Hacker News Reader

As a woman who, at my 16 was able to fool many men in selling me alcohol and nicotine, was able to interpret RMS arguments properly.

It's a shame that his words are being twisted once again after everything he went through.

I can understand what Stallman meant, but I am not at all surprised at the reaction. This particular case has little to do with him hitting on women around him. This had been happening for decades and most people just rolled their eyes and made fun of him behind his back about it. This had everything to do with MIT's exposure to Epstein.

MIT gets outed as having numerous researchers who took money from and traveled with a convicted pedophile sex abuser, sex trafficker, and likely financial criminal, and Stallman writes an e-mail that sounds very much as if he's obliquely defending Epstein.

I imagine someone at MIT's communications office having a heart attack. "Oh fuck shut this idiot up NOW!" someone probably shouted.

This wasn't #metoo. This was Stallman embarrassing MIT and numerous powerful people.

I feel sort of sorry for Stallman because it's clear that he's "on the spectrum" or at least is the sort of person who thinks ultra-logically and doesn't understand the irrational power machinations of politics. He felt like he was writing something logical, and he was, but he stepped in a gigantic bear trap that would have been obvious to anyone with any social understanding.

Pro tip: if your institution is enmeshed in scandal, keep your mouth shut unless you are coordinating with your communications department or whomever is in charge of such things. If you do check, 99% of the time they will tell you to keep your mouth shut. If you do open your mouth, even with good intentions, polish up your CV first.

It amuses me that this entire 500+ post thread is about "cancel culture" when that's not what happened at all in this case.

"... and Stallman writes an e-mail that sounds very much as if he's obliquely defending Epstein"

Complete misinterpretation of what RMS has written about. He defended Minsky, not Epstein.

Yes, but he sounded like he was defending Epstein.

It doesn't matter. He waded into a giant scandal and published something that sounded like he was defending the whole thing. I can't think of a single institution that this would not get you fired from, usually within hours.

Hell CEOs can be fired for such things... unless they have Elon Musk or Steve Jobs levels of reality distortion fields and cult followings.

I like how you managed to victim blame an autistic person for not having enough social skills to avoid an ideologically driven struggle session / witch hunt just now.

It's amazing what defenders of the Critical Theory / Twitter driven cancel culture will defend. Really, victim blaming an autistic person for not having social skills, literally one of the things affected most by their disorder? This is a new low to sink to for you lot.

What's next, you gonna blame an amputee for not running out of the way of a moving truck?

On the other hand, I had no trouble convincing people to buy me booze and smokes either, only I was a fat ugly boy

> willingly resigned from his position at the FSF because of it.

I don't think willingly is the best way to put it. It was more along the lines that he was told there would be consequences and he could avoid them if he resigned.

It's possible this is true, although I personally suspect if he was willing to put out a statement that said something like (paraphrasing) "I did a dumb thing, I'm sorry, I now understand why rape is bad, and I'll work on being better about understanding why these types of things are bad" he would have kept the position.

However, even if I'm wrong, and he really was forced to resign, I don't think it detracts that much from my point that GP is arguing against strawmen like "fired for hitting on a women and being rejected" that are completely unrelated to RMS's case.

He could write out an exact description of what he said and what he has changed his views on, but I doubt people who has seen the media characterization of his comments would be made any happier.

He could say "I previous thought the word sexual assault meant the word assault added a qualifier that required the application of force or violence, but I now know that the word assault in this case mean a legal definition that also includes negligent to seek consent and absent of intent to cause harm.". Would that change the media perception?

It would change my perception, I can't really pretend to speak for "the media" though.

Nah, that is an optimally bad strategy. Don't concede things you didn't actually say or mean in the hope that it will mollify people, it never works and will only be held against you.

Don't rewrite history, main reason Richard was pushed out was a MeToo/racism witch hunt against him. He was not the only one attacked on it, most heads of open source projects were also a target at the same time.

Every[1] reputable[2] source[3] I[4] can[5] find[6] (literally just the top search results for "stallman resigns" that have any info about the reason) says that Stallman resigned over his comments defending a fellow computer scientist over his participation in the Epstein scandal. Do you have a reason to believe otherwise?

1: https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/17/20870050/richard-stallman...

2: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2019/09/17/richa...

3: https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist-richard...

4: https://www.vice.com/en/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist-ri...

5: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...

6: https://www.cnet.com/news/computer-scientist-richard-stallma...

I think the issue here is that you've misunderstood the politics of these kinds of "resignations".

In the public mind (even if not in reality) when someone "resigns" because of "past comments", they have either been given an ultimatum - "Jump or be pushed" - or they are experiencing intrusions into their personal life (or there is behaviour from the community that makes this person believe these intrusions are imminent)

My understanding at the time was that it was the former - there were murmurings of possible action against him, and whether it was to avoid harm to the FSF or risk the public damage to his reputation I have no idea, but he decided to gracefully step aside.

So yes, officially you may be correct - but especially with someone like RMS, it is highly unlikely that he just chose to resign because he previously made comments that people didn't like. RMS is very used to making controversial statements and weathering the storm, I find it unlikely (though not impossible) that this was just one storm he couldn't weather - and much more likely that he chose the path of least damage, to himself or his cause or his legacy.

Even if he really ""resigned"" rather than resigned, I think we both agree the cause was his comments about the Epstein situation, not a "MeToo/racism witch hunt" that I've seen no evidence to support.

I would have liked to personally drive a cattlerod through Epstein's brain, and yet I don't think there was anything wrong with Stallman's comments. How do you square that? Maybe you have not properly characterized the situation.

What "resignation" can mean in the context of such a situation for top high-level people might not be your typical resignation concept for e.g. employees, or even middle management.

For example ministers of most gov "resign" when they are told to do so, and yes they do resign, even when this is not from their own initiative, and even if they absolutely would not have done it if not told to. For other structures, you can have various kind of pressure playing a role.

We will probably never know the exact degree of pressure and the comprehensive list of who did it, the alliances, maybe the threats etc, and technically it absolutely was a resignation, but given RMS further actions in the GNU Project (that is: not resigning despite additional attempts to leverage his departure from the FSF to make him do likewise here too), I can only say I have my doubt on the total amount of practical freedom he had concerning the FSF part; and it is now probably not just him phoning back and saying: "oh by the way I changed my mind I want to come back", but more likely other "political" and/or alliances changes at the top letting that be even possible.

This is what he said which some idiotic people have taken for some kind of endorsement of sexual assault:

"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 word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing... 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…"

If pontificating as to the actual perpetrator of a crime is somehow being complicit in that crime, then I think we may need to overhaul our system of policing and justice for yet another reason.

I think you and I must be reading that differently and I also think maybe you're forgetting the context of all this. The victims were as young as 11 years old and that was widely known (and surely obvious to the men involved); his comment therefore boils down to "is it REALLY statutory rape if she seems like she's OK with it?" and the answer is, of course, yes. Surely you can understand why people would see that as an endorsement of sexual assault, albeit perhaps coming from a place of absurd ignorance rather than malevolence?

First of all statutory rape is mostly a US phenomenon. In most other countries something either is a rape or isn't. Second, the term statutory rape is engineered to make people stop thinking and short circuit to "rape". Therefore it's toxic. There's nothing wrong with consensual sex between a 19 yo and a 17 yo. However, in the US they will be put on the rapist list and have their lifes ruined.

Your close-in-age example among people who are near the age of majority is quite morally different than an adult having sex with an 11-year-old. Some US states even have close-in-age exceptions to keep cases like your example legal, and the most common age of consent in the US for purposes of sex is 16, although certain states do have it at 18.

Most US states have “Romeo and Juliet” laws that specifically exempt cases like this where the two are close in age but one is past the line.

As others have pointed out, your specific example is usually covered by the legal system and a strawman in this case - Epstein's friends were middle-aged or old men (Minsky himself was in his seventies when he visited the island), so it's a totally different situation.

The concept of statutory rape recognises the difference between informed and uninformed consent. Children can be coerced or persuaded to consent to things they don't understand, and that are not in their best interests; that's why such laws exist.

But it was no vague anonymous - he once hit on me - lynch mob, but very concrete criticism of RMS. Things he said and did in the past - and in the present.

(only thing would be, that his "voluntary resign" was obviously done with a lot of pressure)

one of those criticisms as a i recall was 'he had a mattress in his office' as if this suggested something untoward rather than him sleeping in his office

No. If you go back and look at that accusation, it was that he was propositioning people for sex in the halls of MIT, AND he had a mattress in his office.

> propositioning people for sex in the halls of MIT

you are going to need to cite that. the only accusations of 'sexual harassment' i have seen are asking women at conferences on dates.

That counts as harassment in my opinion if it happens without at least some reasonable reason to believe the women may be interested in dating him, if he persists with a given woman after she doesn't respond with interest, if there is any sort of power dynamic or other coercive context in place that might make the woman feel not free to decline without social or professional penalty (within a community like the free software world this obstacle would often be present in relation to someone like RMS who is prominent within that community), if he makes a habit of propositioning people in professional contexts, or if he asks women out in unprofessional ways like inappropriate touching. If none of these patterns occur, it's probably not harassment, but I suspect he does some of them.

And if it is harassment, I'd probably say it's sexual harassment since it relates to unwanted seeking of romantic or sexual relationships in a professional environment.

He used to live in his office.

He moved out around 1998.[1]

[1] https://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html

Well, but in combination with the sign on his office" Knight for Justice (and hot ladies)" and other remarks he did - you maybe see, why some people might get another idea?

And why women feel uncomfortable around such a men? And why it therefore might be a bad idea to have such a person in a leadership position?

Which apparently was written by someone else who then snapped the photo.

You know that as a fact, or are you providing alternative facts based on what?

I have not seen the sign in person, but been told by people that it was indeed there.

The source is https://whoisylvia.medium.com/richard-stallman-has-been-vili...

Is it bad for a man to hit on a woman?

No. But to hit on any hot women out of principle(like his sign said on his office door) ... is not quite mature behaviour. Also called sexism/macho.

And can you maybe see, how this makes women uncomfortable? And wanting to avoid such a person? And all together .. avoiding the whole group he has a leadership position?

In 2021, yes, it is, or at least that's the set of norms we've created. To be more precise, it's bad for anyone to hit on anyone else unless one omnisciently knows the other party is interested in you and wants to be hit on.

As a result, the new forms of dating are that in order to move forward your risk for "making a move" (be it small or large) is not only rejection but also, apparently, potentially career ending for many (especially public figures).

I'm glad I'm happily settled and far removed from the dating scene. Perhaps my principles are too crass for many but I feel in today's romantic relationships, you almost need to have an attorney with you on a date and notary that can sign off that both parties are going to consent to physical contact before making physical contact or much beyond verbally flirting in the most uninteresting ways leaving both parties wondering if the other is at all interested in them romantically.

I'm not condoning rape or flat out sexual assault, there is certainly a line that should never be crossed, but I think we've been moving that line too far for reasonably acceptable human behavior. Heaven forbid you take the chance of misreading the situation and attempt to kiss someone before also having that notarized by your attorney present.

> In 2021, yes, it is, or at least that's the set of norms we've created. To be more precise, it's bad for anyone to hit on anyone else unless one omnisciently knows the other party is interested in you and wants to be hit on.

I can't believe anyone seriously thinks this.

It's bad if you're in a position of power and you hit on someone under your influence - doesn't matter if they would reciprocate or not.

"but I think we've been moving that line too far for reasonably acceptable human behavior"

We maybe did. But we are also far from the dystopian scenario you described. I can tell you, in the real world dating still just works fine.

But yes, some behaviours like slapping on some ass, are more frowned upon and called out. Rightfully so.

The times where a woman had to marry her rapist, (this is actually from the bible) are gladly mostly over. But those times were the reason, now it got pushed back too much.

Because there is some unresolved anger left. And being aware of it - can help understand some rections better.

Like the original blog post that started all this. Which many here waved away as a sneaky smear campaign to create attention. Well no, it was a very emotional, honest expressed post. Maybe not really fair in all points, because - emotions. But authentic.

When you are a leader in an idealistic movement and you are incapable of sensing other peoples feelings - before you wave accusations of rape just away - then you are just wrong in that position.

It so if the woman isn’t in a position to refuse without risking social consequences. Turning down my boss, mentor, or giant in my field is dangerous for me, because they can ruin me if they wanted to.

Only if the woman feel something she'd prefer not to and ascribes it to that action. Or claims to feel something. Ok, yes, it's bad.

The norms around dating in liberal America have completely diverged from the ground reality.

Statistically, you are 3x as likely to meet your future spouse in the workplace than a bar/club.[1]

Let's take a look at the stereotypical man in STEM:

* Looks: Below 80 %ile --> Failure at Tinder[2]

* Socially: Below average --> No romantically successful friends groups to set them up

* Early life: Never cool in school / male dominant peer group --> Still single by the time they graduate

This massively raises the stakes of a workplace romantic encounter, because every other avenue has already been shut in their face.

At this point, "it's only harassment if you are undesirable" is a well known anecdote. So, uncharismatic + unattractive men are basically doomed. The alternative is to fully acknowledge the brutally objectifying nature of it all, objectify yourself and go for obnoxious outward displays of desirability. Ie. "look expensive" and target demographics that value your ability to be gainfully employed and accumulate moderate wealth.

The harder alternative is to hit the gym, learn social skills and actually learn how to be charismatic. This is way harder, especially when society actively ostracizes you. Like trying to make a fish climb a tree.

[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10135

[2] https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...

Honestly I think they went after Stallman because he is a prominent figure and at the same time white, male and not exactly in his twenties.

Have you read the comments in question?

> willingly resigned

Voluntary suicides are in your pipeline as well, no? Dictatorship sure doesn’t innovate.

Nah, it works better when you make it possible for the monsters and demons to discover the error of their ways and redeem themselves in a voluntary labor camp.