An anonymous reader writes: Debian Project Secretary Kurt Roeckx has announced the results of a closely-watched vote on what statement would be made about Richard Stallman's readmission to the Free Software Foundation's board. Seven options were considered, with the Debian project's 420 voting d...
Sure, that is “missing” but it’s nothing “in the dark” or “hidden that can be revealed”. Like, all information is indeed on the table. It’s up to the individual or the group to either recognise a libk if one exists or claim there is none.
There’s nothing that could be revealed worth waiting for, is what I’m saying.
Because of Stallman’s jarring directness and language pedantry, I am open to the idea that he may have some light autistic features. Therefore, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that RMS had no malicious intent, simply a very pedantic way of expression, which does not make him guilty.
It should also be considered then, whether those who in fact say they fight against discrimination (disregarding RMS’s actual intent) do not in fact discriminate, in a certain manner against him…
Is the point about guilt or being unfit for social leadership? Indeed it’s completely irrelevant whether there’s malicious intent, as the judgment is not about “should he be in hell or heaven” but “should he be leader of the FSF”.
Furthermore, he completely rejects the idea of him being autistic. In fact, many of the signatories of the “reject him from the board” letter are autistic or part of autistic support groups. And what they say is: Being autistic is not an excuse for hurting other people. Somehow all the people who are not a relevant part of the autism community suddenly all pop up and try to protect the poor autistic RMS… .
Discrimination due to some people claiming him to be autistic is simply bullshit in this context. Even more so because accepting him to question other peoples very identity and existence in society is a far more basic discrimination on his part. Be it “in malicious intent” or not. If he indeed were autistic then measures can be found to still make him fit for leadership, there are many autistic people in high positions (also signatories of the reject-rms letter).
And this is completely disregarding that he’s not only pedantic, but also, in many ways often literally wrong. Especially when it comes to meanings of words in languages. But that’s just a side note.
His words are that he’s neurodivergent, autistic’s just my guess. Also, see https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html (this may be an odd thing to write an article about, but I don’t see it rejecting the identities of other people).
He’s also not the president, nor the leader of the FSF, just an advisor. It’s interesting that these new facts are never taken into account when discussing his role. That is why I believe this is all unwarranted, if he shouldn’t be the president, or the ‘leader’ of the FSF, ok, he literally isn’t.
But now that’s not enough. This is where I am questioning people’s motivations more with regards to an attempt of blurring the line between free software, and open-source, regardless of what RMS does, regardless of what backseat position he takes, or whether he apologizes and explains himself (which he did).
Neurodivergent is a broad category. And it ain’t a free pass for being an asshole, but anyway.
He’s a major de-facto leader, the actual position does, in fact, not matter as it’s the role he is perceived to be in. And yes, this perception matters because it is this that forms other peoples opinion on the FSF.
I agree that the line b/w Open Source and Free Software is already too blurry. Ironically though, the people who invented Open Source, like ESR, are supporters of RMS in the letter.
I think the best thing FSF/RMS could do, would be to properly address the – well known – problems, and half-hearted apologies don’t fit the bill here. This would protect Free Software from malicious free riders on this letter (and there always will be some).
He describes himself as essentially neurodivergent and tone-deaf (his word): https://www.fsf.org/news/rms-addresses-the-free-software-community
I’ve met him and a lot of people I know and trust have been around him at conferences. In 20 years I’ve heard plenty of complains about his public behavior and I’ve witnessed various episodes of that. Nobody ever told me in person that RMS is inherently evil or malevolent, but rather unable to act appropriately around people or understand what is socially acceptable, despite having been told many times. He apologized on various occasions over the years… without changing behavior.
Public roles are different from private life. A public speaker is responsible of communicating clearly, understanding the context of conversations, acting properly, and avoid creating these controversies in the first place.
But this is my point. He may not be too good at evaluating whether some behaviour is in fact similar, or the same as another behaviour, which you, as a non-neurodivergent person may evaluate as something that’s quite similar. For example, a change of place, theme, or the structure of participants, may present just enough of a detail to a neurodivergent person to evaluate a situation as being in fact very much different, even if it may appear to us as reasonably (although of course not exactly) similar to previous situations, that they have previously encountered.
I am saying, despite his odd behaviour, his accomplishments and role (even as a public speaker) should be applauded in my opinion, especially, if we look at them through this lens of him being neurodivergent.
Otherwise, what’s being promoted, is essentially discrimination, by people, who therefore hypocritically claim they are for a diversity of experiences and the inclusion in society of the usually marginalised.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2021/04/msg00289.html
Autism is a broad spectrum, and cannot be effectively evaluated by other people with another type of autism. To do that is the height of arrogance, and disregards personal experience.
I also find the position that if people are in leadership, their issues in terms of neurodivergence should not be taken into account as antithetical to any sense of justice, or inclusion. You essentially are saying that these people do not deserve the opportunity to participate, due to their condition?
I find this notion elitist, and quite frankly disgustingly discriminatory.
You keep putting words in my mouth and keep confusing personal life and public roles and the accountability that comes with the latter.
Is there nothing Stallman could say or do that could possibly bring light on the issue?
The open letter did seem to reference there being “things that are not captured in email threads or on video”.
If Stallman deserves all the “adjectives” from the open letter, then I think ultimately there’ll be solid proof that justifies the slander, given enough time I think there should be some convincing evidence that he’s what he’s accused to be, and then (and only then) he’ll deserve to be criticised by Debian and many other projects.
If, on the other hand, it turns out that the mob accusing him was unfairly misinterpreting and dehumanizing him, then I think the opinion on him will never change no matter what he does… even if he begged on his knees crying, he’ll still be dehumanized. Any goodwill on his part will be assumed to be a farce. If that’s the case then for that mob there would be nothing else to be said that could possibly change anything.
There are some things that are referenced that way, but the majority of things were/are out in the open.
I don’t want to go down this rabbit-hole, but the accusations aren’t anything new. In fact, they’re decades old and he was given a pass, multiple times. And at some point, yes, people will start seeing excuses as a farce.
Whether you think what he said was in fact e.g., transphobic is another matter. I personally doubt that he has much of “hate” for most or any of the groups, but, at the end of the day, he treats people in very demeaning matter. And he doesn’t seem to be capable of understanding why, what he does and says, is bad. And that’s fine – but not as a spokesperson. But that’s my personal opinion. My point is mostly about
And every time he treats people in a bad manner he should be reprimended. This isn’t about tolerance towards hurting people, but about judging if the person is actually a “misogynist, ableist, and transphobic” and all sorts of accusations the open letter claimed.
Oh, we could agree on that.
I might have even agreed with the letter myself had it been more reasonable. But removing him from every “position of power” isn’t the same as banning him from being a “spokesperson”. The demand wasn’t as reasonable as you are.
In fact, the letter misses the point so much that even if the FSF had listened to it, it would have still been perfectly possible for RMS to abandon any and all advisory boards and end up demoted to being a mouthpiece for Free Software, doing even more public speakings… essentially making him more of a “spokesperson”, just one that doesn’t belong to the board.
The problem is, him not being a spokesperson was something that was, in fact, asked multiple times before. But somehow, him still being “in power” get gets himself into position to become a spokesperson again. This is nothing new.
Too bad this time they decided to use insults and serious accusations rather make the argument you are making, which is somethig a lot more people would have agreed with.
As it is, the request from the open letter is missing the point. RMS having such position is not what allows him to become a spokeperson. He doesn’t even need the FSF to go out and make public appearances in representation of the movement he founded (even if he’s not representing the FSF, that matters little). It might have actually ended up making the problem with RMS social ackwardness and the image of the movement worse if it meant kicking RMS out and leaving him to go speak on his own (with his “tone deaf” social skills). He’s still connected to the Free Software movement, removing him from any and all organizations is not gonna change that (he’s almost more of a figure in the movement than the FSF itself is, which most likely will create division and weaken both sides). The letter was asking for the wrong thing in the wrong manner.
A lot of people could have agreed all the years before – they didn’t. full stop.
Insults? No, accusations, sure. His behavior was more than inappropriate and that was called out. I’m baffled how one can rile up so much about the wording of the letter, but when RMS said something far more insulting that’s okay, for some reason.
And no, it matters whether he’s part of the FSF. Either he’s speaking on behalf of the FSF – or not. That he’s literally “Mr FSF” is indeed bad and part of the problem.
The signees didn’t suddenly change opinion and agreed on something they disagreed with before. Like you yourself said, “this is nothing new”, Stallman has been heavily criticized multiple times by his social behavior.
The only thing that makes this time different is that they started collecting signatures and getting organizations to sign for an open letter that was created as a knee-jerk reaction to RMS being admitted in the board of directors of the FSF. A collective campaign as public and well known as this had never happened before, but people accusing Stallman in a such a way have existed for many many years. This is nothing new.
Note that I’m not saying the people who signed (or even wrote) the letter are bad, or toxic, or any other adjective. I’m saying the letter itself (not who wrote it) is misdirected and could result in toxicity. This is the same kind of criticism I throw at Stallman. It’s not in me where you’ll see the contradiction.
I’m sure who wrote the letter had the best of intentions, and most likely they were motivated by a will to improve the FSF, not hurt it. I just think the approach was incorrect. Not only in the wording but also in the demands they made.
If instead of explaining that what I say is incorrect, someone tells me that I lack capacity to reason, I see that as an insult.
The only way for it to not be an insult is if they came with solid evidence of the claim (ie. solid proof that I’m unable to reason). Then it will just be a description of what I am, based on proof. But I’ll feel insulted if you call me “fascist” and I’m antifa. Would you not feel insulted if you were accused of being the complete opposite of the values you hold dearest?
Stallman has proven more than once that he’s a person committed to the ideals he holds (and one of them is to end “racism, sexism, antisemitism, caste prejudice, and others”), and has also proven that when confronted about a topic in conversation he can change his mind (as he did about his views on child consent). So if we are to categorize him with the dehumanizing accusations the letter used, we better have solid proof that it wasn’t a mistake, that he really deserves it and that his public statements stating the opposite are a farce. Because he’s known to be misunderstood pretty frequently due to his social impairment. This is nothing new.
I’m all for criticizing him about his mistakes and confronting him, even to the extent of making him take responsibility for his social behavior. I can agree that he should not be a spokesperson for the movement, so I rather have him in a role where he can provide direction on the topics he’s good at (and he can do that as part of the board of directors) but making it so he’s banned from acting as spokesperson in situations that could result in misunderstandments or where someone could be hurt. There’s plenty of people who can take that role instead (eg. the actual President of the FSF: Geoffrey Knauth). That’s what the letter should have demanded, instead it demanded to remove Stallman from all directive positions (and not just him, but the entire board!) all while throwing unfair accusations that could lead to him being dehumanized by many when done in such a public way.
I feel like we’re talking past each other here: I do agree! That is, indeed, part of my very point. He’s been criticized many times, but hardly ever changed (we come back to that later).
I never intended to insult you, by the way, if that came of as such. I very much enjoy the discussion.
However, how would you word a letter like that, when you know, from decades of experience, that the person will likely not change their behavior the same way they didn’t for years? Without implying that the person either a) lacks capacity to reason or b) is outright malicious? You ask for solid evidence, but …
The problem here is that many of the things are done, due to the nature of the org, in private. To add a personal story of my hackerspace at university: RMS was in the city and we allowed him to stay for a day in our room at university. Little did we expect him to not move out at all. The only way to get him out again was to pay for a ticket to the next conference. Sure, one can add this to the huge list, but unfortunately I hardly can provide “proof”. Nobody collects such things.
But, proof is not needed as we don’t want to judge him in front of a jury. The FSF in almost all accounts does already know what the people are talking about. This letter is not addressed to the public to hold condemnation and grudge against RMS, but addressed to those who know of the incidents. Usually this would be an “internal investigation”, however the FSF doesn’t do such thing.
Proof definitely would be nice, absolutely. But asking for proof of things that happened internally is asking for the impossible. That’s why I don’t judge people who hold him dearly, they are very much allowed to do so.
I even understand if he feels insulted or attacked. He’s confronted with the accusation that he’s not what he thinks to be. In fact, I’ve been rightly accused in the same way, and honestly, it was hard, very hard. Sometimes, I’d say, it was wrong, but sometimes the other person was indeed right. They couldn’t always provide proof, but they called out behavior in a message to me and I knew what they were talking about. The next step, though, would’ve been to call me out publicly, in case I didn’t change.
It’s not about “deserving punishment” but protecting others, and the FSF, from harmful behavior. And, while I agree that his changed view on child consent is… a good thing to say the least, it’s a very bad thing if people’s identities (e.g., trans, non-binary people) are invalidated and disregarded (despite scientific evidence!) because he’s being pedantic about words. His hybris to think that, just because “words” he has more knowledge on this topic than leading psychologists is telling. But worse is that trans or non-binary persons shouldn’t need to defend their very existence and identity at every corner in life. At some point (after decades of years) they cannot be expected to still talk and discuss with him, in very tiring and disrespecting discussions, what and who they are. Mind you, it’s great if minorities go out and tell people how it is to be X, but these people should be allowed to just live their life at some point.
And RMS with his stances in the FSF is… not exactly a nice space for most of them. Proofs would be nice, and him changing his opinion would be nice as well. But this is much work that we can, perhaps, expect of the society as a whole but not from the minorities that are already discriminated against.
And I agree that, in theory, the letter should demand just revoking him as a spokesperson. But do you seriously believe that this would stick? He basically made him member again w/o consulting with the board before … he speaks when he wants, and just not making him spokesperson won’t change that. Unfortunately.