Richard Stallman FSF support/remove letter signature counts
polaris64.net
I've been talking with friends about this issue and it really seems to come down to this: for some reason "intermediate" consequences are just impossible to implement in bureaucracies or organizations in general. Clearly Stallman did some completely unacceptable things and that can't go unpunished. However, like in all organizations I've seen (especially universities or hospitals dealing with sexual harassment from profs/attendings) there are only two types of consequences available: absolutely nothing, or complete exile. The organization rallies to protect the offender over and over until eventually a tidal wave becomes overwhelming and the organization is forced to purge the offender completely. This is bad for everyone: bad for the people being abused (and who will be abused), bad for the organization's reputation, bad for the offender themselves as there is never incentive to correct their behavior! I don't really know whether it's possible to implement a system of "intermediate" consequences but the lack of such a relief valve does serious harm in the long term. Regrettably in this system, exiling the offender is preferable to nothing being done yet again.
> for some reason "intermediate" consequences are just impossible to implement in bureaucracies or organizations in general
This is not particular to small organizations, it's a feature of the whole society. This attitude is one of the hallmarks of a move towards totalitarianism. There is no compromise possible, total defeat or total annihilation of opposing views are the only options.
This isn't an attitude, it's a response to the reality that intermediate consequences are never implemented. Solve that problem and you'll solve this cancel culture stuff people are complaining about.
Punishment vs rehabilitation. In this case you can have a chat with Stallman about the consequences of the pen and how people felt when they read his words and have him make a public statement afterwards.
Yeah, except even that has not happened over the long history of Stallman's bad behavior. People close ranks and support him. So finally he goes and defends pedophilia or whatever right in the middle of a huge scandal about academia's links to a child sex trafficker, and that puts him over the top. This is exactly what I'm talking about! The time for Stallman to sit down and write an apology for his actions was years ago. That ship has sailed.
>So finally he goes and defends pedophilia or whatever
But he didn't?
Ephebophilia, or whatever -_-
While I agree with the essence of your comment, I find the statement "Clearly Stallman did some completely unacceptable things and that can't go unpunished" is questionable. First, it's not "clearly", because the main argument (that he was defending Epstein) is false. Second, as to "unacceptable", it depends to who and when - certain things that were acceptable 20 years ago are unthinkable now. Third, as for "can't go unpunished" - again, the question is who should judge the guilt and who is going to pass sentence.
It's way more than the Epstein thing. This has been going on for years. Telling an undergrad he would kill himself if she didn't date him is one example.
Then ask yourself: When did this happen? Told by who? Any reliable evidence?
This has been an established pattern of behavior reported by multiple women over time, fitting with what we know about his interactions & attitude toward female colleagues. Zooming in on a single incident to cross-examine it like a court case is exactly what leads to these zero-consequences outcomes that drive women out of the field.
That only makes him a weirdo, not more than that. Should he be prosecuted for being weirdo? I doubt so. It was uncomfortable for women but they weren't forced or threatened (remember he was saying he will kill himself, not her/him).
We aren't talking about prosecution! We are talking about him facing any consequences whatsoever!
The idea that you don't view that situation as threatening is just so myopic. People who are unstable enough to threaten suicide because of romantic rejection are a danger to others, not just themselves. Ask a woman, literally any woman you know, about whether they would feel safe in that situation.
> People who are unstable enough to threaten suicide because of romantic rejection are a danger to others, not just themselves. For the first, the context (situational, non-verbal, etc.) matters, as it's explained in a number of articles about the subject.
I asked a few (non-representative anecdotal sample) womans (programmers, managers, etc.) around, they all considered it safe unless the person crosses the line and starts stalking or exibit any other kind of oppressive behaviour (coming/staying too close, "accidentally" touching, stealing your belongings, starts looking for a ways to be alone with you).
Everyone of course is different and the same situation could be interpreted differently by different people. Some could even overreact a single glance or intonation therefore we need to draw a line between harrasment and being a weirdo and don't jump to conclusions too early.
From what I currently see (I haven't been there and can judge only by media), the situation has been pushed from personal issue to a political leverage. And this is unacceptable. What could have been done instead? I don't know, may be an open letter from a few persons to ask him to be more polite and/or ask to seek consultation with a psychotherapist? But cancelling is not the way.
Again... we are talking about a long pattern of behavior. The entire point here is that Stallman faced no consequences for that incident! None! Intermediate consequences would have been nice, but none occurred! So here we have the tidal wave finally cresting over the barrier. And your response is to go back and litigate a single specific incident, saying it would have been nice if someone had written an open letter - where even that didn't happen? What kind of culture are you trying to build, exactly? The Free Software movement must include women. Sheltering leaders who sexually harass them goes against that aim. It's too late for Stallman, and protecting him here just tells all those women who were harassed without consequence that the movement does not want them. Just try to fix the process and pick better leaders going forward.
And what makes you think there were no intermediate consequences about that? And what kind of consequences are you expecting? Cancel him out completely? Isn't it too radical? It seems like a standard predator behaviour to me, similar to one attributed to Stallman.
Here are some possible intermediate consequences: Stallman publicly admits wrongdoing, apologizes, specifies what beliefs led him to think those actions were appropriate, how he came to understand those beliefs were wrong, and what steps he will take in the future to not act in this way again. Maybe he also takes a leave of absence from one of his various roles. Maybe he commits to attending therapy for some length of time. Maybe the FSF or MIT directs some money to an organization supporting women in computer science. None of that happened. Nothing even close to that happened.
I was in such a situation twice. My ex-girlfriend threatened she would kill herself if I leave. Another woman said if I don't stay with her she will likely get very ill. It never ever crossed my mind to inform their employers these women were harassing me. Even if I did (why?!) I don't think it would be fair to fire these women.
Were you also employed or involved at their place of work where they were in a position of authority? No? Then why bring this up? Anyway, we are talking about intermediate consequences.
Paradoxically, when talking about intermediate consequences, it is Stallman who is a victim here. After two years, the same false accusations are published in all possible media outlets, with no correction of apology.
* Techcrunch: "Computer scientist Richard Stallman, who defended Jeffrey Epstein, resigns from MIT CSAIL and the Free Software Foundation" - where in fact RMS never defended Epstein and just called him a rapist.
* Motherboard: "Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'" - this being the most sick twist of what he actually said
* The Daily Beast: "Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were ‘Entirely Willing’" - here the falsehood reaches new depths
* Daily Mail: "MIT scientist appears to DEFEND Jeffrey Epstein as he claims sex assault victim Virginia Giuffre was 'entirely willing' in alleged rape case in emails leaked by a graduate" - again, anyone who would bother to check the actual email would realize how stupid this is.
The longer these falsehoods are repeated, the more people believe in them.
Okay? Irrelevant to anything we've been talking about here. Go send hatemail to those outlets or something. You seem to have a lot of grievances which ignore the reality that Stallman is utterly unqualified to serve as a leader of a project that purports to advocate for the freedom of all people. Maybe if he had worked to change his behavior over the decades it occurred it would be fine. But he didn't. So here we are.
No, I don't have many grievances, just one: Stallman was falsely accused in a campaign led by Selam Gano and this false information was spread worldwide. I don't believe in consequentialism. In this case, Selam believed that by destroying Stallman she will somehow protect women in the future. That's perfectly fine, but please use only true arguments, not falsehoods.
So how should we punish him? How long did this evil act take place? Do these actions have statute of limitations? In Massachusetts rape has 15 years SoL, but clearly this is a much more severe offense.
The point is there was no punishment for that! Nor for the many other things he has done! People closed ranks and it was as if nothing happened. Now the final bill has come due. And you start talking about statute of limitations. This is someone who has acted in a consistent way over many years. He should not be a leader in a project which purports to fight for the freedom of all people. Such a role is a privilege. Statute of limitations is a legal concept applying to the legal arena. This is not that. Stop conflating them.
This is so completely wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin arguing it with.
1. The Founder of a project is the one who gets the biggest say in who should lead it, not some random virtue signalling dude from the internet.
2. Why should I stop conflating these issues? You judge the person for his actions, just like criminal judges do. However, the very criminal and ugly offense of rape is NOT punishable by the law after a number of years. But you are such a severe judge that you demand a punishment with no lenience or clemency and no statute of limitations for being an unpleasant person who is very awkward with women, and allegedly made someone uncomfortable three decades ago.
3. Found your own project, run it the way you like, decide who will have a 'privilege' to lead it.
Can anyone provide any more context on this graph?
There are two letters currently being signed by people either for or against the removal of RMS from the FSF.
The against letter is here : https://github.com/rms-support-letter/rms-support-letter.git...
And the for is here : https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
You can find the number of votes on the respective websites for each letter or by checking the number of merged pull requests.
I'm generating it every 10 minutes based on the current number of signatures on each of the letters. If you want the raw CSV it can be accessed here: https://www.polaris64.net/resources/support-or-ostracise-ric...
I did this as a way to visualise the number of signatures over time, just as a matter of interest.
Is this Sybil attack resistant?
Considering anyone can create a GH account, not very.
It this how HR issues are settled in free software? With pressure groups?
Where I can sign to support impartial investigation.
I think all the arguments about ostracizing him are open. Most are pretty out of context or admittedly he apologized for.
To me, this looks more like a group of people who don’t like RMS joining hands with industry to remove RMS AND THE ENTIRE FSF board.
RMS did nothing legally wrong, that’s why he’s not in prison and there’s no investigation. Because he took no actions.
From my perspective, the “ostracize RMS” crowd appear like bigots who are attacking someone with autism for personal gain. Yes he did something potentially inappropriate, he apologized and we should work on reforming.
If there’s no forgiveness for someone who had a different opinion (he didn’t act on anything, as far as we know), then there will be no quarter. No one wants to live in a world with no recourse.
> Where I can sign to support impartial investigation.
You can sign the "support" letter.
It says clearly that RMS is not above criticism, that it welcomes discussion on all the issues, but that the smear campaign supported by the other letter is unacceptable.
Besides, notice that the promoters of the pro-ostracization letter are not open for discussion. Any discussion or move towards a compromise (e.g., by questioning RMS's fit as a leader while rejecting the lies of the letter) is ruthlessly suppressed.
Why is this post not flagged vs this one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26646048
What is the reasoning at HN for allowing one side of the story and censuring the other side. Very disappointed at HN moderators...
I do find it worrying how people here use flagging for anything that is controversial or where the community is highly divided, flagging is not for downvoting... these things need to be discussed not marked as irrelevant or inappropriate.
> these things need to be discussed not marked as irrelevant or inappropriate.
To be fair, "these things" are being discussed here every day, with lots of comments and no intent of suppression. Maybe some users are tired of seeing the same subject appear many times per day with no actual news, and they are flagging it as a form of protest. It would be still an inappropriate usage of flagging, but somewhat understandable.
Flagging has been used for disagreement for a long time. Unfortunately, it seems that the number of controversial topics is steadily increasing so I wonder if flagging is still the optimal mechanism to handle it.
> What is the reasoning at HN for allowing one side of the story and censuring the other side.
This is a graph showing the counts of signatories both for and against. How is this post possibly coming out on either side of this issue?
It was posted just minutes ago. Also, flagging is done by users.
EDIT: As you can see it's dead now.
EDIT: And now it's back.
aaand it's gone again.
It seems like bitcoin and RMS are two impossible topics for HN now.