Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the resign:-to-sign-and-sign-again? dept.

Richard M. Stallman Resigns as FSF President and from its Board of Directors

https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-m-stallman-resigns (emphasis from original retained):

On September 16, 2019, Richard M. Stallman, founder and president of
the Free Software Foundation, resigned as president and from its board
of directors.

The board will be conducting a search for a new president, beginning
immediately. Further details of the search will be published on
fsf.org.

For questions, contact FSF executive director John Sullivan at
johns@fsf.org.

Copyright © 2004-2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Privacy Policy.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license (or later version)Why this license?

Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Resigns from MIT Over Epstein Comments

Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Resigns From MIT Over Epstein Comments

Famed free software advocate and computer scientist Richard Stallman has resigned from MIT, according to an email he published online. The resignation comes after Stallman made comments about victims of child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, including that the victims went along with the abuse willingly.

"I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT," Stallman wrote in the email, referring to MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. "I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations."

[...] Last week, Motherboard published the full email thread in which Stallman wrote that the "most plausible scenario" is that Epstein's underage victims in his campaign of trafficking were "entirely willing." Stallman also argued about the definition of "rape" and whether the term applies to the victims.

[Ed.'s note - just because Vice say things in the above blockquote does not mean that SoylentNews or its editors consider it a demonstrably provable representation of reality. We're just reporting that they are reporting, nothing more. At least this Ed. finds out-of-context quoting of short inflamatory phrases to be particularly disingenuous, and perhaps even a warning sign that manipulation of a quote has taking place. -- FP.]


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:54AM (10 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:54AM (#895022) Journal

    Have citations?
    (yes, I know, I'm a lazy bum asking for a favor. Will you indulge me?)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:38AM (9 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:38AM (#895033) Homepage Journal

    Here you go.

    A redacted (names of folks other than Stallman) version of the email thread can be found here:
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing [vice.com]

    I read through it and Stallman did not defend Epstein in any way, nor did he do any victim blaming. He did speculate that while Marvin Minsky (and possibly others) may have had sex with the woman in question, they may (and based on his reasoning, it seems likely) have been unaware that she was being coerced into these acts by Epstein.

    For this he's forced to resign? It seems like reading comprehension can be pretty poor when you have an axe to grind.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:17AM (3 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:17AM (#895052) Journal
      There's no thread there.

      Presumably, it's encrypted in some ecmatrocity.

      If it was on a public list it should be available uncensored, do you see any details that might help, like the listserv address or equiv?
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:14AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:14AM (#895070) Journal

      Thanks for it!
      (in between I found it on my own, but thank you anyway)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by meustrus on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:53PM (3 children)

      by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:53PM (#895298)

      Thanks!

      So from what I can tell, this is really about defending 'deceased AI "pioneer" Marvin Minsky'. Stallman's basic point is that "sexual assault" is a very broad term that in this case implies worse behavior than Minsky was likely guilty of.

      It seems to me that everyone in this discussion besides Stallman was rightfully concerned that it would be shared with the media and misconstrued. I would be too, because there was not enough acknowledgement of real crimes committed. After all, the only thing he is doing is defending someone who at best knowingly had sex with a minor whom he should have had reason to believe was coerced.

      He's got a valid academic point about "sexual assault", but it is completely overshadowed by the context. Stallman was given opportunity and explicitly refused to concede there was any wrongdoing at all.

      Do I want to see Stallman burn for this? No. But he can't be allowed to perpetuate the culture of protecting influential friends from their own sexual indiscretions.

      Unfortunately, Stallman is the sort of person who thinks too logically to understand the emotional context of his argument. There needs to be a concession of wrongdoing. There needs to be a sincere apology and unambiguous statements of facts I'm sure Stallman can agree on. But I don't think he'd be willing to make any such statements until he feels his argument has been rationally considered.

      So maybe this could have been avoided if somebody fully engaged his argument. Unfortunately, it seems everyone else was rightfully concerned about being associated with the thing at all.

      It all adds up to this: defending sexual indiscretion in any way is no longer socially acceptable. The only acceptable defense is complete refutation with appropriate evidence.

      It's bad for the sexually indiscreet. It's unfortunate that it's also bad for fans of abstract rational argument devoid of emotional context.

      There may be an alternative that spares Stallman and still holds abusers responsible. I don't know what that would look like. Realistically, it seems we only have two options right now: demonize anybody associated with abuse, including rational defenders; or allow abusers safe haven in ambiguity.

      --
      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:23PM (2 children)

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:23PM (#895330) Homepage Journal

        Realistically, it seems we only have two options right now: demonize anybody associated with abuse, including rational defenders; or allow abusers safe haven in ambiguity.

        I strongly disagree.

        There are a variety of other options available:
        1. Remain silent on a topic that has nothing to do with you (Stallman was only "involved" in that an organization of which he was a part made stupid decisions -- and Stallman played no part in those decisions and Marvin Minsky was his friend -- Minsky is dead and can't defend himself);
        2. Speak cogently and logically (as Stallman did -- I don't necessarily agree with his previously expressed views, but they aren't relevant to the email thread in question) and address evidence that is available, seeking additional evidence where appropriate;
        3. Condemn the abuser(s) and don't blame the victim(s) (Stallman did that too, BTW) Epstein was convicted of some pretty heinous stuff and stood accused of more equally heinous acts. (Stallman did not excuse Epstein, nor did he say that the victim was "willing," rather he said that Minsky was likely unaware of the coercion and abuse. Whether that's true or not, it's a reasonable argument.)

        Perhaps I'm missing something and maybe I should re-read the email thread. However, it seems to me that even the argument that Minsky engaged in statutory rape (although a witness appears to have claimed that Minsky did not engage in sex with the victim) seems a little problematic too. The age of consent in Massachusetts is 16 [ageofconsent.net]. From a reasonable (not even rational) standpoint, does anyone (unless they are planning sex tourism) look up the minutiae of local age of consent laws every time they go to a different jurisdiction? What's more, can you (or anyone else) tell the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old without looking at a birth certificate or driver's license? I can't.

        Epstein was a slimebag, and those who aided him are too. The victim was abused and folks need to be held accountable for that abuse.

        However, demonizing someone for stating an opinion and speculating about the circumstances while acknowledging the wrongdoing is stupid and mean-spirited IMHO.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:11PM (1 child)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:11PM (#895887) Journal
          There are other considerations that come into play. Adults who have been groomed by sex traffickers can't really be said to be giving consent. That's why there's such a problem in North America with adult sex slavery.

          As for considering it unemotionally, there's a blind spot most men have, not having been victims of sexual assault, rape, etc. Only someone who was already seriously fucked up mentally wouldn't be emotionally affected. Just look at how many men don't consider exposing themselves to women to be that big a deal, or try to argue no real harm was done. They don't get the gender power dynamics or the grossness of it. And when it comes to sexual assault and rape, Stallman is guilty of trying to deflect, minimize, and victim-blame, same as the other times he's creeped out women.

          The only problem I see is that he should have been dumped long ago. It's not like this is the first time, but too many people chose to overlook the signs because the complaints were from women.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 19 2019, @12:26AM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday September 19 2019, @12:26AM (#895912) Homepage Journal

            There are other considerations that come into play. Adults who have been groomed by sex traffickers can't really be said to be giving consent. That's why there's such a problem in North America with adult sex slavery.

            No one, including Richard Stallman claimed that the victim consented. What's more, a witness says that Minsky didn't accept the offer of sex from the victim (and again no one, including Richard Stallman suggested that the victim wasn't coerced to make that offer).

            As for considering it unemotionally, there's a blind spot most men have, not having been victims of sexual assault, rape, etc. Only someone who was already seriously fucked up mentally wouldn't be emotionally affected. Just look at how many men don't consider exposing themselves to women to be that big a deal, or try to argue no real harm was done.

            I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never exposed myself to anyone without their consent. And while other folks I know may have done so, I am unaware of it. Such behavior is a big deal. It's anti-social, nasty and completely inappropriate -- which is why it is (and rightly so) a *crime*.

            I'm sure it's been done many times by many different men, and they should be held accountable for those actions. Again, no one, including Richard Stallman suggested otherwise.

            And when it comes to sexual assault and rape, Stallman is guilty of trying to deflect, minimize, and victim-blame, same as the other times he's creeped out women.

            I can only speak to the email thread associated with the claims that he "suggested that the victim was willing." I read through that email chain, and in that email chain Stallman *speculated* that Minsky (and possibly others) were unaware of the coercion by Epstein and *thought* she was willing. He absolutely did not claim that the victim was willing or consented. I'll say that again: Stallman did not claim that the victim was willing and consented. What's more, Stallman explicitly stated that the victim should be believed.

            If you believe that assessment is incorrect, please provide me with the text of the emails that shows otherwise.

            Stallman was completely off-base when talking about what is and isn't sexual assault. Not that it isn't a broad term that is interpreted in a variety of different ways by different folks (although the law is and should be the arbiter of what is sexual assault).

            Stallman failed several times to understand how his unemotional and pedantic treatment of the situation would be perceived and interpreted by others. That was stupid.

            As for his motivations, he was defending a friend (who is dead and can't defend himself) who, by at least one credible account, did not engage in the behavior (that you and I both find repugnant) of which he was accused.

            I can't speak to "the other times" as I am unfamiliar (should I be scouring the web for accounts of peoples' misdeeds all day every day? Sorry. I have better things to do with my time) with them.

            I did, however, read the text of the email chain for which Stallman was accused of "victim blaming" and "supporting rape/sexual assault." In that particular email chain, he did neither. He may have done so at other times in other venues and situations. If so, then he was wrong.

            So. Even though I have roundly criticized anything non-consensual repeatedly on SN (go ahead and see for yourself https://soylentnews.org/~NotSanguine), [soylentnews.org] completely reject any form of non-consensual sexual activity in my life, and explicitly condemned (in this very discussion) Epstein and everyone who enabled/assisted him as slimebags who deserve to be tried for their *crimes*, will you now label me a misogynist and supporter of rape and abuse because the facts (in this particular case) don't fit the story being told and I had the temerity to say so?

            I will say this again so that I'm being perfectly clear and I do not wish to be misunderstood:
            1. Epstein and all those around him who abused, coerced and took advantage of women and girls are criminals and should be treated accordingly;
            2. Consent is *never* optional. Full stop;
            3. Richard Stallman, in the emails that were the basis for the current brouhaha, did not blame the victim, nor did he encourage or defend rape or sexual assault;
            4. If I have missed anything in the email chain mentioned above (3) that contradicts my statement (3), Please show me where that is and I will modify my statement to accurately reflect the facts.

            You believe that Stallman is an enabler of rape/sexual assault and has spoken and acted in ways that are inappropriate and possibly criminal. That may well be true. I have no information one way or the other, so I make no judgement about that. I don't generally concern myself with the private lives or legal travails of others unless they are shoved in my face or directly affect me.

            I will say this one more time: Consent is *never* optional. Full stop.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr