Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

"He kept the door open to proudly showcase" could have easily been "He kept to door shut to hide his actions", that is: both cases would be equally damning from the writer's perspective, and hinges only on their "implications that went with it" which are their invention alone.

Facts remaining, he had a mattress in his office. He left his door open. Sometimes people were sitting on the bed.

> "it happened long ago, so it isn't true"

No. It happened a long time ago. People, over time, remember the emotional impact of something on them, but no longer the precise wording. She remembers the gist of someone talking about suicide, because that's what she thought he meant. Without the exact wording and cirumstances, it can be very difficult to figure out what transpired. So it's not "it isn't true" or "she must be lying", but the account is unsubstantiated, likely irretrievably so, because "it happened a long time ago."

> completely disregarding the fact

I don't disregard them, I check them one by one, and so far I found them lacking.

Why are you angry at me for reading what other people said before believing them at face value?

> that all these accusations have been corroborated by witnesses, ranging from people interviewed on several media and dozens of reports and online comments from people who claim to have worked with him over the years, let alone the several unrelated victims of his "urban legends", and most of all, the fact that people repeatedly let him know about his attitude and he didn't give a damn.

Please provide links outside of twitter. So far most accusations lead back to the initial article on medium by Salem G.

> In short, yet another big, somehow coordinated witch hunt by overly sensitive SJWs.

I don't know, and frankly, I don't care. I read the allegations, try to find the various sources, and try to put them into a logical context. I guess I'm simply a Knight for Justice (also: old weirdos)

Sure, I guess. In this case, as far as I can see, Stallman's coworkers' speech about his terrible behavior led to him resigning. Nothing wrong with that.

> You're basically saying that Stallman’s speech must have consequences otherwise the little guy might face consequences by criticising him.

I'm nowhere close to saying that. The "little guy" is already facing the consequences I delineated, as this thread shows. Speeches have consequences, both Stallman's and anyone's.

> But the pro free speech crowd are advocating for a world where you and stallman criticise each other harshly, but both get to keep your jobs, it being a strong norm that whoever calls for the other to lose their job over speech automatically loses the argument.

The thing is, this presupposes that each other's speech or criticism is equivalent, which it isn't. A creepy remark is not equivalent to a criticism of that remark - I really didn't think I'd have to spell this out. If someone is being creepy towards coworkers and subordinates and this behavior continues for years, then yes, this should have consequences - up to and including the person in question losing their job, depending on the severity. Calling for someone to be fired shouldn't lose someone their "argument" if the person should be fired.

There's some equivocation here that this is some sort of intellectual academic dispute that led to him resigning. It isn't. It's reports of his creepy behavior, not two people "criticising" each other.

Looking again at what he said, I think his main point was about whether the particular hypothetical should be dubbed "rape". Now, you may say "someone under the legal age of consent cannot give said consent, so ergo the act is rape". Which is true, but even when the law has to draw a bright line regarding the age of consent, the law still does distinguish between "statutory rape" and "forcible rape". Both are wrong, but the latter is generally considered moreso. Furthermore, statutory rape tends to have more exceptions when the victim is closer to the age of consent.

If we are going to use the term "rape" in an unqualified manner, then the usual connotation is "forcible rape". I think it is fair to object to the unqualified use of the term where the victim was appeared to be a willing individual above the age of consent.

It's a bit like calling Martin Luther King Jr. a "criminal". Yes, he was put in jail, and technically he did violate local law, but the activity he was engaged in (non-violent protest of unjust laws) hardly fits the expected model of what is typically implied by the word "criminal".[1]

Now I bring this up not in order to compare the character of either Minsky or Stallman with MLK, but merely draw attention to a fallacy of reasoning known as the non-central fallacy[2].

An edge case in the manner of statutory rape (where the victim seemed to be willing and of age, and was in fact close to the age of consent) is still likely illegal and wrong, but we should still take care to note how such a case differs from a more central example of forcible rape.

> It's not clear what you are referring to here. I'm not much impressed by someone later saying that they changed their mind a long time ago (if you have a reference to RMS saying that - I don't). Grossly wrong public statements should be publicly retracted. If they're not retracted, then they're fair game for criticism.

My understanding is that he did make a public retraction of sorts this month. It's still an open question as to when he thinks the age of consent is, but I do believe he thinks there at least is one. Despite the timing of his retraction, I do think he was sincere.

[1] You've mentioned elsewhere that you are English, so I don't know how salient the example is to you. I hope it makes sense. [2]https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...