
Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT - arctux
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#16_September_2019_(Resignation)
======
geofft
Worth noting that (as far as I know) Stallman was not a paid employee of MIT,
certainly not a professor or anything. He had an office because, I believe,
Gerry Sussman (and probably others) thought he should have an office. He's
listed as a "visiting scientist" on CSAIL's page:
[https://www.csail.mit.edu/person/richard-
stallman](https://www.csail.mit.edu/person/richard-stallman) He's around on
the mailing list (mostly to reply to every mention of software with a question
about its license and every website with a demand that it work without
JavaScript) but he replies with his GNU address. `finger rms@csail.mit.edu`
calls him a "Visitor" and says "Project: mail forwarding."

Source: was at MIT a decade ago, was on the CSAIL mailing list until I decided
to actually start filtering mail last week (good timing me). Also he somewhat
famously left MIT right before starting GNU to ensure MIT wouldn't own the
copyrights, and it would be surprising/confusing if he rejoined.

(The cynic in me believes he's resigning because it's far more newsworthy to
say "resigned from MIT" instead of "resigned from the FSF," especially given
all the news headlines calling him "Famous MIT Computer Scientist," and it
also has far less of an impact on his life or his goals than resigning from
the FSF would.)

~~~
coolandsmartrr
A little tangential, but I didn't know there was a utility called `finger`. Is
this supposed to be a profile directory envisioned for an Internet back when
it was more decentralized?

~~~
ocschwar
Wow, I'm old

~~~
esotericn
/CTCP FINGER ocschwar

~~~
ocschwar
Your comment is the #5 Google suggestion for "CTCP FINGER"

------
arctux
Related earlier post:

> I want to respond to the misleading media coverage of messages I posted
> about Marvin Minsky's association with Jeffrey Epstein. The coverage totally
> mischaracterised my statements.

> Headlines say that I defended Epstein. Nothing could be further from the
> truth. I've called him a "serial rapist", and said he deserved to be
> imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him — and other
> inaccurate claims — and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I
> said.

> I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding.

Source: [https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-
oct.html#14_September...](https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-
oct.html#14_September_2019_\(Statements_about_Epstein\))

~~~
melling
I didn’t follow the story. Was Stallman taken out of context?

Anyway, he probably should have know better than to weigh in.

One’s well thought out response and subtle points can often turn out to have a
few holes. In fact...

“If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I
would find something in them to have him hanged”

~~~
tzs
> I didn’t follow the story. Was Stallman taken out of context?

Yes. This statement of Stallman's:

> 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.

has been reported in several places as Stallman saying Epstein's girls were
"entirely willing", completely ignoring that he was not saying they _were_
willing--he was saying that Epstein would have required them to _say_ they
were willing.

If you have sufficient power over someone to force them to have sex with
whomever you want them to, you almost certainly also have sufficient power
over them to tell them to pretend to be doing it of the own free will. Epstein
was massively evil, but he wasn't massively stupid, so almost certainly would
have exercised such power.

Stallman was talking about Marvin Minsky's sex with a girl at Epstein's island
retreat in 2001, which was a few years before Epstein's sexual atrocities
became known. Stallman was arguing that from Minsky's point of view, he
probably had no reason to suspect that he was not dealing with a consenting
girl.

~~~
selfawareposter
Except for the part where he got taken to a remote island by a billionaire and
was presented with a very young woman who immediately wanted to have sex with
him.

~~~
tzs
You mean the island that Epstein regularly invited numerous people to in order
to discuss assorted legitimate things, like supporting their charities or
their research?

Epstein's island wasn't some stereotypical villain lair where anyone who steps
foot on it must be up to no good. It was a place that he conducted the normal
business that any entirely legitimate billionaire would conduct, in addition
to the villain stuff.

Based on the girl's deposition, it looks like she was there on the record to
provide massages to guests, and off the record was forced to make those erotic
massages including sex. It is not clear which, if any, recipients of those
massages plus sex knew that the sex was something she was forced into. There
are no details given on her sex with Minsky other than it happened.

~~~
partialrecall
> _" Epstein's island wasn't some stereotypical villain lair where anyone who
> steps foot on it must be up to no good."_

This isn't applicable to the specific case of Minsky, but I think that
ambiguity evaporates after Epstein's first conviction.

~~~
nullc
Epstein's first conviction was in 2008.

The allegation about Minksky stems from a single line in a gigantic recently
published deposition (
[https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/1159946492871938048](https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/1159946492871938048)
), covering events long before 2008.

Minsky was included in a list of people that Epstein's assistant asked one of
his victims to have sex with (the deposition didn't ask if sex actually
occurred). In the deposition the victim couldn't remember the date they
received that request, but a third party reported that they saw the victim
approach Minsky in 2002 and that he turned her down and complained about it (
[https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/](https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/)
).

It may be the case that the witnessed event and the content of the deposition
were unrelated and at different times, but if not-- the victim was also 18 at
the time...

But no one really cares about the facts, this is almost entirely a ceremonial
battle over who has the sickest imagination. Because there are essentially no
clear details, not even a concrete allegation, everyone is essentially making
things up in order to fight over them.

~~~
lispm
[https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-
science...](https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-science-
eugenics-sexual-abuse-researchers.html)

> Epstein’s former neighbor, the psychologist and computer scientist Roger
> Schank, describes another such event that he attended: a meeting of
> artificial-intelligence experts, organized by Marvin Minsky and held on
> Epstein’s island in April 2002. “Epstein walks into the conference with two
> girls on his arm,” said Schank. The scientists were holding their
> discussions in a small room, and as they talked, “[Epstein] was in the back,
> on a couch, hugging and kissing these girls.”

------
momokoko
Heads up to anyone who might decide to comment in this thread. Its a great way
to end your career if something gets read differently than you intended.

------
esotericn
Is anyone else baffled by the idea that discussing something on an
intellectual level, even related to a person, has to somehow be a 'defense' or
an 'offense'?

I've spent basically my entire life discussing things in the abstract. I'm not
a politician, I don't make laws, and frankly I wouldn't want that power.

To me it makes absolute sense that someone would attempt to "defend" even the
most heinous person. It's weird to me that being considered a "defender of X"
could even be a bad thing. That's the process by which we collectively make
decisions, it's the basis behind stuff like fair trials for example; the
lawyer acting for a defendant is not a bad person. It's what (rational)
individuals do when they make decisions - even some of the most obviously
correct ones - take the opposing side and see where it leads.

It doesn't seem to be limited to this case - I don't know if it's a recent
thing, having mostly come of age post-Internet. It's just like, really weird.
Amongst my real-life friendship groups this sort of "hate mob" type stuff just
doesn't exist, pretty much any topic is up for grabs.

~~~
codesushi42
What the hell are you talking about? What intellectual level? Stallman is
quoted to have said:

 _Stallman wrote that “the most plausible scenario” for Giuffre’s accusations
was that she was, in actuality, “entirely willing.”_

How is that a rational, defensible statement in any terms?

~~~
frio
I'm really hesitant to wade into this. I think resigning was the right move
for Stallman.

What he _actually said_ , without Vice editing the quote, is:

 _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._

From the email thread reproduced in its entirety by Vice at
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html?embed=true&responsive=false&sidebar=false).

In my estimation, there's a big difference between Vice's framing of "Stallman
said she was 'entirely willing'" and the full quote above. There are, of
course, other poor comments in that thread.

EDIT -- I mention Vice specifically, because their article (which I'd read
earlier) has similar phrasing to the wording used here
([https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-
scientist...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist-
richard-stallman-resigns-from-mit-over-epstein-comments) \-- "Stallman said
the “most plausible scenario” is that one of Epstein’s underage victims was
“entirely willing.”"), and I'd thought the quote that codesushi used was from
that publication. On double checking, it might be unfair to single that
publication out for the given quote.

~~~
codesushi42
I see no real difference. He said that. And there are even worse comments that
he made in that thread.

~~~
throwaway17746
There's a big difference. "Presented as" does not mean "was", and the sentence
immediately after that makes it clear that he didn't mean it as such.

There are other pretty bad comments, yes. If most of the coverage focused on
those rather than something he _didn 't_ actually say, I wouldn't have as much
of a problem with it.

~~~
veemacs
Here here, RMS is a weirdo but he's being vilified for things that do not
effect his job in any way, he is by no means a representative for MIT, and his
opinions on unrelated matters (no matter how misguided they might be) do not
change his ability to represent the FSF.

~~~
throwaway17746
>and his opinions on unrelated matters (no matter how misguided they might be)
do not change his ability to represent the FSF

Now that I can't say I totally agree with. The free software movement is a
political movement, and as such his statements and opinions on social issues
of all kinds have a deep impact on whether or not he can be a good
representative of the FSF.

But we should at least be truthful about his statements and opinions!

~~~
frio
Thanks. I know we're supposed to just upvote when someone hits the nail on the
head, but this comment summarises my internal conflict on this perfectly.

------
amanzi
I think we should be more worried about the control that media (and especially
clickbait-worthy online media) can exert over our lives. It's clear to anyone
who has done their research, that his quotes were taken out of context or mis-
characterised to create a specific narrative meant to fuel anger and drive
visitors to the 'news' websites. It's a real shame that we can no longer
discuss certain topics without fear of retribution.

~~~
pornel
His personal website re-states this opinion clearly (see links in other
comments). There was nothing mischaracterised or out of context about this.
This time he merely made his opinion more visible, and it ended up being the
last straw.

~~~
Liskni_si
I think it's pretty clear to everyone around here that there's quite a
difference between saying "Epstein coerced the girl to present herself as
completely willing" and saying "she was completely willing". RMS said the
former, Vice, The Daily Beast and other media reported he said the latter.

------
akuchling
Yes, but will he step down from his role with the Free Software Foundation?
I'm more concerned about that, since that's a more public-facing role.

~~~
zbaylin
He has resigned from the FSF [https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-m-stallman-
resigns](https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-m-stallman-resigns)

~~~
pvaldes
Hum, this had escalated quickly, with all the fake news and duck hunting and
the strange patterns seen in the last months about how we need a better name
for gimp, for moral reasons none less, how great is that apple has now an
equivalent to 'festival' and other small strange things.

Open source is in a really complicated moment for its survival. Is like we
would had arrived to a sort ot 'extinguish and replace' phase.

~~~
balaksakrionon
Has there been renewed chatter for possibly renaming GIMP? I have been out of
the loop but it would be such a shame for the program to be renamed

~~~
pvaldes
Some days ago it was discussed (here) that Gimp was forked in fact. Apparently
just because some people "found offensive" the name Gimp (Something that could
be seen as an obvious attempt to first degrade the brand, then appropriate as
own new invention, and finally phagocyte it. Has happened before with other
programs that were slightly modified and then heavily advertised).

Updated, link here: [https://itsfoss.com/gimp-fork-
glimpse/](https://itsfoss.com/gimp-fork-glimpse/)

~~~
balaksakrionon
Thanks for the update

------
rrdharan
Since I didn't see it elsewhere in this thread in a brief scan, this Vice
article has some more context:

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-
scientist...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist-
richard-stallman-resigns-from-mit-over-epstein-comments)

------
mattnumbers
For what it's worth, RMS' statements on the matter don't appear to concern
what is "right", "wrong", or "acceptable" \- they appear to concern only the
available evidence.

Then again, I've only seen the two quotes appearing in the HN threads.

~~~
azernik
They absolutely do - the meat of the outrage is at the e-mail (full thread, in
awful formatting, at
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html?embed=true&responsive=false&sidebar=false))
is the claim that sex with underage girls should not be considered "assault".

EDIT:

The specific relevant passage is on page 7. Copied verbatim - line with a '>'
is Stallman quoting another e-mail in the thread.

"""

> Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it __rape__ in the Virgin Islands.

Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that
depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim
was 18 years old or 17.

I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term
"sexual assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when
accusing anyone.

"""

------
eoxenford
Throughout this whole brouhaha, I’ve been astonished at how _nobody_ in the
mainstream press, nor any of those in tech calling for Stallman’s head, ever
challenged the statement that Stallman said Epstein’s victims were “entirely
willing.” Indeed, quite the opposite.

From the Medium post that kicked the whole thing off [1]:

 _…and then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely
willing”._

And from _Vice_ [2, 3]:

 _Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As
'Entirely Willing'_

 _Stallman said the “most plausible scenario” is that one of Epstein’s
underage victims was “entirely willing.”_

And the _Daily Beast_ :

 _Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were ‘Entirely Willing’_

Here’s what Stallman actually wrote:

 _We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she
[Epstein’s victim] presented herself to him [Marvin Minsky] as entirely
willing._

In other words, Stallman isn’t saying she _was_ willing, but rather that she
likely _acted_ as _if_ she were willing. Lest there be any doubt, the next
sentence reads:

 _Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to
tell her to conceal that from most of his associates._

So Stallman _explicitly acknowledges_ the likelihood that Epstein coerced
these girls and coached them to pretend to be willing to have sex with Minsky
and others in Epstein’s circle. At no point does Stallman say they _were_
willing—rather, he suggests the exact opposite.

Regardless of what one may think of Stallman, what else he wrote, or any of
his other behavior, the wide dissemination and repetition of this lie is
absolutely unconscionable. Those promulgating it should be ashamed.

[1]: [https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
fec6ec21...](https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794)

[2]: [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-
sci...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-
richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing)

[3]: [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-
scientist...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist-
richard-stallman-resigns-from-mit-over-epstein-comments)

[4]: [https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-
scientist-r...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-
richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing)

~~~
nemothekid
I don't fully understand the point you are trying to make. At the end of the
day, Stallman is trying whitewash Minsky's responsibility by trying to
_pretend_ that a 70-something year old man didn't know that the underage girl
at _convicted_ Jeffrey Epstein's private island wasn't actually "entirely
willing".

In other words, he's taking us on this garbage thought experiment that Minsky
is somehow an innocent bystander. To even arrive at that talking point is
asinine.

~~~
eoxenford
I don’t disagree with most of the points you make. Stallman was defending
Minsky using rather dubious arguments. But he was _not_ defending Epstein, and
he did _not_ say Epstein’s victims were “entirely willing.” And yet, those
last two points were the crux of the case against him.

The point I’m making is that many, many people are deliberately lying or
willfully misreading what Stallman wrote in order to force his resignation.
Those using such tactics, in violation of their own cherished principles,
ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead, tonight they are celebrating their
victory with glee.

------
zenhack
Something that I think most folks in this thread are missing, that's hugely
important to what actually happened here:

 __This was not an isolated incident. __

If it were, I 'd look at his comments and write it off as his usual tendency
to jump on a minor point and derail a conversation with some totally pedantic
technicallity, and I do think the thing he actually said in this case has been
wildly mis-interpreted and overstated in many places (the bits about him
defending Epstein are clearly untrue, and even the author of the blog post
that went viral and set off the shitstorm has said so, and sent corrections to
the publications she'd spoken to directly).

I even agree with his statement that, from a moral standpoint 17 vs. 18 isn't
really that important -- we set arbitrary cutoffs for age of consent and it's
not like there's a legal determination to be made re: Minsky anyway: he's
dead.

So from that mailing list thread alone, it reads like a typical autism-
spectrum dude missing the social context, making a pedantic point that people
read too much into and take the wrong way, and getting himself in trouble. And
this is an angle that would naturally draw my own sympathies toward him.

But Stallman is on-record as saying he thinks there's such a thing as
"consentual pedophila", and given that context, I think folks can be forgiven
for reading into his current statements.

Ultimately though, the bigger issue isn't even about anything that happened in
the past few days. RMS has been behaving inappropriately in more serious ways
for decades. There are many stories out there about him harassing and
propositioning students, making wildly inappropriate remarks to women, and
generally making a bad situation around gender and inclusiveness in tech
worse. Everyone I've talked to who has known him in a non-trivial personal
capacity has corroberated this. The fact that this email is the thing prompted
a blog post that happened to go viral and got people to make a fuss about it
is incidental.

Even at the FSF's own conferences, he's one of the more frequent violators of
the safe space policies that the organizers have put in place. I think the
first year the conference had an explicit safe space/anti-harassment policy,
he was the only person who violated it (in this case it took the form of a
sexualized joke during his closing keynote).

I kinda have the same somewhat fearful gut reaction to these kinds of episodes
as a lot of geeky guys do. There's a post[1] out there (which I think
originally I found through hacker news) that does a pretty good job of
analyzing where that reaction is coming from, and why the fear isn't totally
illegitimate, but the idea that this is just a mob picking on some
misunderstood misfit is just not what's happening here. Folks have been
lienient to the point of negligience with him up until now.

[1]: [https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-
collide-31895b01e68c](https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-
collide-31895b01e68c)

~~~
michaelmrose
Can you please link some claims of him harassing and propositioning and
harassing students?

~~~
zenhack
The follow up to the original blog post includes a few quotes (they start in
section 2):

[https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
appendix...](https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-
a-a7e41e784f88)

~~~
pellucidar
The quotes are not particularly damning: a rumor that he hit on women, a
report of unsubstantiated assumptions about the mattress, and a direct
quotation of his hitting on a woman. The balance of the post is about his
opinions in the abstract, the (mis)quote, other sexism at MIT, and the
author's personal feelings.

------
Rebelgecko
That's a bummer. All of the articles talking about how MIT SCIENTIST DEFENDS
EPSTEIN'S CHILD RAPE RING were incredibly misleading and taking his quotes
ridiculously out of context.

~~~
jmull
That’s definitely true.

But I think the big problem for him is that his comments were quite troubling
even in proper context.

~~~
geekone
Which ones were troubling? I don't see anything that stands out on the page
linked.

~~~
ceejayoz
2006: [https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-
aug.html#05%20Jun...](https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-
aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29)

> 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.

2013: [https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-
feb.html#04_Janua...](https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-
feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29)

> There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing
> participation in pedophilia hurts children.

Wading in with commentary on the Epstein case with those quotes on record is
simply _not_ a good look.

~~~
marcinzm
Why are people down voting this? ceejayoz cited specific quotes with
references.

Seems sort of hypocritical to me that people who seem to be arguing for the
freedom of intellectual debate do the exact opposite if facts don't line up in
their favor.

~~~
ulucs
He changed his opinions regarding this, just because he keeps all of his posts
online forever shouldn't mean he should be represented by those when people
need to write a hit piece for clicks.

~~~
marcinzm
That is a valid counter-argument, intellectual debate would be posting it
rather than silently down voting.

As of my post no one has responded anywhere with it. They have however
downvoted ceejayoz although the votes now seem to have become net positive
again.

------
rrss
"MIT asks brilliant asshole who wrote gcc and emacs and spends his life
whining about software to take down his 'knight for hot chicks' sign and hang
out elsewhere."

~~~
povertyworld
Chris Lattner also wrote a compiler and gave it away, all without defending
rape. Spare me.

~~~
rrss
"Brilliant asshole" was not intended as a compliment. MIT should have
dissociated with Stallman decades ago.

~~~
noirscape
Honestly, I was suprised to learn he still used to be around there up until
recently.

Kinda undermines the entire heroic "Stallman left CSAIL to start GNU" story
that is often cited as the origin point for GNU.

~~~
pseudalopex
He left a paying job at CSAIL. They let him keep an office.

------
aazaa
Was this his only MIT affiliation?

------
mindslight
What a disappointing course of events. I cannot fathom how an institution such
as MIT can have such a thin spine. But I also couldn't fathom the first time I
walked into a Sears in a long while (ca 2010) and saw an "online catalog"
which merely searched Amazon's website.

I can't help but think this is the same creative destruction - rather than
falling back to a core strength of traditional reputation, even a learning
institution turns into the winds of its own destruction. Force out the type of
person who specialized in software philosophy over social skills, in support
of the type of person who politics. Because we're all in politics now.

(And for all his prescience, RMS still couldn't see Free Software ushering in
lynch flash mobs, one of which would eventually go after him.)

~~~
partialrecall
> _" Free Software ushering in lynch flash mobs"_

How did Free Software do that? I don't see how the Free Software movement in
practice or in theory has any share of the blame for this social phenomenon.

~~~
mindslight
Most of the machines that spread the outrage mob were running GNU/Linux or
another Free OS. I'm not just being pointlessly obtuse - there is a deeper
connection in that when people are given freedom, they don't necessarily just
use it for noble purposes.

Sure, it can't really be said that the outrage rags and facebooks are Free
Software per se - rather they are proprietary viral-outrage-generating
machines even though they may be built on top of Free Software. But setting
them up would have been a bit harder without Free Software, and having more
investment on the line would have perhaps discouraged wanton slander.

Really I just think it's a novel juxtaposition - we've had plenty of time to
come to terms with Free Software facilitating individualist mal-actions (eg
child pornography), but facilitating social mal-actions is a newer thing thing
to come to terms with.

------
pvaldes
What means CSAIL exactly? What are the responsabilities or goals of this role?

~~~
wyldfire
CSAIL is not a role, it's the institution: "MIT Computer Science & Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory"

~~~
pvaldes
I understand, ok. And what where the actual role of Stallman in this
laboratory?

Updated: explained below, answering to mail lists. Resigning does not seem
like a big deal.

~~~
wyldfire
> Resigning does not seem like a big deal.

IIRC he had an emeritus position? So the big deal is his loss of
reputation/prestige as a result of his involvement and/or comments regarding
this scandal.

Aside: I am just relaying what I've read so far, I don't know anything about
the allegations of offensive things RMS may have said or done.

------
clatan
Cancel culture is real

------
lazyjones
Mistake. He was in a position to clarify and correct the wrong impression
people got from bad reporting. He chose not to, so bad reporting won (again).
Sad times we live in, when even stubborn people like RMS cave in to such
pressure.

------
gumby
I am surprised he was being paid by the Institute at all. For decades he was
not AFAIK.

~~~
geofft
I don't believe he was. He's listed as a "visiting scientist":
[https://www.csail.mit.edu/person/richard-
stallman](https://www.csail.mit.edu/person/richard-stallman)

I think that just means that some faculty member is sponsoring you to have
building access and a login account, more or less. (And the implications of
affiliation of course.)

~~~
whymauri
There's some less direct symbiotic benefits too, like the LibrePlanet has been
at the MIT Stata Center for a couple years (at least). These sorts of things
are facilitated by his role, for sure. I hope well-meaning conferences like
that don't get disrupted by his resignation.

~~~
geofft
LibrePlanet has been at Stata through the sponsorship of SIPB, MIT's computer
club, which has the ability to book rooms as a student group. Not through
Stallman.

(disclosure, I am an alum SIPB member.)

~~~
whymauri
Oooh, nevermind then. An attendee had told me some inaccurate information a
few years ago, then.

Thanks for the clarification. Glad to hear there probably(?) won't be any
complication in future years.

------
RickJWagner
Cancel culture claims another.

I think the pendulum will swing back, eventually.

I hope soon.

------
75dvtwin
> Amongst my real-life friendship groups this sort of "hate mob" type stuff
> just doesn't exist

You have great friendship groups. Do you remember, by any chance how this
topic was handled in your discussions (I am genuinely curios)

 _"...

Brendan Eich is gone. The creator of JavaScript and co-founder of mozilla.org
has quit as Mozilla’s CEO,

forced out by the uproar over a donation he made six years ago to a ballot
measure against gay marriage.

There’s no record of Eich discriminating against gay employees—“I never saw
any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s
values of inclusiveness,” says the company’s chairwoman,

..."_ [1]

[1]([https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/04/brendan-eich-
qui...](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/04/brendan-eich-quits-
mozilla-lets-purge-all-the-anti-gay-donors-to-prop-8.html) )

~~~
claudeganon
Honestly, I’m happy to live in a future where bankrolling the denial of
other’s human rights is something that can cost you your job, even if you’re
wealthy and powerful.

No one would have questioned him being forced to resign if he had financed an
anti-miscegenation initiative. It’s just that hatred of LGBTQ people is still
normalized to the extent that people think you should be “given a pass.”

~~~
gruez
>Honestly, I’m happy to live in a future where bankrolling the denial of
other’s human rights is something that can cost you your job, even if you’re
wealthy and powerful.

Sounds great when it's working _for_ you. How about in reverse? Are you fine
with CEOs firing employees that don't follow their preferred political
affiliation/positions? Just to make it interesting let's say it's pro-
deregulation, anti-union, anti-welfare, anti-minority rights, and pro guns.

~~~
cannonedhamster
Apparently people just got fired over at Kickstarter for wanting to going a
union. Also I think you forget that the national guard have been called in and
killed Union members in the Pennsylvania coal fields for unionizing. Also
Reagan with his union busting. I had a boss who literally sent an email out to
the entire company saying he was increasing our healthcare costs by cutting
our benefits if Obama won and he did. The stuff you're taking about happens
all the time.

------
Lewisssss
Bye wirdo incels, long life to FSF!

------
smnplk
He recently gave a talk at Microsoft. What if he accepted a job offer at
Microsoft? :P

------
Causality1
I'm certain there's going to be an immensely interesting biopic about
Stallman's life one day. I can think of few people whose bad qualities are
contrasted so strongly with their good.

~~~
acjohnson55
I can think of many such people. They're well represented at the top tiers of
fields. Steve Jobs, for example.

------
notus
I think it may also have been because comments like this were resurfacing:

[https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-
aug.html#05%20Jun...](https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-
aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29)

[https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-
feb.html#04_Janua...](https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-
feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29)

------
accntwithnoname
Good riddance. Aside from his recent comments regarding sexual assault that he
claims are missunderstood, MIT alum contributed stories of him being a pervert
throughout the years. This type of person does not belong at MIT or in Tech.
His contributions to the field do not excuse him. “He literally used to have a
mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to
proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it.
Many female students avoided the corridor with his office for that reason…I
was one of the course 6 undergrads who avoided that part of NE43 precisely for
that reason. (the mattress was also known to have shirtless people lounging on
it…)” — Bachelor’s in Computer Science, ‘99
[https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
appendix...](https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-
a-a7e41e784f88)

