mjg59 | It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software

Richard 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

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

mjg59

The phrase "sexual assault" has a well defined mean g. RMS is simply wrong in arguing that it implies any kind of violence.

From: (Anonymous)

Everyone thinks the worst when they hear that word. In legal terms that has a definition but that doesn't equate to what someone on the street thinks it means.

From:

mjg59

So you're saying RMS was arguing against the correct usage of a term?

From: (Anonymous)

I think thst was a big point he was making.

From:

mjg59

That it was wrong to use a term correctly?

From: (Anonymous)

I had no idea if RMS was wrong, so I looked it up.

Second sentence of the Wikipedia article about sexual assault:

“It is a form of sexual violence which includes rape (forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration or drug facilitated sexual assault), groping, child sexual abuse or the torture of the person in a sexual manner.”

Wiktionary definition for assault:

1. A violent onset or attack with physical means, for example blows, weapons, etc.

2. A violent onset or attack with moral weapons, for example words, arguments, appeals, and the like

3. (criminal law) An attempt to commit battery: a violent attempt, or willful effort with force or violence, to do hurt to another, but without necessarily touching his person, as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner, or by striking at him and missing him.

Wiktionary definition for sexual assault:

1. A physical attack of a sexual nature on another person or a sexual act committed without explicit consent.

Merriam-Webster definition of assault: “a violent physical or verbal attack”.

You say RMS is wrong in arguing that sexual assault implies any kind of violence, but all of these sources appear to agree with him. I think it’s fair to consider that RMS is right and the burden to prove otherwise is on you now.

From: (Anonymous)

I find that confusing as well... the word "assault" is almost synonymous with violence. Is there some form of assault that isn't violent?

From: (Anonymous)

"Is there some form of assault that isn't violent?"
There are five forms of abuse, not one. Physical, Emotional, Intellectual, Spiritual and Sexual. Assaults with contain varying degrees of each within a single offense, ranging from misdemeanor to felony levels. What RMS cluelessly missed was the imbalance of power, ala Bill Clinton and Monica. He was POTUS and she was a lowly staff intern. Any sitting judge worth his/her salt could charge rape and do. The statute used is the same one used to convict guards having sex on an inmate or teachers with students. (In NC it's &14.27.7) With Minski and a teenage girl, the imbalance of power just due to his age and worldly experience would fit. Ergo, run like hell from such a situation, as there isn't much of a defense.

So, if you consider Jim Jones as the spiritual abuser of all time, there ya go. Intellectual abuse?? Who do you nominate?

From:

mjg59

For some reason you're leaving out the first sentence of the Wikipedia article that makes it clear that while it includes physically violent acts, it isn't limited to them.

From: (Anonymous)

You’re moving the goalposts by switching from “sexual assault does not imply violence” to “sexual assault does not imply physical violence”. The first sentence of the article is

“Sexual assault is an act in which a person intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.”

which does not make clear that sexual assault does not imply violence (the second sentence makes clear that it does). Neither your previous comment nor the RMS quote

“The word ‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.”

sees its truth value change depending on whether we’re including non-physical violence.

From:

mjg59

Fitting the definition as described in the first sentence does not require violence. The second sentence describes some cases that fit within the definition of the first.

From: (Anonymous)

"Coerce" is what you missed here. You can coerce somebody with or without violence. The simple imbalance o power itself can be enough to coerce somebody.

From: (Anonymous)

Why not use a legal definition of "sexual assault"? It is surely more definitive than Wikipedia or Wiktionary.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920 is the relevant US military law. It distinguishes between "rape" (which often involves the use of force) and "sexual assault" (which often does not). For example, sexual assault includes non-consensual sex, including sex with someone who is unconscious.

Other jurisdictions replaced rape laws with sexual assault laws, and don't distinguish between the two.

Colorado's definition of "sexual assault" is at https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18-criminal-code/co-rev-st-sect-18-3-402.html . It includes many examples where violence is not required, such as "The actor knows that the victim submits erroneously, believing the actor to be the victim's spouse" and "At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is at least fifteen years of age but less than seventeen years of age and the actor is at least ten years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim".

These follows from the second part of the Wiktionary definition, "... or a sexual act committed without explicit consent". You cannot consent if you are unaware that the person you are having sex with is not actually your spouse. You cannot consent if you are under the age of consent (with limited exceptions, eg, due to similarity of age or having sex with one's spouse.)

That is, the Wiktionary entry should be read as having two distinct parts "(A physical attack of a sexual nature on another person) or (a sexual act committed without explicit consent)", and Stallman is wrong to focus on only the first part.

From: (Anonymous)

Laws don’t in general make any claim to define what words mean—the definitions they contain are only for their own purposes. Language is defined by usage, not by law.

From:

mjg59

And in terms of usage, "sexual assault" doesn't imply physical violence.

From: (Anonymous)

Sure, language is defined by usage. I use "sexual assault" to mean "sex without consent." So do many others, as a web search will show. Ergo, that's one of its definitions, and Stallman is wrong to say that his definition - which requires the use of force - is the only definition that matters, and therefore he cannot argue that any other definitional use is "absolutely wrong" (quoting him).

From: (Anonymous)

"Language is defined by usage, not by law."
Explain that to a judge. See what happens.

From: (Anonymous)

Legally, it is sexual assault when an adult sexually penetrates the underaged, mentally disabled, drunk/drugged, coerced/threatened, etc who had no capacity to give consent or was unable to freely give consent. .......
https://www.rainn.org/articles/legal-role-consent

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

From: (Anonymous)

What's missing from your analysis is consent. As a society, we've agreed that children do not yet understand the complexities of human sexual relationships well enough to give consent and that the massive power imbalance in such a relationship allow informed decisions on the part of a child. And we've agreed upon this because we've seen over and over the damage that's caused by child sexual abuse.

Sex with a child is sexual assault, and we should take it every bit as harshly as we do.

From: (Anonymous)

Yes, there is the possibility that RMS is wrong arguing that sexual assault implies violence.

So what happened then?

Did he actually know that it does not imply violence, and therefore he lied?

Or was he wrong about the definition and made an argument based on an incorrect understanding of the phrase?

From:

mjg59

It's not a possibility. It's a certainty. It's the literal fucking definition.

From: (Anonymous)

So did RMS actually know that "sexual assault" does not imply violence, and therefore he lied?

Or was he wrong about the definition and made an argument based on an incorrect understanding of the phrase?

From: (Anonymous)

I feel like everyone is completely disregarding the fact the individual referred to here was enslaved as a prostitute by Epstein at the time and as such any sexual act committed by her under contract with Jeffrey Epstein or by the order of him or his inferiors in his sex trafficking organization was nonconsensual. It’s nauseating to me that you would quibble over the meaning of the word assault (every definition of which implies violence as it always violates consent / freedom) when the event such heinous acts of violence including slavery. The only argument that could justify RMS’s position would be if Minsky was truly unaware that the individual was not consenting. I do t know the situation, so I can’t claim whether it’s true or false.