Hacker News Reader

Comment by Barrin92 | Hacker News Reader

> They focused on his tone deaf communication style and awkward demeanor. They spoke of behavior from decades ago and pointed out the fact that he had a mattress in his office.

It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again.

> He held his positions at MIT, GNU, and the FSF for over thirty years, and in that time nobody accused him of coercion, unwanted touching, or verbal harassment

Yes, because of people like you, Geoff. When people like Stallman behave like they do and say the things they say they don't have to face the consequences because people don't want to speak up, because they're afraid of being called liars or censors. That's how authority figures and popular individuals keep getting away with it.

The second paragraph of the post is irrelevant and further proves the point. Stallman's contributions to free software don't excuse his conduct.

View on HN

> It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again.

Every episode I read about fell into the category of "socially awkward adult male". If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity.

By all means, point me to a real abuse scenario by Stallman. I like being proven wrong.

Ignoring a legal age of consent, refusing to accept the accepted definitions of assault and rape, and claiming they were actually willing are emphatically not just "socially awkward".

Can you cite some specific evidence for your specific claims?

On his website, for example, Stallman says that he "reject[s] the term sexual assault" completely.[1]

~edit: I have included the full quote below as I did not intend to twist/misrepresent in any way.

Stallman writes: " The term is applied to a broad range of actions, ranging from stealing a kiss to rape, as well as other things in between. It acts as propaganda for treating them the same.

There seems to be an exception for TSA agents, however.

The term is further stretched to include sexual harassment, which is not a specific act, but rather a pattern of acts that amounts to a form of gender bias. Gender bias is rightly prohibited in certain situations for the sake of equal opportunity.

I don't think that rape should be treated like stealing a kiss, so I reject the term "sexual assault" completely."

[1]https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assult

...and does a great job explaining his pov. It's not like he's saying that sexual assaults do not exist, and people should be able to rape / immodestly touch whoever they please with impunity.

> Sexual assault: The term is applied to a broad range of actions, ranging from stealing a kiss to rape, as well as other things in between. It acts as propaganda for treating them the same.

"Violent crime" also applies to a broad range of actions. It's not a propaganda term for treating all kinds of violent crime as the same. Why would that be the case for sexual assault?

I'm split on your comment.

On one side, you indeed quote Stallman itself and the source of the quote. On the other side the complete quote reads:

     The term is applied to a broad range of actions, ranging from stealing a kiss to rape, as well as other things in between. It acts as propaganda for treating them the same.

     There seems to be an exception for TSA agents, however.

     The term is further stretched to include sexual harassment, which is not a specific act, but rather a pattern of acts that amounts to a form of gender bias. Gender bias is rightly prohibited in certain situations for the sake of equal opportunity.

     I don't think that rape should be treated like stealing a kiss, so I reject the term "sexual assault" completely.

Reading the full context and your except was totally different for me. The full context, implies he doesn't accept the term, because it's an umbrella term that does more harm, than good. That's arguable, but doesn't seem a radical opinion.

In fact, IMO, I agree that using "sexual assault" for something other than rape / attempt of, is depreciating the full meaning of the term and victims are normally the first ones to be affected by it. I do agree that other crimes, born from gender inequality, are very serious as well - that doesn't mean, we should bundle them up. How would society react, if slaps started to be prosecuted as attempted murders?

Hmm. I wasn't trying to twist his words at all, so thanks for quoting in full.

If I see a problem with his characterization of the term "sexual assault" / his reasoning in rejecting it, it's that the "broad range of actions" he says are labeled with the term "sexual assault" share one common trait: they happened without the consent of one party. He kind of ignores this in favour of describing the term as "propaganda for treating [acts of non-rape] as the same". And I find the argument that "one unwanted act that I and presumably others find mostly harmless was described as sexual assault, thus this term has lost its meaning in general" somewhat hard to swallow.

Wikipedia: "Sexual assault is an act in which a person intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will."[1]

If we did away with the term "sexual assault", I'm not sure what terms we would be left with when describing such things, except to describe the exact acts themselves.

In fact, I'm not sure if I buy the idea that "the term sexual assault is losing/has lost its meaning because it used to mean rape" at all, because there has always been a word for that: rape. As far as I know, this term has always existed to describe a broad-range of sexual acts performed without consent.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault

He also explains why, and he raises a good point. Sexual assault covers a lot of different things, but to many if not most people it implies the worst.

I think the whole point of the Stallman discussion as of lately is that people only decide to read what they want to read, ignoring context.

> I don't think that rape should be treated like stealing a kiss, so I reject the term "sexual assault" completely.

From my understanding, he disagrees with the term because it is imprecise, and the greater of two evils might be mixed up with the lesser - with the result that the greater evil might be perceived as less evil as it actually is.

(Edit: A sibling comment gets the above thought better, describing it as an "umbrella term".)

The way you quote him, you try (seem to) to imply that he thinks there is no such thing denoting "sexual assault". Or using the same logical reasoning: Are you, spats1990, implying that rape should be treated like "stealing a kiss"? I doubt you are, but I strongly doubt he does either.

I've replied upthread and edited my post to include the full quote. I wasn't trying to twist his words.

As I wrote in my reply to the post you're referring to, I seem to think that the term sexual assault is necessarily imprecise--but in another sense, it isn't imprecise at all, as all the acts described by it share a single commonality, which is lack of consent.

And he did none of these.

Claiming they were actually willing and claiming they presented themselves as actually willing are two very different things. These are very dangerous accusations you are throwing around - you might do well to stick to what he actually said and wrote.

It seems to me not credible that a 70 year old Minsky believed that a quite young lady would, on minutes of meeting him, be so attracted that she would be anxious to be intimate.

According to eyewitnesses he turned down the advances...

but that's irrelevant to Stallman's comments, because RMS starts by assuming that Minsky did have sex with the trafficked coerced child.

Possibly, but that is not the point. The point is that RMS never said the victims were willing, which is the quote (or one of the quotes) he's being burnt for.

He might have thought she was attracted to him. Anna Nicole Smith claimed to have been attracted to her 90-something husband. There have been enough historical examples where power or intellect apparently attracts. Or maybe he thought she was attracted to Epstein's money and wanted to be on his good side by "entertaining" his friends. Or maybe he was fully aware of the situation.

We cannot know what he thought, and we cannot even ask since he is dead, and we did not even know what actually happened after she "offered" herself (unwillingly and coerced by Epstein, of course).

Having a view that the law is wrong is not a crime, and nor should it be.

If it were, who needs legislature?

Citation needed.

He did not "ignore" age of consent, and what you describe as "refusing to accept the accepted definitions" is not refusal to accept the law, as you ambiguously characterise it, but the crime of arguing how unhelpful those definitions are in the context he describes.

No. Wrong. You, and many others, seem incapable of parsing basic sentences.

RMS claimed it was plausible that she presented herself to Minsky as willing, due to coercion by Epstein.

There's a big difference.

And what could be more normal than an 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island willingly offering free sex to a man in his 70s? How could Minsky possibly have suspected that anything was amiss?

Have you considered the possibility that your definition of normalcy is not equivalent to what's technically possible, or may be even the truth?

I have read over your comment a few times and still have no idea what you mean. But yeah, I'm confident in my judgment of what is and isn't normal in this instance.

> How could Minsky possibly have suspected that anything was amiss?

Reportedly, Minsky did suspect that something was amiss and refused the offer.

I know, but RMS was saying it would have been ok if he hadn't, hypothetically.

I guess it's possible Minsky confused her for a 18 year old prostitute. Whether that counts as "willing" depends on your views on prostitution, of course.

> claiming they were actually willing

Did you even bother to read the emails or at the very least the article? This misconception is exactly what's being argued there, that Stallman said something clearly different.

> Ignoring a legal age of consent

By doing what, raping someone underage? Or rather expressing his opinion that it's ridiculous that when in one state the age of consent is 16, in another one it's 18, and yet people are judged morally and criminally for failing to distinguish between these two? So basically what you're saying is that possessing a non-standard opinion and criticizing existing laws should make you a non-person. I believe you'd feel very much at home in the USSR, the communist party had the same ideas.

Once people have decided, or taken a position, facts and evidence are virtually useless.

I read here on HN a few days ago that the dude in question, TURNED THE GIRL DOWN. How people are crucifying two people (Stallman and the dead guy) for underage rape that never happened is just crazy.

it's SJW and cancel culture, with people who pile on as a virtue signalling that is causing this.

See how badly critics blasted dave chappel for his new show, despite the audience loving the jokes (even if they were edgy, they were done in good taste, and pin-pointed a problem that society at large refuses to comment or talk about).

Agreed. If Stallman was a charming, charismatic, handsome guy with a square jaw and good hair the whole conversation would probably have a different lens placed on it.

Then he wouldn't be seen as an awkward guy who doesn't know any better but instead as an arrogant dick.

Exactly. The conversation should be framed around what he did (or didn't) do, rather than how others felt around him.

Yesn't IMO. When discussing RMS as a person I agree but in the context of the presidency of the FSF (which is more or less the "face of free software") we should certainly take into account what kind of energy he radiates.

Hot, charming people get away with things that ugly awkward people don't. However, the lesson to be drawn from this isn't that it's ok to do those things. Rather, it's that life is unfair.

except that Stallman was let off for years ... I think people often just let him off because he wasn't "Hot, charming" and they maybe felt a certain amount of pity for him ...

> the lesson to be drawn from this isn't that it's ok to do those things

if it's OK for the charming, suave guy to do it, then the issue exists at the "victim", not the "perpetrator".

Rule of law is meant to make life more fair, and this isn't a lesson, but it is something for society to improve on.

>if it's OK for the charming, suave guy to do it,

I was saying that it isn't ok for the charming, suave guy to do it either.

Is this a joke? This is disgusting.

> If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity.

Which seem to go against all goals of diversity and inclusiveness. If we strive for more diverse community we have accept quirks of some people. Only in purely homogeneous group everybody can be comfortable and not offended.

Society: "We must embrace neuro-diversiry"

Midly Autistic, not-good-looking man: Shows signs of autism

Society: "No! Not like that! Kill it! Kill it!"

Stop using autism to defend someone who's said that raping children doesn't harm them.

Children? ...

Honestly curious, when did he say that?

https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...

> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html

> The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

> Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.

He stated that the absence of consent is what makes it harmful. He is against rape, independently of the victims age.

He is defending Minsky by saying Minsky did not rape this child.

In this specific example he is not against rape because he is trying to redefine rape to make his colloeague look less guilty of rape.

I don't understand how what you've answered changes the fact that Stallman openly implied with his opinion that absence of consent (rape) makes a sexual relation unethical and bad. Stallman is against rape, and arguing that criticizing the ambiguous use of a term in a certain context (sexual assault) makes he somehow pro-rape seems unreasonable (but I'm open to explanations I didn't consider, if you wish to try).

In general, if you have any sources for your claims feel free to share them (I can't find any sources quoting stallman saying anything that vaguely resembles a pro-rape argument, and I've gone through most comments in the section).

More specifically, Stallman didn't ever say that raping children doesn't harm them, if your definition of rape is sex without consent (that's the legal definition in my country). He said that if you have consensual sex with a minor then that may not be harmful for him/her (the fact that this is not "raping children" follows from the very definition of rape).

I'm trying to leave my feelings aside but you really seem to be misquoting Stallman to try to make a point. I really hope I'm wrong about this so I'm genuinely curious about what did you mean when you said he stated that "raping children doesn't harm them".

Autism isn't a catch-all excuse for his behaviour and using it as one spits in the face of people with autism who face the same challenges and work hard to improve.

Stallman didn't care.

My comment is as much a general observation as it is a specific one, because unfortunately I have seen this before.

People, even many of the ones advocating for inclusivity, are extremely unforgiving of autistic traits and will dogpile on any social faux-pass accidentally made.

Half of the academic computer science community is autistic and not attractive, and the vast majority of them somehow manages to refrain from making female colleagues and students constantly uncomfortabe, provoking outrage by doubting the well-supported testimony of a child sex abuse victim, and so forth.

> If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity.

There's a difference between tolerating it to a degree and letting leaders continue uncomfortable awkwardness. If it's enough to distance people, maybe they're not a great candidate for a leader. That doesn't remove anything from their achievements and abilities to contribute or to spread new ideas. The post says "If an occasional social gaffe or failed attempt at humor is all it takes to get thrown out on the street" - entirely omitting the space occupied by almost all of us: between homelessness and being a leader of a global movement/organisation.

We can at the same time tolerate awkwardness and hold our local and global leaders to high standards.

> If it's enough to distance people, maybe they're not a great candidate for a leader.

Isn't the whole point of a 'leader' that they challenge the status quo not bite their tongue to follow it?

The point of a leader is that they do/present something that gathers followers. If the followers say "no, that's not ok", they're by definition not a good leader anymore (or not for that group of people - RMS can definitely create an FSF clone with people who accept him).

There's lots of leaders who love the status quo and organise people around it. No challenging needed. (for example priests being leaders for a small local community)

There's also lots of leaders (many important ones on history) who say controversial things. You are saying they shouldn't be given a platform by society, which I can't disagree with more.

This isn't the followers saying "no, that's not ok", this is large institutions saying "no" on behalf of a vocal few.

Mu. You asked if leader is defined by challenging things. I gave an alternative definition with an example of leaders not challenging things. (and sure, there are also those who do challenge) No-platforming is a completely different topic, and I have expressed no opinions about it.

You haven't responded to my point here, this is just playing semantics and making me guess your definitions.

Despite how you are dancing around responses, from where I see it: You are clearly denying him a platform by saying he shouldnt be a 'leader' (ie. keep his posts). You are making that decision by institutions instead of individuals. You are holding all the worlds 'leaders' to your own moral views which is logically inconsistent.

You've made multiple assumptions about my opinions that I disagree with, and honestly it's too much work to unwind. I'd rather leave now.

I'm trying here, but you just seem to do all you can to avoid debate and confuse discussion

You didn't just give an example of a leader who doesn't challenge things. You literally stated that if a follower disagrees with the leader, then "by definition" he/she is not a good leader. You are implying that the definition of "leader" includes that you can't challenge things people may not find ok (disagree with).

a minority of followers didn't like what RMS did (from what i hear). Do we now aim to please every body, even if it means removing the awkward visionaries that would've otherwise have contributed more, and replace them with crowd-pleasing socialites that navigate people gracefully?

How would it be the point of a leader in free software to challenge the status quo that women are welcome in the workplace and in free software?

There has to be a third option between "tolerate everything" and "completely oust him from public life as violently as you can".

Why do you think the second case happened? He resigned from a prestigious position on his own terms. If I expected anyone to tell straight "I've been forced to resign" or "I've been fired due to politics", it would be RMS. He didn't, and nobody seems to be preventing him to take part in public life - as evidenced by the number of posts, there's a number of people who still want to work with him.

He was witch-hunted on the internet by a serial witch-hunter, some "journalists" who lack basic reading comprehension and the lynch mob that ensured. It's naive to believe he resigned voluntarily. He was pressured into it, probably believed the witch-hunters, lynchmobgoers and finger pointers to a certain degree that he indeed is evil, resigned to protect what he created and therefore was nice enough to not shit all over the institutions he created on his way out.

His reputation was set on fire and burned to the ground, he was expelled from his life's work, might even have become homeless as a direct result, and most of the people he considered friends or friendly vanished over night (tho, some remain as you pointed out, but decidedly few) destroying most of his social (support) network.

He built a global movement challenging people publically and he's happy to semi-publically state his opinions about sexual assault at the worst possible time, but he will stay silent about pressure to step down to be nice? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that.

>He built a global movement challenging people publically

Exactly, is it hard to imagine he doesn't want to take a blow torch to his own creation just as a last "fuck you" farewell?

>happy to semi-publically state his opinions about sexual assault

He said sexual assault is bad. How dare he?!

He rejects the term 'Sexual Assault' completely. https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assult

There's plenty of troubling stuff in his writing.

Yes, he rejects the specific term as too non-specific, not that there is sexual violence at all.

Reading your link, I don't find anything troubling. He says the term is too ambiguous and it makes it easy to (potentially maliciously) misrepresent someone's acts.

If you find anything else he's said troubling please provide me some references as I'm trying to read anything that may help me to understand this episode. (I've already read about his former and present opinions on paedophilia)

but but ... he was tolerated ... people were complaining about him for years ...

> There's a difference between tolerating it to a degree and letting leaders continue uncomfortable awkwardness.

You are saying that socially awkward people shouldn't be leaders. RMS can't change, he isn't socially awkward by choice. That's his personality.

I disagree. Leaders have flaws, and social awkwardness isn't anywhere near the top of the worst flaws. In fact, in RMS' case, I think it was part of the reason for his success in promoting free software.

> There's a difference between tolerating it to a degree and letting leaders continue uncomfortable awkwardness. If it's enough to distance people, maybe they're not a great candidate for a leader.

Honestly, they got him because they could. There's plenty of politicians, including state heads, regularly making offensive and sexist comments. I haven't seen anyone attempting or even proposing a coup because of that. It usually gets a day or two on the news, and then is remembered only in jokes.

> That doesn't remove anything from their achievements and abilities to contribute or to spread new ideas.

Of course it does, because being a leader is the ability "to contribute or to spread new ideas". Moreover, in this particular case, we're hearing plenty of voices trying to retroactively deny RMS's achievements.

> entirely omitting the space occupied by almost all of us: between homelessness and being a leader of a global movement/organisation.

In this particular case, it was a jump over that space occupied by almost all of us. In a blink of an eye, this incident made an old person not employable and apparently (according to the TFA) homeless. Maybe a different, more emotionally and intellectually balanced person could handle this and resume a fulfilling but low-profile life. But such people don't generally end up with achievements or roles as RMS did. It takes a pretty unbalanced person to persist in pushing views that go against the commercial zeitgeist so long, so successfully, and without compromise.

> In a blink of an eye, this incident made an old person not employable and apparently (according to the TFA) homeless.

He already entered his retirement age. (Unless I miscalculated) He's a clever man - if he's got no retirement fund, or stable accommodation by now, that's a different issue and only brought forwards faster, not created now.

I mean, if the accommodation was provided entirely unofficially by MIT this whole time and was yanked away without warning, I really sympathise. But I find that idea unlikely without some good confirmation.

> Every episode I read about fell into the category of "socially awkward adult male". If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity.

Perhaps you need to read about more episodes:

> I worked 10 years ago at VA Linux which had Richard Stallman on its board of directors. You might have heard that Stallman applied his open source ideas to his publicly open marriage as well. The problem was that he was more than open. He made overt sexual advances to women at work. One young woman who worked next to me was so upset from his multiple advances that she took it to senior management. She was able to deal with the problem without taking the issue outside the company. I don’t know the details, but she was given advanced warning anytime Stallman was headed over so that she could leave. He was a creep and women at the company knew to stay away.

* https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/richard_stallmans_disgrac...

I'm sorry for the specific request, but it must be a first hand account of an event. This second hand account can easily be the result of RMS being a difficult person to be around, for any number of reasons, constructed via word of mouth into a sexual issue.

I haven't read the description of anything that resembles sexual abuse by RMS.

(edited to remove an unintended reference to sexual assault)

Why are you shifting the goalposts to sexual assault? No-one here is saying that RMS has sexually assaulted anyone, and he wasn't fired due to allegations of that nature.

Sorry, it was unintended. Thanks for pointing it out. I edited the text.

> I'm sorry for the specific request, but it must be a first hand account of an event.

The excerpt is from an e-mail that John Gruber received in 2011. It is the written testimony of someone who witnessed the events in question first hand.

It's a blog post written around an excerpt from an email of someone who did not witness the abuse event, but knew and interacted with the abused at the time. In my book, that's a second hand account of the event.

Also, Gruber dislikes Stallman for quite a while, and has repeteadly picked on him for various reasons like "lack of hygiene" or weird behaviour. Never, once, until now, for the sexual advances theme.... He just discovered that this was in fact the primary reason why he should've disliked Stallman, not the others.

Given this, I'd expect (A) this is close to the worst concrete evidence that one can find on Stallman's misbehaviours, everywhere; and (B ) it's not exactly unbiased. Sure it sounds bad, but I would like details. Because at the same time, there's also this tale that sounds a lot more objective, verifiable & facts-based https://archive.is/7qepC. E.g :

> One remarkable thing about the FSF at that time, when we worked out of dinky spare offices on the campus of MIT, was the degree of participation by women. In the tiny society that was then the FSF, women were more prominent than I had seen in Silicon Valley, or acadamia prior. The general culture of inclusiveness and tolerance that RMS fostered meant that, at least when I was there alongside Bushnell, that social circle in and around the organization was feminized and all the stronger for it.

> Also, Gruber dislikes Stallman for quite a while, and has repeteadly picked on him for various reasons like "lack of hygiene"

It somewhat makes me think that, coming from the greatest Apple fanboy ever, Gruber forgot that on many accounts Steve Jobs too had a personal hygiene problem.

> I don’t know the details, but she was given advanced warning anytime Stallman was headed over so that she could leave. He was a creep and women at the company knew to stay away.

If we don’t have a specific account and details are unknown, then I don’t think this is a fair characterization.

Ive had others think Stallman is creepy too. They actively avoided him, but he never did anything to them.

Sexual advances in and of themselves are not illegal - but again we don’t have a true source for this information. Assuming this is all 100% factually accurate and the sentiment is properly related: it sounds Inappropriate, but if he wasn’t fired, it sounds like it wasn’t far enough outside the acceptable conduct to warrant anything.

> it sounds like it wasn’t far enough outside the acceptable conduct to warrant anything.

That's not how things work. Workplace "justice" is quite dependent on things like internal politics and personal affiliations. You can't rely tell how bad something was by the disciplinary response.

Stallman is such an annoyance that if there were a credible harassment allegation against him, the MIT administration would have almost certainly made use of it before this.

There was a pretty big change in 2016. How sure are you that had no effect on his internal political situation?

Consequently it might be correct to reserve judgement, like the author implies.

Why is John Gruber reprinting anonymous emails that are clearly lying? Richard Stallman was never married so he never had an "open marriage" either. Given that the person writing the email didn't even bother to verify this easily verified detail I suspect the rest is also a work of fiction.

This story has obvious falsehoods and as far as I can tell, is totally false or about the wrong person.

1. As far as I can tell, he was never on the board of VA Linux.

2. RMS was never married. https://www.quora.com/Is-Richard-Stallman-married

3. It is a widely known that if anyone ever associates RMS with "open source", he will interject to say that he vehemently disagrees with open source and had nothing to do with its creation. The fireball guy who posted this story, clearly knows very little of RMS to post this without mentioning the fact that this part absolutely is false.

4. He dislikes the word "open" in general, and would never ever use it to describe anything he was involved in. Again, key fact that is clearly false.

5. RMS does not usually have bad hygiene.

6. One of the people who coined "open source" was involved with VA Linux, his name was Eric S Raymond. Perhaps this this is about him.

> 5. RMS does not usually have bad hygiene.

He does, actually. But yes, the story is most likely about ESR, and he's been quite open about his polyamorous relationships.

That article says

> followed up with a post relaying numerous first-hand reports from women subjected to Stallman’s harassment. One example:

The example it then lists (about Stallman at a buffet lunch) is the only "first-hand" report of harassment contained in the follow-up post. This is actually pivotal to the whole daringfireball post as he is purporting to have an ironclad case of harassment but there's only a single first-person account and an email he received about something happening to somebody else at VA Linux (I can't find any reference for Stallman ever being on the board of directors at VA Linux, although they changed their name a number of times which doesn't make things any easier).

The VA Linux claim is to the best of my knowledge false. It's also second-hand information relayed by Gruber.

Eric S. Raymond ("ESR") was an author of the Open Source Definition and a member of the VA Linux board:

https://www.linux.com/news/eric-raymond-responds-changes-va-...

I find no current links indicating Stallman was ever on the VA Linux, or any other corporate board. Neither his personal bio nor Wikipedia bio mention any.

> He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace

This sword cuts both ways.

MIT is not a kindergarten, they are adult people moving in an adult work context.

It has been said here, that some women are so terrified of Stallman that will carry plants around with they. If true this would speak volumes but not about RMS; about those women!

I assume that there are a lot of very smart but socially awkward people (men and women) in MIT. Excentricity and twisted humour is not a trait exclusive of men. Sex jokes are not exclusive of men. A fully growth women, so terrified of any contact with men to barricade herself behind a geranium all day, should raise a red flag. Maybe somebody in the administration could stop chasing the "big bad men" and kindly try to help this women to improve her social skills instead.

Dealing with sex and relationships is part of being an adult. Any adult women should be able to stop and deal elegantly with an undesired proposition. Men act nervous, clumsy and awkward all the time when try to develop a romantic relationship. This does not convert them in monsters. Is just the human nature.

Just a smile and a "thanks, but not thanks" should be enough, and this is a skill that can be learned also.

> A fully growth women, so terrified of any contact with men to barricade herself behind a geranium all day, should raise a red flag.

Cool victim blaming.

> Any adult women should be able to stop and deal elegantly with an undesired proposition.

They're in a professional environment, they shouldn't have to deal with this.

> They're in a professional environment, they shouldn't have to deal with this.

Tell that to all the millions of people who are happily married to people they met in professional environments.

> Tell that to all the millions of people who are happily married to people they met in professional environments.

Ahh, cool, so we can keep harassing women insofar as there are sometimes positive benefits.

Some work environments are more amenable than others to developing relationships. Do realize that many people in this thread probably only exist because their parents met in a work setting. Your own grandparents may have.

For many people, the workplace is where they spend the largest chunk of their life and thus the primary method of socializing and developing relationships.

There are workplaces where this is inappropriate. There are situations, such as imbalances of power, making this inappropriate. But it is far less appropriate, edging on trolling, for you to categorize every single work relationship as "women being harassed in the workplace".

Do know it is possible to develop a romantic relationship without harassing the other person. If you're not acquainted with the method, for the sake of your potential partners, please familiarize yourself.

> But it is far less appropriate, edging on trolling, for you to categorize every single work relationship as "women being harassed in the workplace".

Try reading my post again, my dude. Maybe go a little slower. Read it backwards to forwards, forwards to backwards, and then try setting aside ideological goggles for a second.

We're talking about a workplace where women are doing something completely and totally bizarre: they're carrying around plants so they don't have to engage with someone. There's no situation in which that isn't totally bizarre--people don't just walk around with potted plants for the fun of it.

So, I say, "Hey, maybe they shouldn't have to deal with this," yet I'm the one who needs to "familiarize yourself." What a deranged cadre of people the lot of you are--you're so desperate to explain away this abuse that you can't even keep the context of a thread only 3 or 4 posts deep.

I've read your post. Your post is a reply to someone who is talking about "all the millions of people who are happily married to people they met in professional environments".

When you replied to that post, you stopped talking about MIT and Stallman, and you addressed a general situation: "Is it okay to have romantic relationships in the workplace". Maybe you should quit jumping on the opportunity to call people deranged/desperate/whatever and revise your own posts, because it's possible you're in the wrong.

> victim blaming

Not. We need to use the correct terms. Victim blaming would be suggesting that the woman triggered the situation somehow. I'm not saying this at all.

I'm talking about the reaction. IF that history was real [and not just a silly rumour] then we must notice that there is more than a people acting weird here. To freak out and carry an antiviolator house plant because you received a twisted visit card with dirty humour, once, well... this is not normal either, IMHO.

> They're in a professional environment, they shouldn't have to deal with this.

Fair point. 100% agree with that, but if you put several adult people in a room, they will inevitably try to develop relationships.

The common factor in all interactions with RMS is RMS. You can shrug off one or two incidents but not as many as there has been.

The behavior I saw, with creepy-sounding jokes about how being molested by guards is desireable if the guards are cute and similar comments, was definitely beyond "socially awkward adult male".

There is also no reason that "male" should be a relevant qualifier.

As I referred afterwards on the thread (and should have done on the original comment), please refer to actual first-hand accounts. These kinds of stories tend to grow on each retelling.

The quote I saw was:

> OP: "CBP waved me through with hardly a word last week (TSA did grumble at me, for not moving fast enough through their fondling queue)." > > RMS: I generally ask, "Could I please be checked by a woman? It's not fair that only gays get to enjoy this."

I don't have a link, but I have not seen this one grow or change at all, everyone referring to it refers to the same thing.

And that one is pretty damn creepy.

That is obviously a joke. If that's the kind of stuff condemning Stallman, my point is proven.

> Yes, because of people like you, Geoff. When people like Stallman behave like they do and say the things they say they don't have to face the consequences because people don't want to speak up, because they're afraid of being called liars or censors. That's how authority figures and popular individuals keep getting away with it.

On the other hand, so far, no one has come forward to denounce anything (harassment or similar) about Stallman.

It seems to me that Stallman's lack of social adherence is the reason why he's being attacked. Not actual facts.

> He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again.

All this is irrelevant to the quite real and undeniable truth that it's not because he "made women feel unwelcome in the workplace" that he was sacked. This is pure after-the-fact rationalization. He was sacked for having the wrong opinion and not knowing when to shut up.

>It wasn't just awkward demeanor. He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again.

Can you please cite your sources for this claim?

He’s autistic. He probably gives almost everyone he comes into contact with the creeps. Neurotypical people don’t like autistic people, and would prefer to avoid them to the greatest extent possible.

I doubt Stallman was any more unpleasant to women than to men, or showed any greater or lesser social graces. He has never, ever held back about any of his opinions or actions. I’m sure you could get him to admit to things that would get almost anyone fired by most jobs in under ten minutes and he wouldn’t deny any of it afterwards.

People like Stallman don’t do professional because he’s not a faker. He’s not trying to make money or buy prestige. He just wants free software.

>Neurotypical people don’t like autistic people,

Oh this is hilarious. Do you realize how many people -- not just men -- in CS, physics, mathematics are autistic, especially in places like MIT? Places like that are teeming with autistic people who somehow manage not to make their students and colleagues uncomfortable. I'll even be so bold as to claim neurotypicals are actually a minority in some of those subjects.

This is really strange atempt to spin his firing as some sort of evidence that autistic men are being oppressed in CS academia and tech. As anyone who's been in either of those environmets, that's clearly NOT the case.

I’m not saying he’s oppressed. He’s a super giant nerd and people don’t like nerds. Other nerds don’t like nerds. No one owes anyone else shit. Normal people don’t like fat or ugly people either, and avoid them too.

The idea that autistic people do not make allistic people uncomfortable is completely at odds with my experience. The more obviously autistic someone is the less allistic people want to be near them. People who are crushing monomaniacal bores with poor social skills are tolerated if they have some valuable skills, keep to themselves, or parrot the party line.

Autistic people can make allistic people uncomfortable by sitting quietly in the corner of a room. They look funny, they stim, they do that flappy thing with their hands, or rock.

Stallman wasn’t oppressed. He was booted for being a huge outspoken driven asshole with no political nous, but he’s been a huge outspoken equal opportunity asshole for decades.

They look funny, they stim, they do that flappy thing with their hands, or rock.

The problem is you are attributing the low end of high functioning with all of them. Either you have also met autistic people much closer to normal than that, or you simply haven't noticed them because you can't tell the difference.

>I’m not saying he’s oppressed. He’s a super giant nerd and people don’t like nerds

At some point most people mature enough to realize that everyone's a nerd about something and stop caring. Most people with a college education and an actual career end up meeting all sorts of people and realizing that cliques are stupid. There are still some high schoolesque antics at every company, but generally that has been my experience.

> Do you realize how many people -- not just men -- in CS, physics, mathematics are autistic, especially in places like MIT?

Do you have any citations for that (for the fact that there's a significant proportion of autistic people who study/work at the MIT)? It's come up a few times in the comment section of this article, and I can't find sources for that claim.

Honestly the first time I read it I dismissed it as an exaggeration, but you (and others) seem convinced enough to use it to back some of your opinions on this topic. Before this, I would've thought that thoughts like that were merely stereotypes result of ignorance.

Stereotypes are mostly accurate[1]. If you don’t think it’s accurate you could just visually compare MIT and Harvard students. The difference in average nerdiness is neither small nor subtle. I hope you will accept the relationship between nerdiness and autism as a given.

[1]https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d4e/4958856859323ecacca918...

> Stereotype (In)Accuracy in Perceptions of Groups and Individuals

> Are stereotypes accurate or inaccurate? We summarize evidence that stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable findings in social psychology. We address controversies in this literature, including the long-standing and continuing but unjustified emphasis on stereotype inaccuracy, how to define and assess stereotype accuracy, and whether stereotypic (vs. individuating) information can be used rationally in person perception. We conclude with suggestions for building theory and for future directions of stereotype (in)accuracy research.

>He’s autistic. He probably gives almost everyone he comes into contact with the creeps. Neurotypical people don’t like autistic people, and would prefer to avoid them to the greatest extent possible.

This is an incredibly ignorant opinion. Lots of high functioning autistic people develop reasonable social skills. People still probably notice if they hang around with us long enough, but non-shitty people (aka apparently almost everyone but you) don't default to thinking they are creepy perverts that they must escape from.

Some autistic people are so socially stunted that they have trouble interacting with people at all, but there are a lot of us that have successful careers, friends, wives, etc. We're a little weird but most of us aren't freaks. Try having some compassion.

If by some chance you have formed this opinion due to a personal struggle with autism. Theres ways to learn decent social skills.

My social skills are just fine thanks. I’m still not under the illusion allistic people like autistic people, or accept them except under the condition that they hide who and what they are.

I don’t think autistic people are creepy perverts. I think that normal people pretty much automatically think they’re creepy because there’s something off about the way they interact socially. The degree of offness varies but if you never had it you were never autistic.

If you’re under the impression people are accepting go to an autism or asperger’s support group. You will be quickly disabused of your high opinion of humanity.

https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2019/04/24/on-stimming-a...

> Being able to pass as nonautistic is an important skill. We live in a world full of people who hate autistic people. Other people find the natural way our bodies move to be upsetting or repulsive to look at. It is not realistic to expect nonautistic people to change, so those of us who can acquire the skill of passing will often be better able to achieve our goals if we can pass.

You keep going to extremes. I'm not saying everyone treats autistic people perfectly, I'm just not agreeing that most people are so repulsed that they feel physically unsafe around us and treat us like creeps. The act of socializing itself is exhausting to me, but I don't necessarily feel like I have to hide everything about myself, its more like I have to pay attention to how I respond to people because I might say something that's legitimately rude because my instincts about what might hurt a person's feelings are out of touch with most people.

I don't know that there's a better way for society to accept us than for us to do our best to learn normal social behavior and for them to be understanding when they see that we're trying, even if we fail. Surely you don't expect normal people to just get constantly insulted forever to spare the feelings of a tiny percentage of the population.

And obviously due to variance, bad luck, ignorant local populations/culture, etc, some autistic people will inevitably have a worse experience with people than mine.

What extremes?

I said Stallman was an equal opportunity autistic asshole rather than a sexual predator. You impugned my social skills.

I never said people felt threatened by autistic people. They’re disgusted. Just like fat or ugly people. People aren’t creeped out by scary, violent men, they’re afraid of them. Being creeped out is about disgust, not fear.

I have no comment about society because that’s every individual’s own problem, just like being fat or ugly. No one except maybe your family and friends care, so deal with it or suffer or deal with it and suffer. But don’t sugar coat it and pretend things are ok and people are nice. This is a fallen world and if you find your way into a pleasant part it’s through continuous, vigourous effort.

one extreme:

Neurotypical people don’t like autistic people, and would prefer to avoid them to the greatest extent possible.

The other extreme is the way you interpret my statements to mean that I have some delusionally idealistic view of humanity. Reality lies between your overly bleak assessment of average people and the perfectly accepting world you mistakenly attributed to me.

I acknowledge that some people are jerks. However, most people try to get along with people when they interact with them. The people who don't, or who are unusually bad at it are often the neurotypical people.

The word creepy can mean fear or disgust. Frequently in the context of women thinking a guy is a creep, they mean some amount of both. If that's not what you meant, fair enough.

Are you disgusted by fat people, the mentally disabled, or people that aren't beautiful? I don't think that's as normal as you seem to think it is.

There are verifiable prejudices towards overweight people but you make it sound like people can't stand to see them.

Also, don't you think all sorts of self-help groups are self selecting for people with negative experiences?

I'd just awoid stinky people no mater their neural status.

"He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again."

You are making me feel unwelcome on this forum and your comment is unprofessional.

> Yes, because of people like you, Geoff. When people like Stallm ....

It's because of people like you that allegations ruin people's life.

When there's nothing to prove, you are talking about what could have

The original Medium post was resting on equating Stallman saying that one of Epstein's victims may've been presented to Minsky as "entirely willing", as him saying that the girl in fact was "entirely willing".

Such intentional smear campaign makes me seriously question the author of the piece, because if they had an obvious case of wrongdoing, no such intentional misquoting would indeed be necessary.

"actively made women feel unwelcome" therefore he should be internet lynch mobbed with the same fervor that's reserved for high profile criminals? Do I get my own internet lynch mob next time someone makes me feel unwelcome or acts unprofessionally?

"Someone could have been theoretically, emotionally harmed, therefore I must cause real-world harm!"

> Yes, because of people like you, Geoff.

I don't see why you have to attack the author here, but let me ask you this -- if I "feel" unwelcomed by your conduct, for whatever reason, on a "private" mailing list, then should you be forced to resign?

I'm voting you down because you don't give specifics.

If you have something to share, put the effort to be specific. Now you are just throwing general accusations.

> He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again.

I'm 6 foot+ and 200 pounds+. I make certain women uncomfortable simply by existing. They will view every action I take through a lens of being frightened and intimidated.

Do I deserve to get fired? Obviously not.

I have also had different women ask me to join a meeting because the audience wasn't listening to them because they were so physically small. They needed someone with authority to say "shut up and listen". Those women have no issues with me whatsoever and enlist my assistance

Clearly the problem isn't with me, should the women frightened of me get fired instead? Obviously not.

Now what?

>He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again.

Please elaborate?

Then maybe we should have removed him for one of the previous instances of awkwardness, because the message I see here in no way justifies any of the things that subsequently happened.

I would not call it anything less than a disgrace for anyone involved.

Honestly I'm starting to feel that at this point we should just have businesses that are like sororities and fraternities because people can't seem to handle themselves or handle how others fail to handle themselves.

He made feel unwelcome both women and men. Not just women. It was part of his personality.

> because they're afraid of being called liars or censors

lies where told. There are plenty people afraid of pointing this out, lest they be called an "apologist" for something. Is that because of "people like you, Barrin92"?

I hope people thinking like above, or sad finger-pointers like the ones writing the articles, are removed from the tech industry...

Yes, I too would like everyone who I disagree with to be removed from my industry.

That was sarcasm, because apparently in 2019 that's an acceptable thing to say with a straight face.

>Yes, I too would like everyone who I disagree with to be removed from my industry

So, like those people you seem to applaud did to Stallman?

>apparently in 2019 that's an acceptable thing to say with a straight face

Oh, the irony...

"lynch-mobbers" are not "everyone who I disagree with".

Invoking <current year> isn't usually said with a straight face anymore.

> He actively made women feel unwelcome in the workplace and behaved unprofessionally over and over again.

How do you know this? How do you know that he deliberately tries to make women uncomfortable? I don't think any women is comfortable near a fat, bearded virgin that eats things off his foot, but to accuse him of deliberately making women uncomfortable implies that he knows some of his actions are off limits and he's deliberately crossing the line. You're just attributing malice when there's a simple answer - he's socially awkward, he doesn't know what the limits are.

> How do you know that he deliberately tries to make women uncomfortable?

He doesn’t do it deliberately (probably). The accusations are only that he does it.

> I don't think any women is comfortable near a fat, bearded virgin that eats things off his foot

None of the things you just listed were part of the reasons they gave.

> but to accuse him of deliberately making women uncomfortable

Again – deliberate not necessary for this to be a bad thing.

In case you haven’t seen it and/or for your browsing convenience, here’s a link to the main set of actual issues in question: https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi... (the fact that I’m linking this doesn’t mean I agree with every word of it or take its truth as a given, by the way – just pointing out that you’re arguing against a non-position)

Ignorance is a bad excuse for undesired behavior. That's why when it comes to legal terms, you can't claim you didn't knew something was illegal and get away with it.

There are good reasons to defend (some of) Stallman's behavior, saying he don't know better is not one of them. If anything, it only makes me feel better about his current situation: Oh, the whole problem is that he didn't knew what he was doing? Well, he's learning a hell of a lesson now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com