Richard Stallman Gets SJW'd

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:49:48PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
> I appreciate your wish to support me, but the way you are doing it
> will lead people to think that I have said something racist and/or
> sexist.  That is not true.
> 
> I would not say such things, since they go counter to my views.
> I oppose bigotry.
> 
> If people accuse me of "sexism" or "racism", those are false
> accusations, based on distortions.  Please do not validate
> the false accusations against me.
> 
> Would you please attach a note that I say I did not say anything
> sexist, and people can see from stallman.org that I disapprove
> of gender bias.
> 
> -- 
> Dr Richard Stallman
> Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
> Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)


The above has been posted to the lwn.net discussion at issue.



Further:


Richard Stallman and the GNU project

Posted Oct 11, 2019 5:52 UTC (Fri) by zenaan (subscriber, #3778)
> How can their words cause any harm to [RMS]?

Is this a serious question?



Posted Oct 11, 2019 6:17 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Yes. You draw a distinction between words and "sticks and stones",
presumably because there's a meaningful difference between them. If
both can cause harm, what's the difference you're highlighting?



Posted Oct 11, 2019 10:25 UTC (Fri) by zenaan (subscriber, #3778)
> You draw a distinction between words and "sticks and stones",
> presumably because there's a meaningful difference between them. If
> both can cause harm, what's the difference you're highlighting?

To be ethical in the process of airing an accusation, any accusation,
the accusation must provide an actual fact, and a clearly stated
position in relation to that fact.

This foundation provides an opportunity to the accused to respond (in
whatever forum the accuser chose).

Without both the fact in issue, and the position held by the accuser
in relation to that fact, the accused is provided no opportunity to
properly respond, possibly no opportunity to meaningfully respond at
all.

I have not yet seen any fact by anyone posting here at lwn.net or
elsewhere (yourself included), which substantiates the "hollering"
and "justification opinions" for RMS to resign (to have already
resigned) from the FSF.

All I have seen are opinions, innuendo, and hearsay.

The claim that opinions, innuendo and/or hearsay are sufficient
"evidence" or "cause" to "metaphorically crucify" an individual in
the public (or any other) sphere of human interaction, is a call not
founded in ethics but instead is founded in evil - is opposed to our
lives. Such a call is a call for mob rule, a "witch hunt" abdicating
due process and abdicating our responsibility to one another as human
beings.

Those who understand (let alone value) justice and righteousness,
understand these very basic principles.

Taking justice a step further, an accuser, per Matthew 18, is advised
to go speak with the accused ("your brother") in the first instance,
that he might hear you, and if he does not hear you, go with some
number of witnesses, that the accused's response may be witnessed by
a number of others.

Such processes as are (very) summarised above under the banner "due
process", provide for the opportunity (still yet no certainty) for
the accused and the accuser to come to an understanding and possible
resolution.

The mob witch hunt provides almost no such opportunity, just a forum
for heedens heeding the rumours of those who rumour mongor without
facts, to join in their force of numbers and crucify a probably good
man in the name of any flippant emotional weakness in some rando
snowflake accuser.



Posted Oct 13, 2019 18:23 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
> All I have seen are opinions, innuendo, and hearsay.

I've seen people saying 'it happened to me'. The word for that is
neither 'hearsay' nor 'innuendo': it's 'eyewitness evidence'.



Posted Oct 14, 2019 3:05 UTC (Mon) by zenaan (subscriber, #3778)
> "it" happened to me

What I have heard by reading a first hand account: Apparently RMS
asked an 18 year old woman on a date. Apparently she was
uncomfortable about that. This took all of 10 or 15 seconds, and RMS
never went near that topic with her again after that.

And now RMS has been lynched from MIT and the FSF which he founded.

When I used the phrase "All I have seen are opinions, innuendo, and
hearsay", we need to add the words "and no facts which in my eyes
justify the public lynching to have RMS removed from his positions at
MIT and the FSF which he founded." I thought that was obvious at the
time I wrote the words, but in hindsight I can see how the point
needs to be clarified. Hopefully this is sufficient clarification.



Posted Oct 14, 2019 3:08 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
> Apparently RMS asked an 18 year old woman on a date.

Apparently he has a history of this happening consistently. It was
not a one-time thing.



Posted Oct 14, 2019 23:53 UTC (Mon) by zenaan (subscriber, #3778)
I wrote:

> > Apparently RMS asked an 18 year old woman on a date.

[And this took all of 15 or so seconds and the topic was never raised
again.]

Cyberax wrote:

> Apparently he has a history of this happening consistently. It was
> not a one-time thing.

So name the damn rule that RMS is not allowed to break! And be VERY
PRECISE and CLEAR in your terminology, so that these older "bastards
of the community" don't fall foul of the mob when they ask a woman
younger than they are, on a date!

Also, be damn clear about whether it is only RMS who is not allowed
to ask women younger than "say, 30 years old" on a date, or whether
it is "all men over the age of, say 40 years old" - or whatever the
hell you rule is that JUSTIFIES THIS PUBLIC LYNCHING OF Richard
Stallman, founder of the FSF and GNU!

FFS folks appear so intellectually fraudulent and disingenuous at the
moment.

BY ALL MEANS tear one or another pathetic minor detail (in what I've
written) to shreds, BUT AT LEAST HAVE THE DECENCY to address the core
issue, and do so in a way which RMS, myself, and all other white men
in this world can grasp YOUR POSITION so that YOUR RULES are not
broken and so that YOU HEREAFTER REFRAIN from justifying these public
lynchings.

I expect more from you "Cyberax"! Is this the effing world YOU want
to live in?!!