In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 18, 2019 5:53 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
In reply to: In defence of Richard Stallman by mjg59
Parent article: Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

If someone said mjg59 harasses women, I couldn't defend you. I don't know you.

But when people make such accusations about someone that I do know, and when I've seen that person around women loads of times, and when I know loads of women that have worked and socialised with him and they have no problem with him, I have to highlight this.

I can't prove or disprove rumours and third-party stories. But I will say that in my many first-hand interactions and observations of Richard, the man's a gentleman.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 18, 2019 6:19 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (21 responses)

Of course. It would be inappropriate for you to defend me against accusations when you have no knowledge of the details of this accusations, just as it's inappropriate for you to imply that because you're personally unaware of people who had bad experiences with RMS, anyone suggesting otherwise is incorrect.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 18, 2019 7:14 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (19 responses)

I know the man and I've always seen him being a gentleman to women.

Your claim that only people with accusations are allowed to speak (since saying nice things is "inappropriate") is nonsense.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 18, 2019 14:37 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (9 responses)

His behavior in the presence of others may be different than his behavior when alone with someone. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

To put it another way, just because Matt Lauer didn't use his remote door lock in *your* presence doesn't mean it was never used.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 18, 2019 18:57 UTC (Wed) by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604) [Link] (6 responses)

The allegations were false or the poster just made the allegations up. I have no evidence for this but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 18, 2019 19:31 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (2 responses)

> The allegations were false or the poster just made the allegations up

Did you thinko here? This reads just like "heads I win, tails you lose".

In any case, given gentlemanly behavior in the presence of the GP and allegations of unwanted behavior in the presence of others is not mutually exclusive. Given that these are not coming from just one place and seems to be consistent with someone who doesn't understand the effects his actions have on others (especially those different from him), I'm inclined to believe that such things are plausible given the information I've seen.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 19, 2019 22:32 UTC (Thu) by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604) [Link] (1 responses)

Please quote the full sentence. We're running around in circles, in other people's private lives.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 20, 2019 4:12 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

I don't know that you're even reading things anymore, so I'm done on this subthread until that seems to change. As for the quote, all that was missed was the period (accurate selection on phones is a PITA). My question about it related directly to the meaning of the sentence on its own.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 18, 2019 19:37 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

The absence of evidence that I'm lying is, of course, not evidence that I'm not lying. But it's consistent with my not lying, just as a person not seeing RMS engage in inappropriate behaviour is still consistent with RMS engaging in inappropriate behaviour.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 19, 2019 22:36 UTC (Thu) by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604) [Link]

I don't understand that.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 20, 2019 21:38 UTC (Fri) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link]

This is absolutely ridiculous. You need to go outside and interact with human beings.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 24, 2019 12:07 UTC (Tue) by xophos (subscriber, #75267) [Link] (1 responses)

Evidence of absence is an impossible standard.
That's why all sane legal systems have "Innocent until proven guilty (beyond reasonable doubt)".

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 24, 2019 12:34 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Don't you think I'm aware of that? The assertions here that he's "always been a gentleman" is no evidence that the reports of repeated unwanted advances never happened either.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 18, 2019 14:40 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (8 responses)

Men who harass women generally know not to do so in front of other people.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 20, 2019 21:39 UTC (Fri) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link] (1 responses)

Perhaps. But who are you to try to point this out?

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 20, 2019 21:50 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

Look, when multiple people say "This person behaved inappropriately towards me" and one person says "During the small number of interactions I have had with this person, I never saw them behave inappropriately", what information does the latter claim give us? Nobody is asserting that Stallman was some sort of relentless harassment machine, utterly incapable of talking to women without hitting on them. The claim is that there was a pattern of behaviour, and that this behaviour actively discouraged some people from being involved in the community that he led (and, in some cases, the entire field of CS). If someone tries to argue against this by saying that they never saw any such behaviour, it's legitimate to point out that that does nothing to disprove the claim.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 24, 2019 12:10 UTC (Tue) by xophos (subscriber, #75267) [Link] (5 responses)

As long as no woman has pressed legal charges against Stallman and prevailed in court, this discussion is moot.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 24, 2019 16:17 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (4 responses)

Why? Community standards and legal standards aren't the same thing.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 24, 2019 19:42 UTC (Tue) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link] (3 responses)

Classic argument of witch-hunters, who argue that rumor and gossip should be a sufficient standard to cashier someone based on a personal, political, or professional grudge and strenuously confine free speech to the smallest formal box as it suits their prejudices.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 24, 2019 19:46 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

Treatment of women doesn't need to reach the threshold of criminality to have an impact on someone's suitability for a job. We're talking about a situation where multiple people have described their personal experiences, not "rumor and gossip".

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 24, 2019 22:27 UTC (Tue) by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604) [Link]

His reign of terror is over now, so I expected women to take over.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 24, 2019 20:16 UTC (Tue) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]

It is unclear to me whether your contention is that the numerous independent attestations of Stallman's harassment of women are by liars - something of a defamatory claim by you - or whether you simply don't care that your hero is a creep who has made the environment at MIT and the FSF unbearable for many women.

In defence of Richard Stallman

Posted Sep 20, 2019 21:36 UTC (Fri) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link]

Why do your presume that anyone wants to listen to your vague and hearsay accusations? Does this make you a gentlemen? No, it makes you a "nice guy".