I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally of…
No matter the reasons for his way of thinking, but maybe we shouldn’t have a person whose definition of freedom includes raping children on the board of a organization that promotes software freedom.
Then why would someone choose to be an ass - or generally choose to be unlikable?
Stallman was defending a friend and, by my reading, logically correct in the narrow point he was making. Anyone can sympathize with those priorities. However, he chose to place them above social realpolitik like "don't touch sufficiently radioactive subjects" and "almost nobody has time to dissect your argument so you'll win or lose the optics game on fuzzy associations alone." To be principled in this matter was to…
I agree, but I'd note that Stallman was head of the FSF in part because he would never drop the principles no matter what the stakes.
"making women uncomfortable" Right wtf does that mean? Clearly there was no actual sexual harassment. So you mean he was ugly and hit on you once? God forbid. We need to fire this man and make sure in the future that only attractive men are allowed to act like men lest we make the women feel uncomfortable.
This may be referring to the widespread rumor/account of RMS propositioning women for sex in his office at MIT, where he kept a mattress. I have no idea if this is true.
Just imagine being so clueless that you don't understand someone having a mattress in his office. “What, do you even sleep next to a computer? EWW, NERD!” And these are the people who are the loudest about their intent to steer the whole industry “the right way”. To be honest, the motto that you don't need the skill to make decisions about the work requiring that skill, or that you don't need understand people doing it (the misleadingly formulated “anti-meritocracy” ideology) could only be taken without laughing out of politeness.
And, as far as I know, the lack of mattress in the room never stopped any stereotypical harassing boss, so what's the point here exactly?
It's usually a matter of priorities. Neurodivergent/autistic people are usually unaware that what they say could cause offense: they lack either the emotional capacity to feel those emotions themselves, or the ability to empathize and predict that other people will feel them. Assholes know, they just care about other things more. They might throw their coworker under the bus for a promotion. Or they'll sexually haras…
And I guess part of my question was that what you said (pretty close to my own understanding of the definitions) is predicated on piercing the veil of intent. Versus most of the time, people who we don't know well do things for reasons that are inscrutable to us. And we're left to judge solely on that basis of that information.
The answer, then, is to not try to judge people you don't know.
If you're not invested in someone enough to understand them, why should you be invested in them enough to try to destroy them?
I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally of…
I think this entire moralistic debate is misguided. Granted, if RMS was indeed autistic, all the more reason to "judge" him more charitably. But even if he wasn't, its doesn't mean that his cancellation - based on things he might have said and, lest we forget, a smear campaign by an internet mob ignited by false accusations - was justified. RMS was one of the founders of the Free Software Movement - that is why he occupied that post at the FSF. Not because he was the epitome of high Christian morals - why would/should that be a job requirement in his line of work? Do you want righteous activists also demand they be "nice guys"? If so, time to start cancelling the very champions of cancel culture as few of them are "nice people" (which, btw, is bound to happen if history is any indication). You cannot have your cake and eat it, too...
> Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. This doesn't seem like particularly assholeish behaviour. Caring more about being perceived as right (even when erroneously), sure, but if the person is actually right of course they should care more about that than diplomacy. Surely we have enough examples demonstrating the pitfalls of fostering a culture where the truth can be ignored if you don't like it…
This is entirely contextual. It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Failure to do so (often from a perspective that being right means one need not worry about diplomacy) is assholery. Note that this is also somewhat self fulfilling. If you do end up being wrong, you can not admit that, as it would make your behavior inexcusable, so even when incorrect, you feel the need…
> It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically.
Oh absolutely, but those are both totally compatible with someone who "care[s] more about being right than being diplomatic". It's if they didn't care about being diplomatic at all that they'd be an asshole.
I perceived that specific quote as referring explicitly to situations where the two are mutually exclusive, in which case I believe that being right is by far the better option in most scenarios.
Some context I got from https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of... : Stallman was pressured to resign from the board and MIT because of some of these controversies: - Jeffrey Epstein coerced one of his victims to have sex with Marvin Minsky. In an online thread, Stallman argued that this might not be sexual assault if Minsky didn't realize she was coerced. - 10 years ago, Stallman claimed that 14…
Canada only raised their age of consent from 14 to 16 in 2008. I don't think Canada should be cancelled as a result of this.
Legal age of consent isn't the same as being moral. These are two separate things.
Nobody is saying we should 'cancel' Canada for having bad laws in the past.
I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally of…
I find it strange as a neurodivergent person that this person has a reputation for abusive behavior and that’s excused for him because he has celebrity in certain circles. I wouldn’t and shouldn’t be afforded that, and rightly haven’t when I’ve misunderstood how to treat others.
> Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. This doesn't seem like particularly assholeish behaviour. Caring more about being perceived as right (even when erroneously), sure, but if the person is actually right of course they should care more about that than diplomacy. Surely we have enough examples demonstrating the pitfalls of fostering a culture where the truth can be ignored if you don't like it…
In the extreme, it totally is. It's important to be right about the important things; it's nice to be right about irrelevant details too, but it's not nearly as important as maintaining a strong network of collaborators.
Maybe I've just been extraordinarily lucky in who I associate with, but no-one I would consider a potential "collaborator" (either in professional or personal life) would ever demand I be incorrect about something to suit their ideals.
I've been trying to come up with examples where that might happen and the best one I can think of is someone's young child asked you if Santa was real, but even then I'm about 50/50 on whether anyone in my social circles would care. I know at least a few who'd be pretty disgusted if I didn't tell the truth in that situation.
Now I recognise that this almost certainly is not representative of the general populace, but this is also one specific example (and the most egregious one I could come up with), whereas there's entire history courses written on the catastrophes that occur when people choose diplomacy over the right thing.
Ribbonfarm called this a couple years ago: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2018/03/06/a-quick-battle-field-g... Specifically battlefront #8. He calls it consequential because the the neurodivergent/PC conflict highlights an inherent paradox in the PC worldview. Most applications of political correctness focus (at least on the surface) on defending a marginalized group against the verbal attacks of a privileged one. When a…
Honestly asking, what's the difference between someone being neurodivergent and just thoughtless / mean / an ass?
What counts as "neurodivergent"? Just ASD? What about other psychiatric diagnoses?
A lot of "non-autistic assholes" may have other diagnosable conditions, for example narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). Are NPD or ASPD "neurodiverse" or "neurodivergent"? They are probably partially genetic, just as ASD is probably partially genetic.