![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mjg59Richard Stallman has once again managed to demonstrate incredible insensitivity[1]. There's an argument that in a pure technical universe this is irrelevant and we should instead only consider what he does in free software[2], but free software isn't a purely technical topic - the GNU Manifesto is nakedly political, and while free software may result in better technical outcomes it is fundamentally focused on individual freedom and will compromise on technical excellence if otherwise the result would be any compromise on those freedoms. And in a political movement, there is no way that we can ignore the behaviour and beliefs of that movement's leader. Stallman is driving away our natural allies. It's inappropriate for him to continue as the figurehead for free software.
But I'm not calling for Stallman to be replaced. If the history of social movements has taught us anything, it's that tying a movement to a single individual is a recipe for disaster. The FSF needs a president, but there's no need for that person to be a leader - instead, we need to foster an environment where any member of the community can feel empowered to speak up about the importance of free software. A decentralised movement about returning freedoms to individuals can't also be about elevating a single individual to near-magical status. Heroes will always end up letting us down. We fix that by removing the need for heroes in the first place, not attempting to find increasingly perfect heroes.
Stallman was never going to save us. We need to take responsibility for saving ourselves. Let's talk about how we do that.
[1] There will doubtless be people who will leap to his defense with the assertion that he's neurodivergent and all of these cases are consequences of that.
(A) I am unaware of a formal diagnosis of that, and I am unqualified to make one myself. I suspect that basically everyone making that argument is similarly unqualified.
(B) I've spent a lot of time working with him to help him understand why various positions he holds are harmful. I've reached the conclusion that it's not that he's unable to understand, he's just unwilling to change his mind.
[2] This argument is, obviously, bullshit
But I'm not calling for Stallman to be replaced. If the history of social movements has taught us anything, it's that tying a movement to a single individual is a recipe for disaster. The FSF needs a president, but there's no need for that person to be a leader - instead, we need to foster an environment where any member of the community can feel empowered to speak up about the importance of free software. A decentralised movement about returning freedoms to individuals can't also be about elevating a single individual to near-magical status. Heroes will always end up letting us down. We fix that by removing the need for heroes in the first place, not attempting to find increasingly perfect heroes.
Stallman was never going to save us. We need to take responsibility for saving ourselves. Let's talk about how we do that.
[1] There will doubtless be people who will leap to his defense with the assertion that he's neurodivergent and all of these cases are consequences of that.
(A) I am unaware of a formal diagnosis of that, and I am unqualified to make one myself. I suspect that basically everyone making that argument is similarly unqualified.
(B) I've spent a lot of time working with him to help him understand why various positions he holds are harmful. I've reached the conclusion that it's not that he's unable to understand, he's just unwilling to change his mind.
[2] This argument is, obviously, bullshit
no subject
Date: 2019-09-14 12:11 pm (UTC)https://twitter.com/mykola/status/1172601585429614592
and
https://twitter.com/HickeyWriter/status/1172674056828661764
no subject
Date: 2019-09-14 12:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-09-15 07:01 pm (UTC)They only seem to address this in terms of "autism doesn't make you advocate for x" and not "85% of autistic people are unemployed, tech was historically the only industry to treat autistic people well, and there sure seem to be a lot of autistic people on the wrong side of these incidents".
And I can't remember the last time a prominent person got fired for anti-autistic sentiment - Max Read can use "neuroatypical" as an insult and still have Gawker stand by him and then get picked up by New York Magazine, pejoratives insinuating the people arguing with them are autistic (what's bad about having a neckbeard or wearing a fedora, again?) are routine in woke feminist circles, this stuff clearly doesn't go both ways.
You have to consider that stuff before deciding how to react to calls for firing one of the most prominent autistic people in tech, you can't just point to a couple autistic people who agree with you and act like they speak for everyone.
no subject
Date: 2019-09-16 08:44 pm (UTC)You put aside the fact that RMS is a man, a man whose behaviors were enabled if not condoned for decades by the institutions he worked for and or were associated with.
And while it is true that there’s ableism in some feminist circles, that doesn’t erase misogyny in men, including Autistic men, who continue to get away with awful behaviors I would be banned for, or fired from if I had an actual job.
Defending him with “but he’s Autistic” just further enforces bigotry against people with ASD, and just becomes another Boys Being Boys excuse to shut women up, and as a woman who experienced sexual harassment I do not appreciate this.