
Concerning ‘Remove Richard Stallman’ - mpweiher
https://medium.com/@stlaurent.andrew/concerning-remove-richard-stallman-b48de0a249bc
======
5F36B5F62640
Stallman's mistake was expressing his key point in two sentences using many
words of three or more syllables.

This apparently put it beyond the reading comprehension level of the reporters
at Vice and Daily Beast, and of Selam G., and so his point was completely
misunderstood/misrepresented.

------
CPLX
Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is
unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially
advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue
with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly
widely accepted.

The very concept of statutory rape reinforces how clear this judgment is. The
reference to "statutory" means that the mere facts of the act taking place
mean that the conduct is off limits. Things like "consent" or even a
misrepresentation of the person's age are generally considered irrelevant.

As a society we've decided that there aren't really exceptions to this. If sex
with minors occurs it's not OK, there isn't much need to further investigate
why it happened.

Stallman, and anyone else commenting here, has really no basis to claim
ignorance of this phenomenally clear social norm, which if broken will result
in being fired from just about any public facing institution. It's on a pretty
short list of such norms, alongside things like displaying your genitals in a
board meeting.

While I appreciate the efforts to make this into some kind of principled
argument, I don't find "first they came for the people advocating for sex with
minors" to be particularly compelling.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
While I agree what RMS said was incorrect, let's recast CPLX's arguments into
the Middle Ages and see what happens:

> _Our culture has made a very bright line decision that being an atheist is
> unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially
> advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue
> with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly
> widely accepted.... While I appreciate the efforts to make this into some
> kind of principled argument, I don 't find "first they came for the people
> advocating for not believing in God" to be particularly compelling."_

Does the problem become clear now? (Substitute abolitionism, suffragism, civil
rights, etc. for atheism if you like.) Ironically, much like the conservatives
they oppose, progressives are arguing that it is acceptable to crucify people
who say something that is agains the _status quo_ and tradition.

~~~
CPLX
Yes. You have aptly demonstrated two things here:

1) There are social norms

2) They change sometimes

Neither of those is relevant though here.

Are you arguing that no social norms violation should ever result in being
fired?

Assuming we agree that advocating for _some_ things may get you fired from
your job, it’s then possible to follow up with my observations:

1) Saying it’s cool for adults to fuck minors is _definitely_ on that list

2) I’m ok with that

------
Mathnerd314
RMS is pretty old (66). I wonder if he was given the option to fight it but
decided he'd rather retire than deal with all the politics, or if it was a
fait accompli situation where he only had the choice between resigning and
being fired.

~~~
javagram
The FSF is his life’s work, and he is getting close to retirement age.

I could see the decision as having been at least somewhat voluntary if he
wants to keep the FSF’s mission relevant (GNOME and the SFC were threatening
to break ties).

------
jelliclesfarm
Are women coerced into doing and accepting things that they would rather not
due to misogyny. Absolutely.

But they still have free will and a choice. At the end of the day, sexually
harassed women make a Faustian bargain. They didn’t have to. But they did. It
might be the devil but when you choose to consort with the devil, you play in
hell.

A lot of times(admittedly not always), the solution is to walk away. Walk
away. The damage to the ego can be dealt with and maybe even vindicated. But
it’s wiser to walk away to a place of strength to strategize and wage a bloody
war to win rather than engage in puny battles for fragile hollow victories.
It’s easier to nurse a wounded ego and come back to fight another day than
endure systemic harassment that rips your very spirit apart. Stupid battle of
the sexes.

------
pbiggar
The author expects people to fully understand stallmans world view and to
thoroughly examine his position.

However, the author did not pay the same regard to Salam G., the author of the
original post reporting on the most recent of Stallmans shitty proclamations.
The author shows no sign of understanding why it's important that Stallman was
fired, nor did he show he had done to work to try and get it.

You can safely ignore this. I came away worse for having read it.

~~~
scrumper
> The author shows no sign of understanding why it's important that Stallman
> was fired...

Not sure that's fair. In the conclusion he writes:

> The goals Selam G. seeks to advance are good ones. Institutions like MIT
> need to closely consider their past and present treatment of women. People
> at those institutions, and perhaps even Stallman himself, need to have their
> worst impulses checked, or possibly even be removed altogether.

He was arguing for something like a due process in firing Stallman, not for
not firing him.

~~~
mikeash
Since when did anyone ever expect due process when being fired? This is a
world where you can be fired for showing up 30 seconds late because of a road
closure.

~~~
scrumper
Is that the way it should be? And if not, are you saying that there's no point
in arguing for something better?

~~~
mikeash
Maybe not, but this seems like a terrible way to advocate for something
better. Thousands of people get unjustly fired every day for much worse
reasons than this. Why is this one the one to fight?

~~~
pbiggar
Right! There's millions of injustices in this world and you're fighting for a
misogynist who has pushed women out of tech for decades? What are your
priorities?

~~~
mikeash
I suspect it’s because the typical programmer can’t really put themselves in
the shoes of a fast food worker who gets fired for refusing to clock out and
keep working. But an eccentric techie with uncomfortable and unconventional
views on sex hits way too close to home.

