by maxdeviant on 9/17/19, 2:15 AM with 2180 comments
by nabla9 on 9/17/19, 6:14 AM
I have worked in jobs where there have been very strange creepy people, both women and men. Some are angry and tense. Some are odd and talk restless or slightly disturbing stuff that make everyone uncomfortable. But if they do their work well they can stay. Others give them some room. It's called tolerance.
If RMS was just random superhacker doing his thing. I would defend him. His boss should find a position for him where he can contribute and other people should feel free to feel uncomfortable and avoid him.
But RMS is de facto leader and public figure in movement that is also political. He does not deserve the same level of consideration as normal HR headache would. Even if everything against him would be completely unjust, there is no requirement for just treatment for top leaders. They can be sacked for any reason whatsoever.
by kstenerud on 9/17/19, 11:51 AM
Normally, when someone engages in behavior seen as offensive, the procedure is to pressure the person to apologize and mend his ways, and only get rid of him if he refuses to do so.
But when a "scarlet letter" offence is involved, we jump straight to the punishment phase, removing the person outright with no judicial process. This is completely backwards, anti-democratic, and anti-freedom. It brings a chilling effect on everyone, because suddenly people start to realize that they're living under the Sword of Damocles, which could destroy them at any moment without warning. You can never be sure if something you say or do is going to get you publicly pilloried in future, and destroy your career, friendships, and reputation in the blink of an eye. Far better to just sit quiet and never say anything that might offend someone. Far better not to participate at all.
Mob justice always turns ugly in the end. That's why we have courts.
by naringas on 9/17/19, 3:14 AM
Having the wrong opinion about certain topics is getting more expensive. Stay away from taboos or else... never mind the fact that what we regard as wrong changes across different societies over time.
Weirdly all the information technology is steering towards being more similar in our opinions and in what we can say without facing consequences.
Recently I started to thing about how in spite of having the ability to share, and change, and store information better and with more ease than ever, we seem to be going in the opposite direction. Instead of having more transparent institutions, everything is getting more "opaque" (so to speak) towards the public (even it this is happening due to overload).
does anyone remember "information wants to be free"? I don't think anybody says that anymore, but I remember reading that a bunch on slashdot in the early 00s
by reuven on 9/17/19, 1:40 PM
I was there, about 20 years ago, when he sent e-mail urging all free-software advocates to protest a bill under consideration in the US Congress. I asked him if he had read the bill. "No," he said, "I don't surf the Web." I saw that as a huge cop-out; how could someone claim any moral or leadership authority when he called for protests and a letter-writing campaign on a subject he didn't know about first hand?
It's certainly true that RMS has been remarkably consistent over the 30 years or so in which I've interacted with him -- starting when I was a reporter for the MIT student newspaper, and then maintained the Emacs FAQ, and then wrote for Linux Journal. (No, not GNU/Linux Journal. Sheesh.) He's an extremist. He's a purist. He indeed doesn't get the nuances of interpersonal communication.
But you know what? You can't both lead an organization and be tone deaf to people. You can't be a public figure, demanding respect, and then show such disrespect to others. You can't expect that people will pay attention to what you say when you have so little respect for what they say.
Stallman has long been difficult, obstinate, and rude to people in general -- and a general drag on the cause of open-source (or "free") software. But I had no idea that he was known to be so terrible to women.
But even if he had treated women well -- which doesn't seem to be the case -- it's pretty hard to imagine anyone, anywhere defending Jeffrey Epstein in any way, shape, or form. The guy was terrible, did horrible things, abused a huge number of women, and amassed wealth and power in the most disgusting ways possible. To defend Epstein, or the people who were associated with him, is unacceptable.
Again: You want to defend Epstein in your own personal life? Go for it; you won't have many friends or colleagues afterwards, but that's up to you. But if you do it as the public face of a well-known activist organization? You can't possibly stick around there.
Good riddance.
by robocat on 9/17/19, 3:17 AM
It is clear RMS was stunningly clueless to write anything about this, but surely we all know of similar engineers that would make a similar error? If everyone were held up to the same moral standard, we wouldn't have many people left in power! Just to be clear: I'm definitely not supporting hurting children (directly or indirectly) - I hope I'm not falling into the same tar pit.
I certainly respect RMS for what he created and his idealism (although last time I saw him talk he spent about half the time negatively pontificating about Linus and Linux, which seriously damaged his credibility IMHO).
It must be devastating to be on the receiving end of such ire.
by jimrandomh on 9/17/19, 2:32 AM
by favorited on 9/17/19, 2:24 AM
Earlier today the director of the GNOME Foundation requested that RMS resign from the FSF, and said severing ties with the FSF could happen if he didn't step down.
https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relations...
by chasing on 9/17/19, 4:25 AM
The technology industry is taking baby-steps towards actual inclusivity and diversity of thought -- and not this dumbass "I want to be free to say stupid offensive shit with impunity" flavor of "inclusivity" that people around here seem to champion. That is a Good Thing and organizations like MIT and the FSF need to be very careful about whom they let represent them.
As far as I'm aware Stallman has neither been arrested nor has his website been torn down, so he's welcomed to continue to make whatever good and bad points he feels like and the rest of us are welcomed to judge him as we wish: smart, stupid, ignorable, or maybe even abhorrent to the point where maybe he shouldn't be representing a place like MIT. Or the FSF.
It's a free country, after all.
by colechristensen on 9/17/19, 1:52 PM
There is not a defense for what RMS was writing or how he was trying to defend Minsky.
The prevalence of comments trying to turn this against "SJW"s or whatever "other" they can because they're a fan of RMS is disturbing.
This isn't us vs. them.
This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it. Defending him by pointing towards people who overreact to things is a bit terrible.
The firing was appropriate and reasonable, not a response to extremists, zealots, or some other kind of witch.
I welcome anyone to provide a counter-argument.
by iamnothere on 9/17/19, 2:48 AM
The way this attack came suddenly out of the depths makes me suspect something coordinated. It's too similar to how Tor was seized, and how Linus was almost dethroned. There's something nasty afoot, and I don't like it one bit.
by js8 on 9/17/19, 3:42 AM
Freedom of speech means that people are free to defend what other people find morally objectionable. The idea that the "leaders" should be morally pure is understandable, but ultimately very elitist.
It also reminds me of this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/neurodiver...
by PaulRobinson on 9/17/19, 6:15 AM
I've met him a few times, put him up on my sofa once. I'd say almost every 15-30 minutes in his presence I would stop myself from saying "that's not an appropriate way to behave" or "please don't say that in that way, you're being rude", for fear of insulting him. Perhaps if more people had done that rather than being in awe and reverence (and there are many people who treat him that way), or just looking for a quiet life (my excuse), we wouldn't be here now.
It is clear to me that he has very low EQ or at least empathy for other people. I have spoken to others who have interacted with him who have suggested he might be on the autistic spectrum, and whilst I am not qualified to make a diagnosis, should such a diagnosis be made it would not surprise me.
At the weekend whilst this was blowing up I suggested he needed help. I think he is genuinely completely unaware why any of these statements would cause others to question his values. Freedom of speech is not a right to be a jerk, and he is unaware that he is seen as a jerk by a lot of people because of the many things he has said and done over many years.
It seems there are many people here who likewise are blind-sided as to why suggesting an underage girl would be entirely willing to have sex with an adult and presented herself willingly would be nothing more than a 'controversial opinion'. There are also people who think this is the only thing he's done that has caused problems - it's not.
I think there are deeper issues at play here, and he would benefit from counselling or therapy of some sort. Most people could even without his behaviour, so I'm definitely going to suggest it would be useful in his case. At a minimum it would help him navigate having a huge chunk of his life disappear over the last 24 hours.
I wish him well, but like almost every ex-colleague of his I've spoken to or who has been outspoken on social media about this: the FSF and MIT/CSAIL will now be a better place to be for others, and I hope that RMS gets the help he has needed for a long time.
I wish him well, but I also know that a large number of people will breathe a sigh of relief now that they can go about their work and studies without having to navigate him.
by esotericn on 9/17/19, 2:36 AM
Thank you for bringing the FSF into the world, Richard.
Whatever comes out of this and whatever comes next, your philosophy on software freedom has influenced us in innumerable ways.
by lone_haxx0r on 9/17/19, 3:07 AM
by Donald on 9/17/19, 2:21 AM
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
> I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
by dexen on 9/17/19, 8:56 AM
It's time for us to defend each other, and to hold contributions above outraged crowd's size.
--
[1] "Stallman was right", countless comments here on HN, on LWN, and all over the internet
[2] "Why Hackers Must Eject the SJWs", http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
by leftyted on 9/17/19, 3:40 AM
But he's a freethinker, and freethinkers necessarily exist outside the mainstream. So, despite not liking him, I also don't like this turn of events.
It does seem arbitrary to me that the same sexual encounter is classified as rape in Arizona and not rape in Virginia. I suppose we have to draw that line somewhere arbitrary. But I wonder if it was a mistake to classify what is called "statutory rape" as "rape" at all. We can make it illegal without calling it rape.
That said, to me, this doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on. But then Stallman is not known for being picky about hills. People like him (or loathe him) because he's principled, and therefore no hill is too small.
by bitwize on 9/17/19, 4:04 AM
by t0astbread on 9/17/19, 2:52 PM
- Someone who is less of a hardliner: Stallman's dedication to free software is a good thing but his absolutist style of expressing it might have put a lot of people off who would otherwise not be opposed to the idea of free software
- Someone who understands the problems of free/open source software (contributors not getting paid, corporate exploitation, ...) and has progressive solutions for it
- Someone who everyone can (at least kinda) sympathize with and/or relate to: I believe Stallman generally has no bad intent but a lot of his mannerisms are just plain awkward or offensive to a lot of people. Normally that wouldn't matter but the president of the FSF (especially Stallman) is kinda "the face of free software". So showing that the world of free software is a progressive and inclusive space here might just benefit everyone.
We should still honor Stallman for what he did for free software (I mean he basically invented it) and we should IMO continue to welcome him in this space (maybe even as some kind of executive in the FSF because after all he's obviously not incompetent). But maybe he isn't the best person for the role of the president anymore these days.
by mkeedlinger on 9/17/19, 4:57 AM
Where can I find what he said? Why is everyone talking about what he meant without quoting what he said so I can decide what makes sense for myself?
by SllX on 9/17/19, 12:02 PM
To be blunt, I’m not sure the FSF is worth having without someone as stubborn as RMS at the helm, but with any luck, they can still do a proper job of maintaining his legacy. Increasingly I find Stallman was right, and I hope he will continue to publicly do what he can to advance free software.
by aurelian15 on 9/17/19, 2:22 AM
[1] https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/52587.html
[2] https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
by throwaway180094 on 9/17/19, 4:20 AM
[1]: https://philippineslifestyle.com/wp-content/uploads/te3FQnP-...
by Endy on 9/17/19, 3:11 AM
by squarefoot on 9/17/19, 1:08 PM
He should have thought carefully about that: no matter if one is right or wrong, talking about that stuff in public will expose an individual to remotely controllable public anger in a way that will harm all other good stuff he does through ad-hominem attacks ("he has such opinions about rape, therefore his software sucks as do his licensing model and his opinions on closed source"). I for one still think he's a kind of good extremist the IT world badly needs, I agree at least on principle with most of his ideas and recall listening to him at a conference then handshaking him about two decades ago. Still... yeah, it was stupid from him to comment on such sensitive topics; this could harm the Free Software world in many ways, regardless of him being right or wrong, and probably someone will attempt to use that weapon.
by HugoDaniel on 9/17/19, 8:22 AM
The twitter discussion[0] seemed to me to be very polarized and targeting rage with all the common traits of typical fake news/mass hysteria communication. Maybe it is just the way these things naturally come to daylight.
by jdub on 9/17/19, 2:42 AM
by liha on 9/17/19, 4:14 PM
by soulofmischief on 9/17/19, 4:37 AM
Controlling the language is key to controlling the discussion, and as usual Stallman just wanted to clarify the language. He's used to dealing with a more rational, less public crowd, and didn't realize he was poking a bed of hot coals.
It's very sad to see such backlash and support of deplatformization of someone who has done so much for us over one cluster of comments. Even if you disagree with him, surely we can be allowed more than one mistake in the public eye before the platform we helped create is ripped from our hands. This is quite the authoritarian mindset and it worries me to find it in such prevalence here on Hacker News.
by neoliberal_dad on 9/17/19, 4:17 PM
by xlii on 9/17/19, 5:08 AM
That being said, the way that that happened is absolutely terrifying. Fact, that people rather crucify someone instead of argue, explain or prove him wrong is the sign of our times.
End of free speech is here. It’s free only if it doesn’t offend group powerful enough to destroy you, and it’s narrowing every single day. We’ve seen many instances of this happening both on personal, unpopular views and gossips and false accusations.
Want to keep your career? Best you can do is to steer out of the social media and don’t share your thoughts with anyone. Not only controversial ones, because what might not be controversial now, might be controversial in 10 years, and you will suffer because of it.
by coconut_crab on 9/17/19, 2:36 AM
by aazaa on 9/17/19, 2:37 AM
But this is nothing to cheer about.
Regardless of what low regard the man might be held as a person, he's being persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating for objective standards, and asking questions. These are all hallmarks of scientific inquiry.
It sets a precedent that will absolutely lead to self-censorship on a topic that really requires the disinfecting power of sunshine.
This strengthens the power of those who have no use for scientific inquiry and are more interested in inquisition.
by peternicky on 9/17/19, 1:48 PM
Found the word I was looking for: DISGUSTED.
by yosefzeev on 9/17/19, 12:57 PM
by ezoe on 9/17/19, 3:21 AM
I think that's a fair definition.
He also argues that 17 years old has ability to consent.
Since I'm from a country of consent age of 13 years, I agree.
RMS don't encourage to violate the law, merely presenting the opinion. This opinion isn't blaming certain group like James Watson and his comment on race and intelligence.
I guess some people aren't civil enough to discuss theoretical problems.
by mgalgs on 9/17/19, 4:46 AM
> Looking through the article again reportedly points to the deposition itself. I visited that URL and got a blank window. It is on Google Drive, which demands running nonfree software in order to see it. See https://gnu.org/philos2phy/javascript-trap.html > > Would you (not anyone else!) like to email me a copy of the part that pertains to Minsky? say "not anyone else" to avoid getting 20 copies.
Lol even in the middle of this discussion he sneaks some JavaScript hatred in there!
by ddtaylor on 9/17/19, 3:01 AM
by hristov on 9/17/19, 2:49 AM
I myself was sexually assaulted some time ago. I was in an ordinary nightclub, I went to the mens room, and on walking out of the mens room some a-hole decided to slap my ass on the way out. I gave him a dirty look, maybe I should have had him kicked out of the club, but I don't think it was necessary to have him fired from his job or ruin his career.
by rosser on 9/17/19, 3:05 AM
Because that's what it's about: he said, "But is it really?" — literally, in fact — about something which, for legal purposes, his opinion is irrelevant. To wit:
> Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
Stallman said that. He went there. He quibbled over whether something constituted rape, as if the Virgin Islands cares one whit what rms thinks of their laws. That's where he screwed up, and people in the thread said so at the time, too. So people now can try to make this shit-show about his being quoted out of context about "entirely willing" — which, again, it was — as much as they want, but that just won't make it so.
This is entirely about Stallman having quibbled over rape, not whether he was selectively quoted in the course of quibbling over rape.
EDIT: Phrasing
by eecc on 9/17/19, 5:36 AM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions...
by speeder on 9/17/19, 3:32 PM
A woman, testified that Epstein told her to offer sex to Minsky.
What it DIDN'T said:
That Minsky accepted the offer.
Also there are a witness (someone that was present, Greg Benford) that claims that Minsky didn't accepted the offer.
by wyldfire on 9/17/19, 3:37 AM
But this is a good move for FSF. RMS must have realized (or been made to realize) that he is now a net-negative contribution to FSF.
by javagram on 9/17/19, 2:35 AM
I wonder what this means for the influence of the FSF in general. And will RMS stop working on emacs and other software?
by syrrim on 9/17/19, 1:59 PM
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
by DoreenMichele on 9/17/19, 4:22 AM
by AviationAtom on 9/17/19, 2:42 AM
by chj on 9/17/19, 12:53 PM
Things we take for granted today wouldn't exist without this man. To name just one thing, gcc. Yet people are more eager to punish him for what he said than to praise him for what he did.
by typon on 9/17/19, 3:19 AM
by dropit_sphere on 9/17/19, 5:56 PM
by solotronics on 9/17/19, 4:54 AM
People will seriously have to reconsider these arbitrary rules when every single word we all say is recorded from birth. That day is not far away.
How Orwellian the situation we have built for ourselves.
by markslicker on 9/17/19, 1:26 PM
The person Sarah Mei seems to be leading this fight against Stallman even going so far as renouncing the concept of free software and the GPL because of the association with Stallman.
This is entirely wrongheaded, you can agree with the concept of free software and the GPL and disagree with the political views of Stallman. Personally I don't agree with Stallman's political views but he is right on the issues of software freedom and without that I don't think we would be where we are today, having legally protected operating systems, compilers and so forth free for anyone to use, study, or improve upon.
by newnewpdro on 9/17/19, 5:52 AM
It's an utterly disproportionate consequence for Richard's missteps which amount to nothing more than a discussion in a mailing list.
by JulianMorrison on 9/17/19, 12:07 PM
- Minsky is accused, by a credible victim of a non-credible, convicted pedophile, of receiving sexual contact with a woman who was underage at the time, and who was dispatched to him as part of her employment.
- RMS says the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to Minsky as entirely willing. He also says that the difference between 17 and 18 is a minor detail and it's an injustice to refer to it as a sexual assault.
- RMS fails to understand that an adult with a teenager is unacceptable creeping due to the imbalance of power in several different ways, in this context he's right that 17/18 is a minor detail because both are unacceptable. But 17 is also illegal. What if he didn't know she was 17? Irrelevant because he surely knew she was a very young woman, and by implication relished the power imbalance rather than properly backing away. In fact, Minsky should never have accepted friendship with Epstein who was clearly creeping on teenagers in a completely overt way. And RMS shouldn't be defending it.
- RMS also fails to understand how the employer-employee relationship compounds this with yet another axis of undue power, and how these together make the presentation of being "entirely willing" impossible to tell apart from having no choice. This impossibility is why age of consent laws exist even though teenagers can speak and express their opinion. They don't have the structural power to speak freely. To be honest, 18-year-olds don't either. When someone has sexual contact with someone who has no power to say no, that's sexual assault, or it's rape.
- By taking the side of a man he knows, who was doing wrong, over a woman who was vulnerable, and by brushing off the implied possibility of coercion, RMS shows that he is part of the systemic problem of sexist, exploiter-friendly men in tech which the Epstein scandal has uncovered.
by atomashpolskiy on 9/17/19, 3:42 PM
…Remove everyone, if we must, and let something much better be built from the ashes.
Salem, Robotics student who started Remove Stallman campaign
If this isn't literally "revolution [of free speech and thought in cyberspace] devouring its' children", then I don't know, what it is.
by flippinburgers on 9/18/19, 11:28 AM
by dvfjsdhgfv on 9/17/19, 6:35 AM
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
Someone tried to intimidate him saying this exchange will be leaked to the press. Stallman answered people at MIT should seek the truth without being afraid.
What sad times we live in! First Linus, now Stallman...
by gomijacogeo on 9/17/19, 5:27 AM
by tboyd47 on 9/17/19, 2:36 PM
I've read the email chain that's been circulated but it does not go back far enough. It's the "comments about comments" discussion.
by dlitz on 9/17/19, 7:06 AM
The concern for me is has been the accounts of far more directly-relevant behaviour, such as (iirc):
* repeated phone calls to someone from different phone numbers
* leering
* breaking the ground rules for an event, and justifying it on the basis that he's personally exempt from any rules
* singling out a teenage girl attending one of his talks (as in "oh wow, a GIRL")
* single her out again while telling his questionable 'EMACS virgins' joke
* saying in an interview that he didn't know any women who have contributed to GCC, when there had been at least 4
Personally, I think this is a good thing, and I'm glad that he's made the decision to step aside (even if under pressure) rather than fight bitterly and see the community divide along these lines.
It also seems like a good opportunity for him to pass the torch and see what happens, or at least take a long hiatus to get some caring advice and to sort himself out, like Linus did last year. The FSF will eventually need to become an institution that can carry on its mission without him, and this will be a good test of that. If things go off the rails, he can pen another manifesto and I'm sure a bunch of us will read it.
by jellicle on 9/17/19, 3:57 AM
I also think the FSF will be hugely better off without him around, and it's insane that it took this long.
by Guthur on 9/17/19, 2:06 PM
We should be all concerned that media witch hunts like this can in act such results. It is abhorrent that any discussion that triggers a progressive dominated media can destroy people's lives.
by Andrew_nenakhov on 9/17/19, 10:57 AM
by voldacar on 9/17/19, 4:33 AM
by flippinburgers on 9/17/19, 11:52 PM
by w323898 on 9/17/19, 5:31 AM
by kube-system on 9/17/19, 4:13 AM
by dangerface on 9/17/19, 1:17 PM
> our movement will only be successful if it includes everyone. With these as our values and goals > We call for Stallman to step down
[0] https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-spea...
by dang on 9/17/19, 2:32 AM
by antisemiotic on 9/17/19, 11:05 AM
by zenhack on 9/17/19, 6:37 AM
by Fice on 9/17/19, 7:39 PM
by dandare on 9/17/19, 1:02 PM
Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him.
In response to a student pointing out that Giuffre was 17 when she was forced to have sex with Minsky in the Virgin Islands, Stallman said “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
>>Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it in the Virgin Islands.
>Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17'.
>I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term "sexual assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone.
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
by utopianeyes on 9/17/19, 4:09 AM
by salawat on 9/17/19, 4:25 AM
For what it's worth, I think it is a tragedy.
The man is an idealist who has stubbornly managed to hold on and thrive in a pragmatist's world.
There are too many claims to which he is a shining counterexample to the assertion that "Nobody really does that!"
So what if he's a bit of an odd duck? Show me a good programmer who doesn't have quirks! MIT is, in fact, famous for their tradition of living with, and embracing unconventional behavior, while still furthering the State-of-the-Art.
The Free Software Foundation, which has accrued greater and greater entrenchment and influence by non-free software makers and projects alike has always owed to Stallman at least a degree of toleration and begrudging due considering the movement basically started with him last I checked.
I read through the email chain in the Verge articles. It's enough even redacted to give me a solid enough basis from which to say there was nothing untoward about Stallman's posts. I got out of it a caution to read only into what was actually written down, and to avoid letting an unproven narrative whisk the entirety of a man's career away until all the facts were in. At a later point he even states he's read that poster's sources and was unable to locate any evidence conclusively saying that Minsky did anything against her knowingly, and if anything happened, while still being a crime, characterizing it as assault adds a layer of meaning to the accusation that is not immediately obvious from the presented evidence. He's even open to the possibility he hasn't seen something the emailed had, tried to find it, and asked if they'd be willing to send him a copy due to hos commitment to not trafficking services dependent on abusive practices.
If that gets you foisted on the stake these days, I think the Spirit of Salem must be blowing through Massachusets, and it's discovered the fires of the Internet burn hotter than any mere log.
I do not see a malicious intent or an attempt to defend/justify what may have happened to those women. Only an exhortation to not get ahead of what results the System has actually managed to discover as fact.
As the last poster in the email thread the Verge decided to post mentions, as Scientists, we must ask those pesky inconvenient questions which seem to so stifle the actions and catharsis of following our passions, and seek only to know the truth.
And from what I was able to read in the minutes I can dedicate,it is far from a sure thing, but misrepresentation off the character and context of the conversation has already spread like wildfire.
I hesitate to even post this, because to be honest, if people can turn Stallman of all people into a Pariah over just those two emails, heavens above, I'm not sure there are many others behind the cause who can say as honestly to have practiced what they preach to the degrees he has. What chance do the rest of us have? That is exactly the type of chilling effect that this type of behavior and manufactured outrage, combined with the uncertainty of knowing from whence it may come is so adept at propagating.
There is a point where hysteria, and the flames of the passions must stop. Ruining a person's life and reputation for anything more than what can be proven is one of them. That doesn't mean I'm trying to cover up harm, or protect pedophiles. It means I'm committed to the System, due process, and the tenets of rational scientific inquiry.
It is not appropriate that any person should be hung by any segment of the population for endorsing letting the chips fall where they will, or asking to have more compelling physical evidence provided.
The world post 1980 has seen more than anyone would like of wrongdoings not punished as thoroughly as they may needs be, but it is not in anyone's interest that the System be any looser in the Standard of Evidence to be met before officially taking action against someone. No one should want to let slip the Dogs of War in that regard, especially given the number of lives that have been given in ensuring a country existed where that was explicitly prevented at great effort from being possible.
Good luck, Richard. I pray you and the movement survive this without irreparable damage...but I'm not even sure the damage isn't already done.
by regardless9394 on 9/17/19, 6:46 AM
I may agree with his political positions regarding free software, but his talents are otherwise rather run of the mill at this point.
This is the free market. Thanks for your contributions. But you’ve since lost first mover advantage.
by hdfbdtbcdg on 9/17/19, 5:16 PM
If the aim of HN is to run a better forum for discussion then lying in a defamatory way about people should not be tolerated as part of civil discourse.
by ameixaseca on 9/17/19, 5:31 PM
He did not transfer the guilt to the victim nor defended anything wrong that Minsky may have done.
This scenario seems entirely plausible for me. The deceased is not here to defend himself, so I guess it's up to his friends/family/coworkers to defend his reputation.
Also, about the age of consent, I find it ludicrous that a number of people do not know the age of consent on most of the western world is usually 16 or less. Some are even saying "some european countries still have 16 or 14 y/o as age of consent..." as if the age of consent is going to increase in the short term.
Spoiler alert: USA is the odd one out, and it's more in line with Turkey than Western Europe. Let this information sink in for a moment.
by thrownaway954 on 9/17/19, 12:33 PM
by mikeash on 9/17/19, 2:53 AM
by Siira on 9/26/19, 7:57 PM
by erikrothoff on 9/17/19, 3:17 PM
by collyw on 9/18/19, 9:19 AM
by LeoPanthera on 9/17/19, 2:41 AM
by paxys on 9/17/19, 6:30 AM
by lazyjones on 9/17/19, 10:47 AM
First on the list: This guy: https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relations...
by cpach on 9/17/19, 6:01 AM
by Fej on 9/17/19, 6:20 AM
The FSF could use a shakeup.
by kazinator on 9/17/19, 3:54 AM
About time, man!
by YeGoblynQueenne on 9/17/19, 1:18 PM
I just don't think we can discuss this issue sensibly, even on HN.
by godelmachine on 9/17/19, 6:33 AM
by ohiovr on 9/17/19, 1:18 PM
by enriquto on 9/17/19, 6:40 AM
by 2spicy_thrwaway on 9/17/19, 3:52 AM
Yay for throwaway accounts, I guess.
by Zardoz84 on 9/17/19, 5:48 AM
by rpmisms on 9/17/19, 4:01 PM
by lanevorockz on 9/17/19, 1:54 PM
by qbaqbaqba on 9/17/19, 7:34 AM
by bythckr on 9/17/19, 4:12 AM
by lanevorockz on 9/17/19, 1:33 PM
by pugworthy on 9/17/19, 5:17 AM
by manfredz on 9/17/19, 7:37 PM
by vasili111 on 9/17/19, 2:15 PM
by hn23 on 9/17/19, 12:25 PM
by Uhuhreally on 9/17/19, 4:42 AM
by manfredz on 9/17/19, 7:39 PM
by al_form2000 on 9/17/19, 12:00 PM
by flippinburgers on 9/17/19, 11:58 PM
by HNLurker2 on 9/18/19, 4:38 AM
by panny on 9/17/19, 5:47 AM
by marble-drink on 9/17/19, 11:40 AM
RMS is a great man but sadly has difficulties communicating with the wider world. This has been true of many great minds throughout history. It's sad to see it happen to one of my own heroes but I believe history will do him justice if we continue to fight for free software.
I wish somebody would have simply advised him not to speak on such matters because nothing good could become of it. Maybe he needed a PR manager. That sounds awful, but apparently this is what the world wants: carefully filtered speech that doesn't stray far from what people already agree with.
by lostjohnny on 9/17/19, 4:06 PM
"Context: In a recently unsealed deposition a woman testified that, at the age of 17, Epstein told her to have sex with Marvin Minsky. Minsky was a founder of the MIT Media Lab and pioneer in A.I. who died in 2016. Stallman argued on a mailing list (in response to a statement from a protest organizer accusing Minsky of sexual assault) that, while he condemned Epstein, Minsky likely did not know she was being coerced:
> We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
Some SJW responded by writing a Medium post called "Remove Richard Stallman". Media outlets like Vice and The Daily Beast then lied and misquoted Stallman as saying that the woman was likely "entirely willing" and as "defending Epstein". He has now been pressured to resign from MIT
Furthermore the deposition doesn't say she had sex with Minsky, only that Epstein told her to do so, and according to physicist Greg Benford she propositioned Minsky and he turned her down:
> I know; I was there. Minsky turned her down. Told me about it. She saw us talking and didn’t approach me.
This seems like a complete validation of the distinction Stallman was making. If what Minsky knew doesn't matter, if there's no difference between "Minsky sexually assaulted a woman" and "Epstein told a 17-year-old to have sex with Minsky without his knowledge or consent", then why did he turn her down?
Edit: He has also resigned from the Free Software Foundation, which he founded. Grim news for free software, since I think true-believing purists like Stallman are vital to prevent various kinds of co-option."
source: https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/d5axzu/why_...
by geofft on 9/17/19, 2:58 AM
Counterpoint: yes it does.
Judging Washington by the standards of his time and his peers, slavery was abhorrent. Take the case of Quock Walker, who sued for his freedom in 1781, for instance. The chief justice of Massachusetts (and later Washington's own nominee for chief justice of the US) wrote:
> As to the doctrine of slavery and the right of Christians to hold Africans in perpetual servitude, and sell and treat them as we do our horses and cattle [...] nowhere is it expressly enacted or established. It has been a usage -- a usage which took its origin from the practice of some of the European nations, and the regulations of British government respecting the then Colonies, for the benefit of trade and wealth. But whatever sentiments have formerly prevailed in this particular or slid in upon us by the example of others, a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion, or shape of noses-features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this ground our Constitution of Government [...] sets out with declaring that all men are born free and equal [...] and in short is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature [...]
As recorded by Washington's contemporary James Madison, Washington's contemporary Gouverneur Morris denounced the three-fifths compromise during the 1787 constitutional convention:
> He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people, with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. [...] Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. [...] The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.
We should not so facilely dismiss the difficult challenge that Washington is seen as the father of this nation and yet owned slaves. Other founding fathers understood that the American norm of liberty was clearly incompatible with holding slavery in anything other than contempt. Other founding fathers called his behavior "repugnant" and "nefarious" - why should we shy away from criticizing him? It seems far more sensible to me to worry that Washington (along with many others) led our nation into believing a compromised, twisted view of liberty and the natural rights of man, with lasting consequences for the country which hardly ended in the Civil War.
by paggle on 9/17/19, 5:42 AM
by stanulam on 9/17/19, 10:17 PM
by big_chungus on 9/17/19, 2:49 AM
Always nice to see a few angry people on the 'net with out-sized voices manage to bring down an icon of computer science. No one should have his life ruined by a kangaroo trial in the court of public opinion. People don't make good decisions when they try to react and "do something"; it would make more sense to let things die down a little and get the facts on what actually happened. Then make a decision on how best to go forward.
by dangxiaopin on 9/17/19, 2:39 AM
the chips fly"
--Joseph Stalin
by linsomniac on 9/17/19, 3:55 AM
by alexnewman on 9/17/19, 4:05 AM
by nec4b on 9/17/19, 12:12 PM
by tehjoker on 9/17/19, 2:46 AM
Stallman's views were a variety of American libertarianism. While there are a few good points within that tradition regarding personal freedom, it's kind of sad that he carried some of the other baggage with his obsession with age of consent laws.
by radres on 9/17/19, 6:02 AM
by jarek-foksa on 9/17/19, 2:21 PM
by mlindner on 9/17/19, 2:53 AM
by krick on 9/17/19, 3:48 AM
by rrss on 9/17/19, 5:24 AM
by djrobstep on 9/17/19, 2:30 AM
Stallman has been a liability as a figurehead for a long time, and software freedom deserves better standard-bearers.
I saw Stallman once at a public lecture. He was incredibly rude, but is seemingly oblivious to how obnoxious he is being (he struck me as somebody heavily on the spectrum).
I hate to think how many people have written off the cause of software freedom as a joke because of his conduct.
People around him ought to be telling him in stronger terms that his views and general manner are unacceptable.
by jzymbaluk on 9/17/19, 12:44 PM
> The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:
> “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])”
> The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault”is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X.
> The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...) Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
> The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.
> We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
> I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
> Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.
You can (and we must) acknowledge Stallman's contributions to the field while not condoning his pattern of bad behavior. because if we let a leading figure in the industry act this way publicly, it reflects bad on all of us. We cannot claim to be an industry that accepts and welcomes diverse viewpoints and experiences while still holding up a man who has such a long laundry list of reprehensible behavior as a leader and respected figure in the industry.
by mikeash on 9/17/19, 2:24 PM
Also tech bros: “I can’t believe RMS got forced out just for going on a crazy rant about rape on a CS mailing list. Why, any one of us could be next!”
by smsm42 on 9/17/19, 5:45 AM
But as soon as he dared to veer a little from the party line in one particular question, he has been unpersoned in literally couple of days, despite all apologies and attempts to explain he didn't really mean any heresy. I guess that shows who you can disagree with and who would really hurt you if they even suspect you might disagree (even though you don't).
by simplecomplex on 9/17/19, 3:00 AM
Kicking him out of FSF and MIT seems quite excessive for somebody saying something and then apologizing for it. Whether they are Stallman, a student, or anyone really.
Do the people involved at FSF and MIT hold themselves to the same standard they're holding Stallman to? We'll surely find out because humans tend to say a lot of stupid shit over the course of their lifetime.
by roguecoder on 9/17/19, 6:41 AM
by jacquesm on 9/17/19, 8:20 AM
On top of that he does Minsky a huge disservice:
Minsky can't defend himself anymore and RMS has now made a direct connection between Minsky and having sex with underage girls when in fact this may never have happened at all.
The deposition is unfortunately ambiguous about this fact:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ZOEKwoBnDKUFI1hLbFJH5nsUFx...
Page 204, the question is 'Where did you go to have sex with Marvin Minsky?'; then further down that Ghislaine Maxwell directed her to have sex with him but crucially never asks her whether or not it actually happened, and at least one person is on record that Minsky turned her down:
by cujo on 9/17/19, 12:25 PM
RMS is a figure in the hacker/tech community so the hacker/tech community has done most of the excusing for his behavior.
It's sad. There's room for argument in how much backlash he should receive, but if you're arguing that what said is fine, I would argue that you may be fooling yourself.
Consider some public figure you dislike (politician, celebrity, etc). Now pretend that person said these things. Would you be so forgiving? Maybe you would. But if you find the answer to be no, then you're just protecting your own. Quit that.
by Kye on 9/17/19, 2:33 AM