
The Burden of Leadership: Why Richard Stallman Was Right to Step Down - renegadesensei
https://righteousruminations.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-burden-of-leadership-why-richard.html
======
lettergram
Having spent a bit of time with Stallman (an afternoon), honestly, I don’t
think he understands how his comments impact people. At least initially.

I also agree that the media has over stepped here (as has Stallman).

Stallman approaches things with an uncompromising view of moral integrity. He
was wrong in this case, but IMO it’s the equivalent of me telling my non-tech
friends about how we should lock down our phones. They don’t get it or care.
Stallman likewise didn’t seem to care too much here, and now he’s paying the
price.

All that being said, his belief system guides the FSF. I’m concerned that the
FSF will degrade with him being gone.

Still head priest at the church of GNU though.

~~~
Ididntdothis
“All that being said, his belief system guides the FSF. I’m concerned that the
FSF will degrade with him being gone.”

It may also improve. Often things just keep going once the person thought to
be indispensable leaves. It’s a good test for the organization if they have
people who can step up. I wonder how Linux will do once Linus retires.

~~~
partialrecall
Nobody else at the FSF has been anywhere close to as visible and vocal an
advocate of software freedom as Stallman. It _really_ shouldn't be hard to be
more charismatic than Stallman... but where/who is such a person?

That's an earnest question. I would sleep better tonight knowing the FSF will
be in safe and effective hands.

~~~
Ididntdothis
His age would have forced the issue anyway at some point.

~~~
partialrecall
No doubt. But I'm still worried for the future of the FSF.

------
agateform
The following is the quote from RMS found on page 16 in the document posted by
vice
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html#document/p16)

"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."

The following quote posted on righteousruminations blog does not appear in the
PDF file posted by vice. Here is the quote from the blog -> "it might not be
so terrible if a 73 year old ____* an underage girl if he didn 't know she was
underage and being coerced." (I removed the curse word so this post doesn't
get blocked)

I assume the quote by the righteousruminations blog to be an opinion and not
an actual quote from RMS.

~~~
agateform
There is more I didn't see and it doesn't look good for RMS.

On page 7 of the same email list documents released by vice. RMS wrote the
following: "I think it is moraily 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."
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html#document/p7)

RMS also wrote the following on his blog in 2006: "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."
[https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-
jun.html#05%20June%20...](https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-
jun.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29)

------
tunesmith
More generally, if your leadership position depends on making and defending an
_argument_ that is based off of strong premises, and you seek to amass a lot
of support for that argument, it seems the most effective pathway is to be
very visible when making that argument, and rather private otherwise. This is
just because if you are trying to maximize support among those that agree with
your argument, you are going to attract people that disagree on other
arguments. It requires focus. As soon as you, a leader, weigh in on another
divisive argument that has nothing to do with your charter, it acts as a
filter that can jeopardize large swaths of support.

I'm also a little fascinated, just generally, by the tendency for very smart
people to make "good points for bad reasons" \- strenuously quibbling with
some premise that would make no relevant impact to the lemmas and conclusions
constructed atop them. It's like an inability to grasp larger points.

~~~
vehementi
I do it all the time (not to claim I am very smart though). I had to catch
myself trying to defend Stallman in this case all day today.

Little picture: Stallman is basically reasonable in his email thread, all the
headlines are outright lies which wholly discredit their newspapers/sites

Big picture: he is still a huge creep and should have been gone from
leadership positions decades ago

To me it's when I see something wrong being said/done, I want to correct or
resist it, even if overall it doesn't matter. Like people who lie about things
Trump has said -- which is ridiculous, why not just take one of the many dumb
things Trump _did_ say -- I'll have the urge to spring to the his defense and
point out how some criticism is irrational or misconstrued. Even though it's
Trump. I also found myself correcting misinformation about Louis C K during
his shit the other year, though I didn't die on any hills or anything.

~~~
tunesmith
Thanks for replying - why do you think you want to do that?

Although, I can see a good reason for it in a case like Trump, if it's from
the point of view of someone that is trying to muster resistance against him -
from that perspective, _true_ arguments against him are clearly better than
false arguments, as the latter can be counterproductive. So I totally get
that.

~~~
vehementi
Somehow it's related to "the ends don't justify the means". These lies and
misrepresentations are immoral acts even if they're being done to a bad
person.

------
new_realist
A responsible leader wouldn’t have waded into the Epstein issue at all,
knowing that any comments made would reflect on the FSF. There is no upside
reason to risk the FSF, but Stallman can’t think that far ahead.

~~~
pon1es
He answers anything he's e-mailed.

~~~
mav3rick
So ? Doesn't mean he can't have a filter.

------
peterwwillis
I forgot that whole Stallman-performing-nasal-sex-on-himself-at-dinner and
please-use-my-body-for-necrophilia comment. It was a simpler time back in
2003...

.... However, I did _not_ know about his quote on this page
([https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-
jun.html#28%20June%20...](https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-
jun.html#28%20June%202003%20\(\))) starting with _" The nominee is quoted as
saying"_. I honestly cannot tell if that was an attempt at a bad joke or dead
serious.

~~~
beatgammit
With Stallman, I just assume it's a (bad) joke unless it's about Free
Software. I feel like I've been right more often than not, so it's a good rule
of thumb.

He's an eccentric character, and I'm sad that he's stepping down, but I also
think it's for the best. He's contributed what he can, and I think it'll be
good for someone else to carry the torch; sometimes a change of leadership is
what an organization needs to refresh the vision and increase reach.

------
mixologic
"Right wing SJW" what... is that?

~~~
OrderlyTiamat
Neoliberals maybe?

------
TheOperator
Feels weird for right wingers to be defending a hippie like stallman.

------
stillbourne
This video by Tim Minchin basically sums up my feelings on RMS.

(NSFW: Language)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFsZRQL6QdI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFsZRQL6QdI)

I grew up with RMS as one of my heroes, even if a lesser hero and one that I
tended to shy away from for his dogmatism. I no longer have any respect for
him. His work was good for the FSF but them's the breaks. No more respect.

