Stigmatizing leads to less treatment. Less treatment leads to more child sexual abuse.
ilovetacos@reddit
He's said a lot of things about sex with minors, animals, corpses, etc and retracted very little of it. Have you actually looked at the report?
DoucheEnrique@reddit
Yes he talks about a lot of topics that are not his primary field of expertise. But we were talking about child sexual abuse and pedophilia. Why do you think sex with animals and necrophilia and his opinion about it are directly related to that?
ilovetacos@reddit
The report is about all of those things. We are talking about all of those things. You can focus on children if you want, but then you'll be ignoring the rest of his problematic comments.
Kobymaru376@reddit
Inside-Comedian-364@reddit
Why, are you a police officer? If someone committed a crime, it's the duty of authority do act accordingly, not mine. I'm a team leader of a team of devs. I care for the work they provide and in the time I give to do so, I don't give a damn about what they do with their free time nor am I payed enough to care. I manage careers and goals. We have a decades old saying: Trabalho é trabalho, conhaque é conhaque.
ilovetacos@reddit
You do know the FSF is a political organization, right?
SiXandSeven8ths@reddit
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
dorel@reddit
Then please do tell us how you're making the world a better place.
Inside-Comedian-364@reddit
Ah yes, the good old those who aren't with me are against me. Lovely
Whatever makes you sleep like a baby at night (:
SitaroArtworks@reddit
I feel you. Unfortunately this is the wrong answer here, where the social justice of the bigotry department works. They love horizontal fights between the poorest so much.
SitaroArtworks@reddit
I agree with you. In fact here there's the tendency to childishly downvote who doesn't have an aligned opinion. Reddit is good for information but absolutely the worst "social place" that shape toxicity in many weak minds.
ilovetacos@reddit
Us: "Pedophilia is bad and we don't want leaders that promote it"
You: "YOU'RE MEAN!!!"
SitaroArtworks@reddit
In what precise context Stallman clearly states that he support pedophilia? I'm not taking nobody's defense here. You are communicating something wrong here. It's called inference in absence of evidence.
UninvestedCuriosity@reddit
His push to differentiate a different set of rules for minors and teenagers which only came after he walked back remarks that people under should be consenting.
The report makes clear with lots of evidence of his default dispositions. If you cannot see this without assistance beyond the provided document, there isn't anything more a commenter can do for you. The evidence is compiled here with plenty of smoking guns.
I wouldn't leave the room with him and minors present or even young women after reading his publicly posted political comments. Dudes a creep that wishes he could be worse without getting put in jail. There's something wrong with him.
Stoicismus@reddit
European laws already make the distinction. In most EU states it is legal for adults to have consensual sex with teenagers. But children can't express consent. Are you accusing our laws of promoting pedophilia?
SitaroArtworks@reddit
Okay, your point is understandable and clear. I'm thinking why all this matter isn't afforded in the right context? Like a trial for example? If this guy is officially accused with evidence, the people that advanced the accuse must go public, right? Or am I missing something?
UninvestedCuriosity@reddit
That depends on your bar for decision making about others and is down to the individual to make their own opinions. I hope he sees this compilation and I hope seeing support for a compilation like this helps him to see how these ideas cause more trouble than they are likely worth. How they do not track with the support for his other ideas and that perhaps it's worth exploring that within himself and maybe with other professionals.
For his alleged victims, there is often not enough evidence for these types of situations. Which is prerequisite for resource input decisions. So if there is nowhere to go from there then the next best thing is court or public opinion.
SitaroArtworks@reddit
And what is in less words? Social justice?
SitaroArtworks@reddit
I'm waiting excuses from you. You cannot attack who you don't know just for the sake of binary way of thinking (black or white with no shades of gray). You are saying that I'm a pedo and that is false. C'mon, be a decent human being at least.
ilovetacos@reddit
Huh? Where did I say you were a pedo? Perhaps you are lost?
datbackup@reddit
This here is why you’re getting downvoted, pretty sure.
These days there’s whole swathes of society that go to work not to actually work, but because the workplace and colleagues provide them with the illusion that they are other than dysfunctional and mentally ill.
jojo_the_mofo@reddit
In some ways I agree but people also have the right to free association and I believe in business rights. If someone's hurting the optics of the business, that business should have every right to disassociate the person. You can cry "meritocracy" all you want but merit also encompasses the ability to make the company more successfull.
Uhhhhh55@reddit
Troll comment lol
-NVLL-@reddit
People need to separate things, Stallman has some good points regarding software and freedom, maybe a bit extreme, but it is something worth to listen to. It does not mean that anyone should follow his sexual opinions or whatever he believes in that regard, the two things do not relate as far as I am aware. Sure his position as a political figure at an instition is very questionable if he doesn't adhere to its values, but it is a pragmatic PR issue.
It is the same as Elon Musk talking bs on X, guy's team caught a booster and landed a bunch before it, things nobody did before. It is a good thing he allocated assets towards that, arguably it wouldn't happen otherwise in the same timeframe, and anyone who read Sagan understand the importance of advancing space exploration. That does not mean that anyone should take Musk's advice on politics, or that anything else he does is any good because of it, but some places (on Reddit e.g.) simply hates on everything with no distinction because they disagree at some point.
We should care in policitizing things. If it were true that Einstein hit his wife, it should count nothing towards the merit of relativity theory - neither relativity theory should mean his marriage was any good, or anything related to women's rights - but I don't known whether it would be seen as such if it were published today. And this example brings us a very known example of a person that disregarded what people thought because of their culture or opinions: Hitler; he fought what he called jewish science, the scientists went to the opposing country, he lost a war and probably is not a good example of who we want to inspire ourselves on. Freedom of speech means you often will hear things you don't like, but it is still the better option. It just requires some critical thinking and recognizing bs, which some people are just not good at it.
Don't deify anyone.
is_this_temporary@reddit
Nobody has called for Richard Stallman's beliefs on free software to be rejected because he's abusive.
Many, myself included, have called for him to be removed from positions of power over others. Positions of power he has directly used, and will continue to use, to sexually assault and harass women.
Twidlard@reddit
You keep saying that Richard Stallman is actively harassing and sexually assaulting women, without providing the evidence. Who are these women and how has he directly used his position of power to commit these crimes and get away with it?
postmodest@reddit
Sometimes making a lunatic write the prompts is exactly what you want for a technical team.
Sometimes it doesn't work. It's probably 50/50.
But knowing when to tell the lunatic "ok that's enough, shut up and go away" is a big part of avoiding the latter.
No-Bison-5397@reddit
Not quite sure how the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines are transphobic but perhaps I am not parsing them correctly. Could someone link me a document?
Twidlard@reddit
It's not in the guidelines exactly, but I think some people take exception to his views on genderless pronouns, such as per/perse (as in person): https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html
I have challenged Stallman on this before. He uses people's preferred pronouns when told what they are, but also thinks genderless pronouns are a good default. Some trans people who know Stallman personally have confirmed this.
Frankly, the authors of this document have chosen to cynically use Stallman's language pedantry to mispresent his views in many respects. The transphobia claims are just another example of that they couldn't resist slipping in.
No-Bison-5397@reddit
Yeah, that was my vibe as well.
My experience with languages has made me a bit of an anti-realist for anything beyond an idiolect. If Stallman uses people's preferred pronouns when addressing them and he has been informed and otherwise attempts to use his weird gender neutral pronouns I see no harm in it.
Pretty cynical to tack it on at the end.
ItsMeMarin@reddit
"It is rare, and considered perverse, for adults to be physically attracted to children. However, it is normal for adults to be physically attracted to adolescents."
"Please do not use the word “children” or “child” to refer to anyone under age 18. A 17-year-old is not a child. A 13-year-old is a teenager."
What. The. Fuck.
Stoicismus@reddit
Adults having sex with late teens is legal in Europe tho. It's not even a controversial topic. So in that instance Stallmann is almost fully within European law and mores.
13 may be too young anywhere in Europe but in some countries, eg Italy, AOC starts at 14, with further limitations applied only in cases where the adult is in charge of the teen.
Stallmann s statements are gross only by US standards where there is an absolute obsession with pedophilia.
Book_Guard@reddit
Legal doesn't mean good or normal.
Slavery was legal. Racism was legal.
Having sex with humans who are not mentally matured enough to understand, is disgustingly evil.
ItsMeMarin@reddit
I am European.
I do not know if this is due to ignorance or malice, but your interpretation of those laws is completely out of historical and legal context.
I won't even comment on the general statements you make about Europeans.
Constant-Might521@reddit
I have absolutely no idea what you are alluding to here. The age of consent is 14 in Germany, age of the partner is not restricted. Some exception for position in power do apply (teacher, etc.), but that's about it. That's the law, that's about actual sex.
Wikipedia has a nice table what is considered child, teenager, etc. in Germany and it very much agrees with Stallman here.
SuchRevolution@reddit
its ephebophilia not pedophilia
GresSimJa@reddit
Even if you're correct... arguing about the difference makes you sound like a creep.
Constant-Might521@reddit
Ignoring those differences makes you sound like a idiot. Do you think there is some magical thing that happens when a 17 old turns 18? Puberty is the significant part in sexual development, everything after that is a pretty arbitrary drawn line (which for example Germany draws at 14).
MadisonDissariya@reddit
the specific phrase "its ephebophilia not pedophilia" is tongue in cheek, it's what predators say to excuse their behavior, the above user isn't actually arguing this.
monkeynator@reddit
Is it really to excuse the behavior and not just a very typical bad faith defense people from all walks of life do when they are arguing from a bad faith position?
Since I've stumbled upon this plenty of times in politics, where suddenly we have to be so verbose, pedantic and hyper-specific that it feels like we're in a court of law?
Since that's always been my take-away whenever people do that form of correction, to try and throw a red herring.
SitaroArtworks@reddit
1 to 3 = toddler.
4 to 12 = child or kids
13 to 17 = teenagers
18+ = adults
Is it more clear now?
Point is, who's the authority to question and classify that in the consumerism era? I think Stallman is particularly questioning/criticizing that aspect. What does he really want? A PEGI reform? What? :/
Cute_Extension373@reddit
What the fuck
shasbot@reddit
I think 'Distinction between "children" and other minors' is a weird category to include here. It's maybe pedantic, but doesn't seem wrong to me. I'm against sexual conduct between adults and any minors, so I don't agree with his use of that distinction in a lot of these statements, but using clear terminology is a reasonable idea.
Telvin3d@reddit
It’s a problem because it’s a distinction he’s making for the purpose of what people it’s acceptable to have sex with, and which it isn’t.
halbGefressen@reddit
Which is also very dependent on the context. An 18-year old having sex with a 17-year old is absolutely fine morally, but a 45-year old having sex with a 17-year old is absolutely not fine morally.
stallman_report@reddit (OP)
We gathered these citations specifically to provide supporting evidence for our interpretation of his 2019 retraction to only apply to minors under the age of 12 or 13, not to state that the distinction is necessarily wrong in and of itself.
-- The editors
shasbot@reddit
Thanks for the response, that is a helpful clarification.
PersimmonHot9732@reddit
Am I the only person who finds someone statutory raping a 4 year old significantly more depraved than a 17 year old?
VelvetElvis@reddit
Before the 90s boom, tech was a very uncool and not particularly lucrative field to be in. By and large, the whole generation of boomer free software pioneers were a bunch of poorly socialized hippies, anarchists, libertarians and general weirdos. I'm not excusing RMS here but I have to question why a sick old man is being singled out and not people who are actually in positions of power and influence in the tech industry today. Elon Musk and Peter Theil aren't any better, just richer.
whaleboobs@reddit
Its so reoccurring here on Reddit that I think a campaign against RMS might be funded by someone. I cant come up with a good motive though, a license cant be annulled like you suggest. Maybe its one of many vectors in the authoritarian regimes Internet wartime trolling/propaganda effort to destabilize "the west". The end goal might not be tangible. All I know is Free Software is important, and we should strive for it without compromise.
loozerr@reddit
If FLOSS is important to you, maybe the founder of FSF should be scrutinized?
So it doesn't become known as the group of dead skin munching pedos? So that software with privacy doesn't gain the label of software for people with something to hide?
Constant-Might521@reddit
Yes, but on the grounds of what's relevant to FLOSS. GFDL for example wasn't good and Creative Commons handled that much better and more broadly. The non-response to both cloud computing and mobile is another huge issue with the FSF. Just saying "don't use that" obviously isn't enough. We need to develop viable alternatives, and that isn't happening on the FSF side, not even on the philosophical aspect of it (e.g. how to deal with privacy on a computer you don't own). It's kind of shocking that the GDPR got this there first with actual law, while the FSF had nothing on offer.
This bullshit however is nothing more than a mean spirited harassment campaign or just a targeted attempt to discredit Free Software. Either way, it's deeply concerning how many people just fall for it.
Richard_Masterson@reddit
RMS is not considered a pedophile either legally or psychiatrically. You're just being emotional.
I don't agree with him on that (just like I don't agree with him in most political topics) but that's normal. Everyone is entitled to having shitty, uninformed opinions and express them.
whaleboobs@reddit
How do you draw that conclusion, theres a WHY you need to explain.
loozerr@reddit
Which part? First one you typed yourself, second opens to you by reading the linked article.
whaleboobs@reddit
Cant you explain why Richard should be scrutinized, The article has nothing to do with Free Software.
loozerr@reddit
It has plenty. Are you trolling?
VelvetElvis@reddit
You know what would reflect badly on the free software movement? Firing the founder of the movement from the only job he's ever held in his life and leaving him to die in a gutter. He was homeless when he started working on free software.
loozerr@reddit
If he still doesn't have wealth to retire with a roof stop his head I'm shocked.
Which is besides the point, the American system being trash shouldn't prevent firing people like him. I don't understand how degenerates come out en masse when he is criticised but that's unhinged behavior and so is defending it.
PersimmonHot9732@reddit
I almost guarantee there is a funded campaign against him, even if it's as simple as encouraging employees to disparage him.
whaleboobs@reddit
I wonder how much money would be required and if there are services readily available to have a Reddit post thread worked at by a couple of Internet trolls.
PersimmonHot9732@reddit
If you want them to come across as speaking English as a first language and be somewhat coherent, about $70k per year per troll. A rounding error on Microsoft's coffee budget.
VelvetElvis@reddit
GNU contributors are required to sign a CLA, giving the project the ability to relicense their code. There's a whole lot of people who would prefer someone easier to work with in charge of that.
Constant-Might521@reddit
Stallman is a man with integrity, not one that will lie and repeat any random bullshit just because it's popular.
eanat@reddit
oh god, again? please leave the old man free now. please don't bully him anymore.
I agree some of the arguments but I mostly don't agree with those critics and I believe that Stallman is currently getting more critics than he should have gotten.
is_this_temporary@reddit
The man is actively harassing and assaulting women.
How many "critics" is too many for you?
Richard_Masterson@reddit
When exactly does he do that? During his chemotherapy sessions or during his lunches at McDonald's?
unua_nomo@reddit
What the hell is this sentence? The amount of roundabout language and preconditioning is insane. If you are trying to say what it seems like it wants to say... just say it? I have absolutely no idea how writing like this is supposed to contribute constructively to the conversation, and I can only interpet it as being in bad faith. Which immediatly makes it difficult to take the rest of the document in good faith.
TTEH3@reddit
Prolixity aside, it summarises his behaviour quite well. I feel like it was worded with the consultation of a lawyer.
Richard_Masterson@reddit
It doesn't. RMS doesn't have a "political agenda" regarding age of consent laws nor is he advancing it; he's a man with a blog and he posts his opinions there.
cazzipropri@reddit
I met the man in 1999 in Italy, at a conference where he was speaking, at which he refused the organizer's offer of a hotel room.
He rather insisted on spending the night in a sleeping bag in the conference hall, presumably causing great inconvenience to the organizers, because it's a lot easier to give you $200 or (400,000 liras, at the time) for a good hotel room, rather than arrange for personnel to watch the premises overnight so that if you decide at 3am that you want to leave there's at least someone to let you out, and you are not triggering any alarms.
But anyway.
The man of course showed up to his talk unwashed, and in wrinkled, probably smelly clothes. If he changed clothes, I don't know where, if not in the auditorium's public restrooms.
He insisted on selling printed literature, that it made no sense to buy for customers except to get autographed copies, and it made no sense for him to carry on a plane from California to Italy. The rational thing to do for any supporter is to give a $20 donation to your foundation and then print your emacs book at my local university, rather than paying you $20 for a 300-dpi spiral-bound copy of the emacs book that you carried on a flight from California probably inside your sleeping bag. But at the time the man was very focused on pushing the first waves (at least in Europe) of his "free as in freedom, not as in beer" message, and in that light, carrying hardcopies of open-source postscript files intercontinentally and selling them in person maybe made sense, to exemplify the message. Ok.
But anyway.
In the 15 minutes before the talk, he was sitting, basically by himself, in the entrance hall of the auditorium, working on a fashionably outdated laptop. In retrospect, he was intent in being seen doing that. I remember approaching him, and he made it clear that he was busy writing code and uninterested in talking to his fans. At the time I was very young, and all these quirks added to the allure of the character. Today I'd say that someone who, in the minutes preceding giving a talk, is busy writing code and displays zero interest in networking with international fans and audience, has less-than-impressive planning skills.
But anyway.
Nobody questions that the man is bright and, already at the time, had a big role in creating the many of the very concepts of the free software paradigm, but his rejection of the most basic conventions of society makes him a person that you can't use in any organization that deals with people, for profit or not, commercially or not, in a corporate environment or not.
Richard_Masterson@reddit
Yeah, he doesn't manage his personal brand. He doesn't pretend to be Steve Jobs like modern CEOs do.
He was never in it for the money or the fame. He was homeless for most of his life and stubbornly stuck to outdated computers with no GUI.
jurses@reddit
Why are you trying to do with this digest? It doesn't have to do with linux at all?
terremoth@reddit
I wish he could do therapy...
aled5555@reddit
This feels like a post accusing someone that is weird of doing things he never did. The guy is extremely weird, and that is not a crime. I had met people who is really weird in my life, everyone alienates them because their brain does not work like the rest of the people, they don't get that you can't say everything you think or people will hate you, and most of them are really nice people once you meet them. The "report" focuses so much on his distinction about child and adolescent that I It just feels like is written to make him look bad. At the same time I have read a lot of shit about him that had been taken out of context that is just sad, the only thing that I find really bad was the comment about consensual sex between an adult and a child, but he even retracted after about that comment and it felt like he said that without thinking too much about it and more as a "philosophical" (yet dumb and very bad comment) way, nonetheless he needed to be held accountable for the comment and he was and retracted. He had changed and retracted for a lot of things actually. I saw a card from the guy that some people found offensive which he changed to be less "offensive" and he did not need to do that since the card was an obvious joke.
I feel like Stallman does not understand that he does not need to give an opinion on everything but I guess he likes to talk and write and comment on shit that he should not, sometimes.
The worse part is people accusing him of things because he ate skin from his foot, That is gross but not a crime, that is weird but does not hurt anyone, that is really uncomfortable to watch but does not means that the guy is a bad person. He is just gross and you know what? A lot of people is REALLY gross in private, you just don't notice...
Most of the accusations are really stupid and just try too hard to make him look bad, the inclusion of the Betsy S. story is proof of that, how was that sexual misconduct?? The guy was unpopular with women at the time, he was heart broken and mentioned that he wanted to die when she rejected him, how is that "credible" proof of sexual misconduct? As I mentioned before he made a stupid comment about children which was stupid and wrong, but did he raped someone or have someone found illegal material in his possession? Because most "accusations" seem like shit taken out of context from a really weird and ugly guy that like to say everything that passes in his mind and likes to hear his own voice too much.
Should he be removed from being the head of an org? Yes because of his mouth. But this "report" just tries too hard to make him look like a sick criminal.
TheAgentOfTheNine@reddit
They guy is a loon. Yeah, thank's for GNU, now please leave the stage.
stprnn@reddit
Some people don't have shit to do apparently holy fuck
Who gives a shit
Siatty@reddit
Holy, I knew he was based, but I didn't know he was this based.
syldrakitty69@reddit
This is once agian just trying to bait people in to getting angry about someone who expresses non-mainstream sexual opinions in the post-2012 puritan culture. That's why it takes up half of the page and is placed first in the article.
Publishing what is effectively an anonymous twitlonger on its own website is incredibly self-important and simultaneously cowardly.
alkatori@reddit
I remember following him because he was very pro freedom of speech / code.
But he was also very anti-gun, anti-feminist, and seemed to be making sweeping judgments on things with zero information.
I'm thankful that he started GNU, but he seems like he would be insufferable to spend time with.
shasbot@reddit
Yea, he reminds me of a number of scientists I've met over the years. They are experts in one subject, but for some reason think they are also experts in subjects they have little experience or information on.
ShakaUVM@reddit
It does, actually. He thinks that all art should be free, with artists paid for out of a big pot of common money based proportionally on the log of their downloads.
alkatori@reddit
I stand corrected.
SitaroArtworks@reddit
I have the feeling that this is a conservative report made by people who felt menaced by Stallman because he's clearly criticizing the media in the way they mislead the concept (and subsequent classification) of children, teenager and adults in their own communication forms to the public opinion. Any Stallman quote in it (assuming is correctly reported) must be understood in the context. Because it's very easy to de-context it and misunderstood.
This is the classic situation where you can choose if be divided between the red pill and the blue pill inside a spectrum control OR you are really able to don't get victim of dualism, going further for a possible improvement in the society. Also, if Stallman support pedophilia just because he talks about it in a specific context, who are the accusers names? Eventually, they must respond to him in a trial, if things degenerate in a trial, of course.
vividboarder@reddit
Have you read any of those blog posts in full? I have. The context doesn’t really help.
ShakaUVM@reddit
Given that the authors are anonymous, speculating why they'd want to run misinformation is nothing but speculation
dorel@reddit
As /u/ledoscreen already said, it reads more like a commmnist report.
SitaroArtworks@reddit
...and then, downvotes goes by the witch hunters of Reddit. :)
githman@reddit
After reading the document linked and comparing it to Stallman's own opinions expressed on his personal website, I can't tell which one looks worse.
On one hand, Stallman sure considers himself an expert in everything, from Australian coal mining to the domestic politics of Tunisia. (Meaning, he talks too much about the things he barely knows.) On the other hand, this 'report' does not seem to be written in good faith. FOSS has evolved into a huge business; this situation resembles the typical corporate infighting over the money.
Zoo-Recover-7446@reddit
I found the bit about "union organizing" to be particularly glaring. I've not read Stallman's brain droppings and I don't care to but I agree that the linked piece here at least is "typical" and reads like corporate fanfiction.
nphillyrezident@reddit
Can you explain what you mean here? What's the issue with the section about the union?
Zoo-Recover-7446@reddit
Sure!
There was a lengthy part of the link that described how Stallman made unionization of the FSF workforce a priority. The section was so detailed that I got the sense it was a driving factor behind the publication of the report, or at the very least, the author(s) had an specific grievance.
That snippet shed some light on who Stallman was as a person and would almost be comical if the rest of the report didn't deal with such serious matters.
"A Raise? If I say yes, you'll eventually ask for more and ultimately, infinity dollars!" -- Paraphrase of the sort of thinker Stallman is. It's funny to me.
"A family member could pass away once a week for four hundred weeks! We'd never see you again!"
Silliness aside; I feel the author is more a disgruntled employee and less a altruistic, concerned citizen.
nphillyrezident@reddit
I mean these are serious matters if you work for FSF, and shine some light on the kind of leader he is
SomebodiesGotttaDoIt@reddit
The case for material harm is pretty speculative
EdgiiLord@reddit
Like, I can understand his relevance as a developer and FOSS activist, but he has long overstepped the line with those remarks. It was out of place, it isn't normal, and it doesn't benefit FSF from having associations with someone who declared that and didn't even apologize. As much as it saddens me, it's time for him to pass the torch.
Desmaad@reddit
I think it's about time for him to pass on.
kingof9x@reddit
I stopped taking him seriously and paying him any attention when i saw him remove something from his foot and eat it.
JonasanOniem@reddit
I don't know that person and what all this is about, but that's stupid. So if Einstein or Darwin ate something of their foot, you wouldn't listen to their theories anymore? Now that is stupid.
cunningjames@reddit
I’d say that unless you lack arms, eating something off your foot — especially in public, in front of an audience — is some evidence that you might not be worth listening to. It is not proof.
Zoo-Recover-7446@reddit
Diogenes probably ate stuff off his feet.
pizza_lover53@reddit
this is some 1984 shit for real yo
Telvin3d@reddit
How dare people face consequences for (checks notes) things they’ve repeatedly said. Completely unacceptable!
Happy-Range3975@reddit
So many mouthbreathers here sympathizing for this loser. Sad.
LvS@reddit
Here's a list of his supporters.
Feel free to look up your favorite open source developers.
Happy-Range3975@reddit
So do you support the things he said about children?
Specifically, here is him talking about a 13 year old girl while she is next to him; “I saw her experiment once. She actually typed Ctrl+V to scroll the screen. But I think that– at that point that’s like having kissed, so she’s still a virgin for now. [Stallman approaches the girl and places a hand on her shoulder.] But I hope to do something about that. And, by the way, that reminds me that one of the other advantages of the Church of EMACS is that being a saint in this church does not require celibacy.”
You’re cool with this? This is something you support?
Uhhhhh55@reddit
I think you replied to the wrong comment
Heroe-D@reddit
You're acting like a typical redditor, calling you a mouthbreather would be a compliment, that's the really sad thing.
Kevin_Kofler@reddit
You may also want to read the other side of the story: https://stallmansupport.org/
looneysquash@reddit
From the context, it's pretty obvious that they mean the political positions about sex, children, and animals.
Still, that wording bothers me. "All software should be free as in freedom software" is a controversial political position. It's the thing he's famous for, in a good way. And it is a thing that we fight over, and that many people do want him to reconsider.
SigHunter0@reddit
Get over it, nobody cares
Cute_Extension373@reddit
Then go away? No ones forcing you to be here lmao
ilovetacos@reddit
Yeah see the thing is: we do care. Even if you don't.
verrma@reddit
This is much less serious than the other stuff, but the man also ate something off of his foot in front of a live audience. He’s done a lot of good, but he also needs serious help.
https://youtu.be/I25UeVXrEHQ?feature=shared
runesbroken@reddit
People calling this a witch-hunt are not only pedophile apologists but also do not know the definition of witch-hunt and are probably libertarian morons.
MouseJiggler@reddit
I'm not his family, nor am I his friend, and I could not care less about his personal life or opinions outside of what concerns Free Software. Leave me out of political witch hunts.
thezimkai@reddit
Ok bye
Neoptolemus-Giltbert@reddit
Oh hah, rare case where I was pre-emptively thinking "oh man I bet this report is not what it really deserves to be based on the name" and was positively surprised. Thanks, I was under the impression that guy was thrown out eons ago because of .. well all of the things that had already been widely publicized long ago.
ilovetacos@reddit
Same! I thought it was going to be that "report" that came out a few months ago from Stallman's friend, defending him across the board. Big sigh of relief!
ledoscreen@reddit
Your organization more and more resembles either the All-Union Leninist Communist Youth Union (“VLKSM”) or the Chinese Hongweibin with their trials of “enemies of the people,” etc. I'm sick of it.
AutoModerator@reddit
Hello,
Your account does not have high enough karma to make a top level post. Please feel free to comment around r/linux to get a feel of the community. Please note there are other rules, such as verified email and account age, which may not allow you to comment as well.
Please note that if you're here to post about a support question the proper subreddit is either /r/linuxquestions or /r/linux4noobs.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.