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

[Chris Frey]

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