
Remove Richard Stallman: Appendix A - ohjeez
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88
======
aazaa
> I would also like to clarify that in some headlines, including this Daily
> Beast one, Stallman is said to have defended Epstein, which is not
> technically true. Rather, Stallman was defending Marvin Minsky. I directly
> emailed and corrected reporters who used that language if I myself had given
> them any comments or information. I say this to show that I never intended
> to “inflate” anything, because there was absolutely no need to.

It goes further than that. According to the original email presented by the
author, this is what RMS wrote:

> 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.

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

From this statement, the Daily Beast produced the title: "Renowned MIT
Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were ‘Entirely Willing’"

RMS is defending Minsky by saying that for him the most likely scenario was
that the person in question _presented herself_ "as entirely willing." Whether
or not the person was willing is a completely different question.

So the article is wrong on two counts, and no amount of righteous anger or
revulsion around RMS as a person can justify it.

In the mad dash for clicks at all cost, the Daily Beast has really made a mess
of this thing.

------
daly
Sarah Mei and Richard Stallman appear to be attached to MIT, making them
"colleagues".

Morals are rules we inherit from our parents and our society. These rules are
not shared by everyone since we are all brought up by different parents and
differing society influences.

Sarah appears to disagree with Richard on moral grounds. This is perfectly
reasonable. It is also reasonable to quote public statements by Richard to
highlight and debate why she feels that her moral rules are superior to
Richard's. Every academic and every public figure can expect debate.

I take no sides in this debate. Sarah and Richard are starting from different
moral rules and reaching different conclusions. Richard defended his friend
and Sarah objects to his defense.

Sarah admits to never having met Richard, even though they seem to be
"colleagues" at the same university.

However, Sarah publicly attacks Richard PERSONALY, an Ad Hominem attack. While
it is reasonable to attack a colleagues' opinion, it is a unprofessional
conduct to attack the person in public, especially without prior discussion.
Her unprofessional behavior has caused a public scandal for MIT. The ad
hominem attack on her twitter feed
[https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/994010501460865025?lang=...](https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/994010501460865025?lang=en)
has become so vitrolic that we find this quote:

"I am increasingly convinced we just shouldn't allow men in software at all"
\-- Tamzin Blake

If I had created such a public storm at any job I held based on such a
personal attack on a colleague, I'd be fired.

The obvious remedy for this unprofessional behavior is for MIT HR to fire
Sarah.

This isn't a question about "who is right?", it is a question of professional
behavior.

