[kwlug-disc] Richard Stallman announcing his return to the FSF's Board of Directors

[Chris Frey]

I guess I need to address emotion. :-)

I don't mean this to be personal, but I have to look at the logic.
I see you:

	- pointing at an email RMS wrote
	- claiming it was about Epstein (it was about Minsky)
	- almost casting doubt on whether RMS is against rape or not
	- claiming this email was the straw that broke the camel's back
		in the general sense

The camel's back did break, but there was no straw.
The straw was in the emotions of the people reacting to RMS's words.

This kind of "straw" happens a lot.  It's why "cancel culture" has its
own label.  People are not happy to let someone else have their own
beliefs, and then set out to get them fired.  They come out guns blazing
with their long list of adjectives, from misogynist to bigot, and
when you dig deeper, often you find it's not true.

You will say that I'm missing the point, and trust me, I get what you're
pointing it.  You are arguing that any scandal (or in this case, a buildup
of hurt over time) is a drag on the organization which should be cut loose
quickly.  But when it comes to words, that form of expediency bothers
me in an organization so strictly dedicated to freedom.

How long before Elon Musk is ousted from SpaceX due to something he
writes on twitter that upsets people?  It's not a perfect analogy,
but I don't want the world to go down that kind of road.


> The only way for the FSF to recover its effectiveness as an organization
> is for RMS to leave the organization.

It's not the only way.  But it appears that changes are already in motion:

   https://www.fsf.org/news/preliminary-board-statement-on-fsf-governance
   https://www.fsf.org/news/update-on-work-to-improve-governance-at-the-fsf

So, those closest to the issue will get to have their say, and it appears
that RMS and all the board members will need to go through this new process
in order to remain, if they so choose.

- Chris



On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 06:56:54PM -0400, Doug Moen wrote:
> Chris said:
> > If no "crime", then why punish him by demanding he step down?
> 
> Anybody who thinks that RMS should be punished by forcing him to step down is thinking with their emotions, not with their logic. Emotions are running high on both sides of this controversy, so I imagine a lot of people are thinking this way. But it isn't right.
> 
> The purpose of the FSF is to promote software freedom. It is an important organization with a lot of recognition and influence, and it carries out a lot of activities. This cause, software freedom, is bigger and more important than one person. It is bigger than RMS.
> 
> Whatever happens next with the FSF should be in the best interests of the foundation, and in the interest of best enabling the foundation to carry out its mission. We must focus on how to best enable the FSF to continue supporting software freedom, and not think emotionally, not think about vengeance, and not put our loyalty to the leader above our loyalty to the cause.
> 
> RMS should step down, not as punishment, but because that is what is best for the FSF. RMS has caused a lot of damage to the FSF over many years, in part because he has repeatedly put his own ego ahead of the interests of the FSF and software freedom. At this point, RMS has hurt so many people that the FSF is crippled by the weight of all this accumulated ill will. Please note that RMS's comments about Epstein were only the tipping point, the final straw that broke the camel's back, the point when many people finally could not make excuses for him and tolerate him any more. Claiming that this is all about "free speech" is completely missing the point. If you are parsing RMS's mailing list comments about Epstein and "proving" that he wasn't supporting rape, then you are completely missing the point.
> 
> The damage that RMS has caused to the FSF is blatantly obvious. A large number of people and organizations are withdrawing their financial support; they no longer want to contribute to or participate in FSF sponsored events, etc, and it is because of RMS. These facts are incontestable.
> 
> The only way for the FSF to recover its effectiveness as an organization is for RMS to leave the organization. If RMS were to think about this logically, he would be able to see this, and he would do the honourable thing, and he would step down. However, it is probable that RMS is not capable of thinking about this logically, because he has far too many emotions invested in the FSF. It seems likely that the only way to get RMS out of the FSF is through coercion, and it is possible that RMS could lash out and inflict even more damage on the FSF on his way out. This is all very tragic.
> 
> Doug Moen.
> 
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021, at 1:32 AM, Chris Frey wrote:
> > Before I begin, and to reassure Paul and others, including Andrew,
> > that I intend for this discussion to be kind, let me say that
> > I consider Andrew a friend, and while we may disagree, that does
> > not affect my view of him as a person, or my willingness to
> > hold him in esteem.
> > 
> > These are very tricky topics, and finding the line between right and
> > wrong, or even between helpful or harmful, can be a tough challenge.
> > 
> > Please read these words as if we were carefully and calmly saying them
> > over a friendly beverage at an after-meeting.  I am writing with effort
> > to remove all emotion from them.
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 07:29:20PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan Cant wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I can't defend what RMS may or may not have done.  I never worked for
> > > > him, I haven't heard all the stories, I wasn't there, I'm not a judge,
> > > > etc, etc.
> > > 
> > > Do you really need ALL the stories to make a judgement here, Chris?
> > 
> > Let me make very clear my distinction between actions and words.
> > My statement above was entirely about actions.  I have only been
> > in the same room as RMS maybe twice, and have watched videos of some
> > of his speeches.  That is not enough evidence to make a judgment
> > of his actions at all.
> > 
> > Also, who made me judge and jury here?  I have no knowledge of the
> > details, nor do I have any power to address problems, nor do I believe
> > in mob rule, so I will not participate in a mob.  There is a tendency
> > these days of pronouncing judgment on even strangers very quickly,
> > for statements they make, or even reported actions they have done.
> > That is the basis of cancel culture.  I am against that.  Gossip was
> > considered a sin for a reason.
> > 
> > Because I do not consider myself the judge here, and because I believe
> > there is sufficient cloudiness of the facts, I have also not signed
> > either letter.
> > 
> > This is the last I will talk about RMS's *actions* in this email.
> > I do not feel I have enough data to do otherwise.  The rest is about
> > his words and his role as a freedom advocate.
> > 
> > 
> > > You have been in the free software community at least as long as I have,
> > > and I suspect participated more than I ever have. It seems pretty likely
> > > to me that you are aware of RMS's reputation for making people so
> > > uncomfortable that they leave this community.
> > 
> > Let's tackle the next topic.  Comfort.
> > 
> > If we believe in free speech, then comfort cannot be guaranteed.
> > I also believe that the world has gotten much more sensitive over the
> > past few decades.  We don't know how to take a joke anymore.  And we
> > don't know how to ignore things that offend us.  "Somebody is wrong
> > on the internet!" used to be a joke.  Now it is a philosophy to live by.
> > 
> > We cannot be only concerned about people's comfort, because that
> > leads to lies.  I do not mean that as a hurtful statement, but rather,
> > I know from personal experience that the truth hurts.  Therefore, if
> > we as a people want to deal with the truth, we must sacrifice some
> > level of comfort.
> > 
> > Obviously not all comfort.  That is why Paul asks for kindness.  If we
> > don't love each other enough to choose our words carefully, we won't
> > deal with the truth either.  It will turn to war.
> > 
> > So there must be a balance.  Unfortunately, everyone has a different
> > measure of that balance.  RMS leans extremely to the "give me facts,
> > screw feelings" end of the spectrum.  Those people are abrasive, but
> > they are also useful.  Those wise enough to see that will make some
> > allowances in order to gain the benefits of such strict thinking.
> > That is tolerance.  It is a good thing, because it greases the wheels
> > of social interaction.
> > 
> > So we have Truth, Comfort, Kindness, Love, and Tolerance.  All these
> > need balance.
> > 
> > When it comes to the FSF in particular, it is that same abrasive man
> > who started the foundation.  In my opinion, that counts for something.
> > The movement has grown since then, but if anyone has a right to have some
> > say of what the FSF believes, it is RMS, in my view.  Does that mean
> > he has to be president?  No.  And he isn't.  Does that mean he should
> > be on the board?  Maybe.
> > 
> > To silence him or control him in the general in order to make the FSF
> > more palatable in the specific is wrong in my view.  FSF without RMS,
> > when RMS is still alive, looks like a loss to me.  It is easy to water
> > down a movement when the abrasive leader is removed.
> > 
> > The free software community is larger than FSF.  There are multiple
> > organizations, as it should be.  Is there any organization that is
> > more extreme than the FSF?  Not that I know of.  That is its value.
> > 
> > 
> > > Or that multiple people who are his friends and allies have told stories
> > > about trying to help him moderate his public behaviour to be less
> > > damaging and a better leader. And he has chosen not do change.
> > > Again over many years and many people.
> > > 
> > > > I already know RMS is a "unique individual".  That's not news to me.
> > > 
> > > Towards the end of your message you even mention that you are aware of
> > > this history.
> > > 
> > > So to be clear, the Minksy/Epstein comments are not an isolated event
> > > they are RMS's latest mistake, and I think you know that.
> > 
> > The next topic is clarification on the Minsky comments.
> > 
> > First, the Minsky comments I addressed in the previous email.  The only
> > comments from RMS I can find on this were in the Vice article I linked to,
> > which contained the whole leaked thread.  I do not believe those leaked
> > emails were a mistake on RMS's part.  When I read his comments I found:
> > 
> > 	- no defence of Epstein, rather a confirmation that what he
> > 		did to Giuffre was wrong
> > 	- no denial that rape is wrong... it is
> > 	- his personal distinction between rape and statutory rape
> > 	- a nearly autistic level of word precision, which offended people
> > 	- pointing out that it was possible, and probably likely, that
> > 		Minsky did not rape anyone
> > 	- no comment on the financial side of things
> > 
> > When it comes to Minsky, it looks like RMS was correct.  It was the
> > MIT/CSAIL people who made the mistake of lumping Minsky in with the other
> > wrongdoers, especially now with the benefit of hindsight that there was
> > no sex with Minsky at all.
> > 
> > How MIT receives funds from doners is a separate issue and something they
> > should make sure is clean.
> > 
> > 
> > > Chris, you are making the same style of argument that RMS was making in
> > > the CSAIL mailing list. You are looking at each detail individually and
> > > ignoring the overall picture.
> > > 
> > > Consider a less extreme case:
> > > A friend is telling you something serious and hoping to hear sympathy
> > > and support from you.
> > > You responding by correcting their grammar and explaining how they used
> > > the wrong words about something in their story.
> > > 
> > > You might be technically correct about everything you said. And they are
> > > not going to care because it was not the most important part of the
> > > conversation to them.
> > > 
> > > And you will not make things better by saying that you did not do
> > > anything wrong because you were technically correct.
> > 
> > Correcting someone's grammar is not the same thing as accusing the wrong
> > person.
> > 
> > A better analogy would be if Adam accused Ben of assault, and then
> > Charlie wrote a blog claiming that Ben and his friend Dan were guilty.
> > When Edward points out that's not what Adam actually said, Charlie
> > gets upset.
> > 
> > None of that means that what Ben did/didn't to Adam wasn't wrong.
> > And while a lot of people might try to stick up for Charlie, I'm sure
> > Dan is very happy at least one person stood up for him.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > The mailing thread was a conversation about how MIT and its leaders,
> > > including people like Minksy, either ignored or condoned Epstein' crimes
> > > to get his money and support. No one is going to want to get "well
> > > actually"ed about their exact wording about what one of those leaders
> > > did in relation to Epstein. Especially by another high-profile leader in
> > > the MIT community.
> > > 
> > > Might RMS have felt bad reading comments about his dead friend that he
> > > felt were unfair, and not 100% accurate? Sure, totally reasonable human
> > > reaction.
> > > 
> > > AND this was not a reasonable context for a him to voice those concerns.
> > 
> > What makes it an unreasonable context?  Such an assumption means we
> > don't really care about the real guilt or innocence of people as long
> > as the issue of the day is resolved as we think it should be.
> > 
> > If one person is allowed to accuse someone on a mailing list, then
> > it is just as allowed for another to defend them.  Or have we already
> > reached the conclusion and discussion is moot?
> > 
> > Do you not see that if you are not precise in your accusations, you
> > harm your own cause?  If we care at all about truth, then those
> > "well actually" people, when they are right, should be thanked,
> > not attacked.
> > 
> > Yes, very bad things happened.  Yes, there is a smell of sulfer coming
> > from somewhere, and we all want it exposed and destroyed.  But
> > let's not stoop to lies to get justice.  There is no justice that way.
> > 
> > But let me repeat (because some like to misinterpret caution as
> > a preference for injustice), I want justice to be done!  But I want it
> > done right.
> > 
> > 
> > > > His "crime" was that he used wording that offended people, and now the
> > > > same "accusation inflation" tactics are being used against him that
> > > > he warned people not to use against Minsky.
> > > 
> > > RMS was not accused of a crime. In one paragraph you are both decrying
> > > and using "accusation inflation".
> > 
> > If no "crime", then why punish him by demanding he step down?
> > 
> > I'm talking about the court of public opinion (which is why I used
> > the quotes), and people are tried and convicted there all the time.
> > That's how cancel culture works.
> > 
> > 
> > > > I'm hoping the board members are wise enough to look past the emotion
> > > > and make sure they are looking at facts.
> > > 
> > > There are emotions on all side this issue and we all have them. Claiming
> > > that the position that you agree with is just the facts and everyone
> > > else is clouded by emotion, is pretty disingenuous.
> > 
> > That leaves the last topic.  RMS's words in public.
> > 
> > I looked at the link you shared of Bradley Kuhn's blog post.  Thanks for
> > that.
> > 
> > In the context of this section, I'm not just talking about the Minsky
> > emails anymore.  Kuhn helpfully linked to a number of public (some
> > shocking) comments RMS has made on his own blog on a variety of topics.
> > 
> > Many of those links revealed interesting points of view.  They reveal
> > RMS's anti-religious perspective as well.  And while I can disagree,
> > I can also pick apart the comments abstractly and deal with them logically.
> > None that I found advocated for violence.  But many seemed to have
> > stemmed from a limited logical view, stunted by an aversion to religion
> > and larger moral framework.  Debating those things would make for
> > a very interesting read, given the right people in the debate.
> > 
> > Yet these are the sorts of comments that some people want to punish RMS
> > for, because they are different from their own beliefs or conflict with
> > their sex-politics agenda.  In my experience, the reactions in the
> > sex-politics world often get very heated and emotional very quickly,
> > because people take things personally.  Many people have their own past
> > and traumas to work through, and to be challenged on these ideas can
> > inflame those trauams.
> > 
> > If such people are able to punish RMS in some way, and colour his name
> > with derogatory statements, they are also able to silence his views,
> > and make it harder for other people to say the same things.
> > 
> > If silencing bad views is more important to you, this is a win.
> > If freedom is more important to you, this is a loss.
> > 
> > Kuhn writes:
> > 
> > 	"The issue is not about RMS' right to say what he believes,
> > 	nor is it even about whether or not you agree or disagree
> > 	with RMS' statements. The question is whether an organization
> > 	should have a designated leader who is on a sustained, public
> > 	campaign advocating about an unrelated issue that many consider
> > 	controversial. It really doesn't matter what your view about the
> > 	controversial issue is; a leader who refuses to stop talking
> > 	loudly about unrelated issues eventually creates an untenable
> > 	distraction from the radical activism you're actively trying
> > 	to advance."
> > 
> > That stance is hypocritical.  Not Kuhn specifically, as I don't know
> > what his sex-politics are.  But the people who are trying to silence
> > RMS using arguments of propriety often have their own extreme positions
> > that they hope you will ignore.  They are using their political agenda
> > to oust a man from a leadership position of an organization he started.
> > 
> > For saying things they don't like.
> > 
> > Sure, there is an argument about effectiveness of leaders, but this is
> > the FSF we're talking about.  Its very purpose is to be abrasive, and to
> > show the fringe side of Free Software and free speech.  People have been
> > trying to calm down FSF and RMS for decades.  That's how "Open Source"
> > got started.  It was hard to sell the hardline Free Software to business,
> > so they watered it down.  If RMS behaves in such a way that the FSF
> > craters itself, that will not stop the movement in general.  It would
> > be a loss, but it won't stop things.
> > 
> > Check out the Overton Window sometime.  People like RMS expand the window.
> > People that support cancel culture tactics contract it.  Silencing RMS
> > is very useful to people who have opposing politics than he does,
> > including those that oppose Free Software!  They try to shame him for his
> > words while having their own extreme ideas on the other end.  Each side
> > tries to make their position "normal" while painting the other side as
> > "extreme."
> > 
> > If what I'm saying makes no sense to you, then fortunately for you, you
> > have not encountered the kind of sex-politics and strong-arm tactics
> > that I have witnessed and read about.  I do not plan to get into it
> > here, because the topic is way too vast.  Books have been written on it.
> > But it is easy to see, and unfortunately RMS makes himself an easy target.
> > 
> > People who value freedom, in the sense that RMS does, will also see the
> > necessity of whole freedom.  RMS will not sacrifice freedom in one area
> > in order to gain it in another.  That would be against his principles,
> > and it is surpising more people don't see that.
> > 
> > 
> > Kuhn also writes:
> > 
> > 	"In short, the radical message of software freedom became
> > 	overshadowed by RMS' radical views about sexual morality."
> > 
> > Did it?  It didn't for me.  A thinking person should be able to deal
> > with separate topics.  Just because I disagree with RMS on abortion
> > (I believe it is wrong, he believes it is a right) doesn't mean that
> > I can't agree with him on software.  And I can easily ignore his blog
> > in my day-to-day life.  Not sure why others can't.  Why then do we all
> > have to agree with regard to general sexual morality in order to promote
> > free software?  That is fear based authoritarianism which is the very
> > core of cancel culture, and I am against it.
> > 
> > Just imagine if a large Christian majority tried to get the CEO of a
> > software company to step down because he merely talked about his beliefs
> > that he should be able to have sex with his girlfriend before marriage.
> > This is the world we live in, but with a different morality.
> > 
> > I'll repeat my earlier point on cooperation. If we all must be in
> > lockstep regarding our politics, we'll get very little done.  I hope
> > that I can work with people on tech-politics issues without having to
> > agree with them on sex-politics issues.  And I hope people working
> > on their own sex-politics issues will not destroy the tech-politics
> > movements (or the people) that have done us so much good.
> > 
> > - Chris
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > kwlug-disc mailing list
> > kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> > https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org