[personal profile] mjg59
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

Why it's a problem

Date: 2019-09-14 03:55 pm (UTC)
squirrelitude: (Default)
From: [personal profile] squirrelitude
Summary: RMS is nitpicking on legal issues, while ignoring the moral issues.

OK, so I do think it is useful and meaningful to distinguish between "rape" and "statutory rape". Not that I think either one should be legal, just... they're different things, with different implications. It's not an accident that the legal system has different names for them.

However, I agree that it's totally inappropriate for RMS to be nitpicking it in that context, regardless of whether he's even correct. It's a sign of insensitivity.

In the general case, reasonable people can disagree about whether age of consent starts at 16 or 18 or whatever, or what the max age gap should be, etc. (Some states have "Romeo & Juliet" laws regarding the age gap for this reason.) But this is a pretty clear cut case of "should have known better" on Minsky's part: You're supposed to evaluate whether your sexual partner is capable of consent, and there were obvious red flags here. It doesn't actually *matter* whether the 17 year old was willing at the time!

I don't actually know if RMS is on board with that definition of consent, or not. (The email fragments are small and low in context.) The problem is that he appears to be derailing into legalistic stuff that's largely irrelevant, and that's pretty insensitive in context.

Re: Why it's a problem

Date: 2019-09-17 09:23 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Yep, that's exactly what so many are missing here.

Yes, *strictly speaking* there *exists* a *theoretical* possibility for children to consent into sex with a 60yo dude. However, it's totally absurd to use this as an argument to change law or legalize paedophilia, since the downside (some poor poor souls having a bit less sex under age) is dramatically outweighed by the tremendous amount of children possibly saved by criminalizing the act.

Similarly, there is of course a difference between acting violently and whatnot. In the end, this is just derailing and effectively downplaying the actual act -- and I don't care if RMS actually intended to do so or really thinks he does a valuable contribution to the discussion and just feels misunderstood. Either way, it makes him unfit for the president of the FSF. It doesn't make him someone I'd "hate" against or try to make a lawsuit against. But that's neither was mjg59 is saying nor any of us other "SJWs".

Profile

Matthew Garrett

About Matthew

Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. [personal profile] mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags