I told you the knives would come out for Stallman.
And they have. Again. And Again. And Again.The push is on to paint him as a “sexist”. Watch as mono supporters everywhere jump on board. Jump. Jump. Jump. Jump. Jump.
These attacks are especially vile, being in no way related to factual or technical issues but pure personal attacks. It is 100% Grade-A Columbian Smear Powder. A smooth white line of character assassination.
If one were interested in getting a more rounded picture of Stallman’s attitude, one could consider his comments when asked directly about women and Free Software:
I am strongly in favor of equal rights for women, and always have been. I think that I somehow escaped learning the ideas of “machismo”.
I never learned to think that women ought to be subordinate to men, so I never had to unlearn it.
The ethical ideas of free software are gender-neutral. Human rights apply the same to everyone, both rich or poor, both male and female.
Every woman should be free to share and change software, just as every man should be.
I can’t suggest any specific “role for women” in the Free Software Movement, because the very idea would be sexist.
But that would put the kibosh on the latest Two Minute Hate from Team Mono and the Lynchmob Lackeys.
Read the interview. Read his website. Read his essays. Educate yourself if you don’t know what rms is about.
The sad thing is, much of the damage is already done. Stallman is facing a concerted attack on his character and competence and stands little chance of coming through it unscathed. Such is the penalty for daring to critize Mono. This garbage is already all over Planet Gnome, Planet Debian, Monologue and spreading.
“A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” – Charles Spurgeon
#1 by Dan Serban on July 12th, 2009
1. First they ignore you.
2. Then they ridicule you and call you “irrelevant”.
3. Then they fight you tooth and nail. ( <== RMS is here )
Personal attacks are Team Mono's last best chance at gaining mindshare.
That, and cordoning off a "free speech zone" on Ubuntu Forums where dissenting anti-Mono opinions are tolerated.
Good PR guys, keep it up.
#2 by Jo Shields on July 12th, 2009
I have no idea who Kevin Dupuy and Natan Yellin are. But a cursory examination suggests Natan’s main project is Python-based (Zeitgeist), and The word “mono” doesn’t appear once on Kevin’s site. Are you perhaps assuming that nobody without a top seekrit agenda might disagree with St Ignucius? Would such an assumption help bolster your point, even if it’s a leeeeeetle bit of a fib?
As for the number of Mono people who seem vexed, perhaps it’s related to Stallman shouting down & insulting one of their co-workers during the keynote Q&A, a certain Ms. Gaita?
#3 by Jason on July 13th, 2009
@Jo,
Nice attempt to cloud the waters; as if someone must be employed by Novell or working on the Mono project to be a supporter.
Kevin Dupuy is a so-called “Ambassador” for OpenSuse, and has:
1. Said: “On Gnote, I think it’s a complete waste of time”
2. Posted long defenses of mono (http://www.archivum.info/opensuse@opensuse.org/2008-08/msg01763.html)
3. Defended mono apps, like Beagle (http://www.mail-archive.com/opensuse@opensuse.org/msg56194.html) and so on. and so on.
Lefty is a mono supporter, as well. Hell, half of Lefty’s time is spent on BoycottNovell arguing. He has several blog entries supporting mono and deriding mono criticism.
Same thing with Natan along with jumping on the latest “I’m not scared of code” slur-meme.
Some people like to use the old “Now, I’m no mono supporter, but ….” canard. They don’t have to be working for Novell or a core Mono developer to be a mono supporter. Google (or Bing, if that is more to your taste) is your friend. Google the people named + “mono” and read. They all show some level of active, positive support for Mono, combined with some level of derision and mockery for mono critics.
@Natan
Of course I can entertain the possibility. I’ve already said on other places on this very blog that I think he sometimes gets things wrong and it pains me when he does. Nice attempt to portray me as a mindless defender of the faith though.
I know “it doesn’t make a difference” to you. If it did, you would have witheld judgement and/or delivered criticism in an even-handed manner. Instead you quicky joined the jackals in a feeding frenzy of mindless condemnation.
#4 by Jo Shields on July 12th, 2009
Oh, and Lefty’s got nothing to do with Novell or Mono either.
#5 by Natan Yellin on July 13th, 2009
Please, no matter what your views on Mono, can you entertain the possibility that Stallman genuinely did something wrong, or is he above all rebuke?
For me, it doesn’t make a difference if Stallman claims to support women causes – I judge people based on their actions. Stallman’s keynote was full of offensive undertones which insulted multiple members of the audience [1] and I think that’s acceptable. His thoughtlessness and insensitivity warrants an apology.
Oh, @Dan, I’m not a member of “Team Mono.” To be honest, I have no association with Novell whatsoever.
[1] Disclaimer: I wasn’t present at GCDS, but I spoke to people who personally heard the speech before posting.
#6 by Np237 on July 13th, 2009
As always, I’m completely disgusted by all those who jump on their horses to call people sexist every time they can – often showing sexism in this “prince Charming” behavior.
You don’t need to call RMS a sexist to criticize him. Just look at what he says, not at how he says it. The very idea of educating people to Free Software through Emacs is so dull that it should be enough to consider him as folklore, not as someone worth listening. His patronizing statements about Mono, behaving as he was some kind of Free Software boss. His completely ridiculous positions regarding the GFDL. RMS is opening fire at everything that is not absolutely and completely pure, to the point of being unusable in the real world; everything that is not as useless as Emacs.
Just don’t listen to him. You won’t have to wonder whether he is a sexist or whether his pants are yellow.
#7 by Jo Shields on July 13th, 2009
Type your comment here
So anyone who doesn’t join the “Mono causes cancer” line is an avid supporter?
What’s life like in 1-bit color?
#8 by Jason on July 13th, 2009
Yes. Because I have often said that the only critical position of mono that can be taken is “Mono causes cancer”. I have also often said that “any” = “avid”.
Oh, wait – I’ve just been informed that I haven’t actually said either of those things. Ever. Darn those straw men, always getting in the way like that! At least they go down easy!
#9 by Jo Shields on July 13th, 2009
Oh, and you want Philip Van Hoof if you want someone to attack for the blue speech bubble meme. FYI.
#10 by Jo Shields on July 13th, 2009
Type your comment here
Oh, absolutely. See, funny thing is, I actually clicked the links you gave as to why you feel Kevin is worthy of attacks. So because he won’t go out of his way to attack Silverlight (not sure how this relates to “long defenses of mono”), or Beagle (which, well, is an app with alternatives), then he’s a “supporter” worthy of being attacked for, well, guilt by association.
You know, you pretend not to be Boycott Novell Jr, but sadly, that’s not true. Can you possibly conceive of a world where there’s a land between polar opposites? Where not attacking something isn’t the same thing as wanting to have its babies? Take Lefty as an example – he’s found something to keep himself amused (and Boycott Novell passed The Onion many months ago as a source for internet funnies – especially given now the site’s founder is calling the regulars crazies), and that somehow makes him some friend of teh evil Mono and an enemy of teh freedomz? PLEASE.
You think you’re some kind of holier-than-thou figure, happy to expose anything that goes counter to your worldview, and happy to stand behind it as long as you never give anyone any hints as to who YOU are or what YOUR history is – since you’ve got to attack the message and not the messanger (unless you don’t like the messenger).
#11 by Jason on July 13th, 2009
Jo,
I’m sorry I don’t understand your last paragraph. Are you saying that who I am and my history is relevant to the arguments I am making, and futhermore that I am guilty of attacking the message and not the messenger? Or that it is unfair to force others to attack the message and not the messenger?
Because that is exactly what I am trying to do – attack the message and not the messenger. I might not always succeed, but that is a goal I strive for – it should be a goal everyone in any debate strives for.
I must be mis-reading that, because I know that can’t be what you are suggesting. And I’m not being sarcastic when I say that. I am honestly missing the point of your entire last paragraph there.
#12 by Panda on July 13th, 2009
It always saddens me when people dump on RMS. I wonder of they understand that without him (or someone else in his role) they’d have no reference point with regard to software freedom. Somebody has to stand that ground, so we can look back and see how far we’ve strayed.
That is, unless you simply don’t care about such things. In which case you’re welcome to jump on the ESR bandwagon and sacrifice principle in the name of “success.” But in that case, I fail to see why you’re even interested in this whole scene. Why not just dive in and work for Microsoft or some other big, “successful” megacorp?
The entire purpose of what we’re doing here is to break free of all that. To break free and than inch your way back toward your former masters seems ridiculous to me. I have no intention of letting go of the core, founding principles of this whole thing. For me, RMS plays an important role as reference point.
Remember: at the end of the day it’s about upholding the values we were taught in the sandbox at kindergarten (that it’s good to share), even in the face of laws which try to beat those values out of us.
#13 by Natan Yellin on July 13th, 2009
Excuse me? Can you please point out one blog post I made that even mentioned Mono before this one?
Really? People are allowed to criticize Stallman? In your original blog post you claimed that “Stallman is facing a concerted attack on his character and competence and stands little chance of coming through it unscathed. Such is the penalty for daring to critize Mono.” and “the push is on to paint him as a ’sexist’”
So you claim that people can criticize Stallman but if they actually do so then they’re vile Mono supporters who’s blog posts are automatically invalid? (If you want to claim that I just joined the jackals and didn’t deliver the criticism fairly then you need to prove that statement. I actually tried to write a fair posts.) Furthermore, why should I have “witheld judgement?” Stallman said something that I find to be unacceptable for multiple reasons and I was disappointed to see that David was the only person who ad called him out on it.
I’m probably not going to bother visiting this blog again to reply, because I don’t think its worth the time: You’ve proven that you’re too immature to actually address the issues that people raised and instead you’ve gone back to calling them names and hiding behind insults. (”Nice attempt to portray me as a mindless defender of the faith though.”) Good luck getting anywhere in life with stupidity like that!
#14 by Jason on July 13th, 2009
I sincerely hope you do visit again. To be honest, my motive is not altruistic – it is because I think you support my position so wonderfully that I hope you come back to do so often.
Sure. If you really want me to:
That took about 15 seconds. Anything else?
Besides, I’m not exactly sure why you expect people to not link your criticism of Stallman with support of mono, when you yourself did so on your own blog:
Will you now, Sir, continue to insist that your criticism of Stallman is not related to mono despite a plain reading of the King James Version of the text?
Ever since Stallman wrote his short essay on C#, the personal attacks have been staggering and vile. It is beyond “criticism”. When I say it is character assassination, I mean precisely that. It is personal, and it is malicious – set out to destroy them man while ignoring his argument. Furthermore, the “criticism” is unfair because it presumes the worst interpretation possible, is disproportionate to the alleged offense, you yourself have rejected explanation or exculpatory statements, and is part of a continuing assault on the man’s character and competence.
#15 by Gabe on July 13th, 2009
I noticed the Upton Sinclair quote at the bottom of your page:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
That sums up this whole mess rather nicely. I’ve long noted that those who hate on Stallman tend to have ties to Big Business, or they at least sympathize with the corporatization of the globe, and the commodification of everything that isn’t either nailed down or too ethereal to figure out how to sell (although Facebook has shown that even friendship can be turned into a commodity).
People don’t like to have their moral failings pointed out to them in the open, just like they don’t like to be told in public that there’s a booger hanging from their nose.
But it’s good that they’re lashing out, because it shows that they’re ashamed of themselves, as they should be. Being a corporate shill is like being a house slave, the least one can do is hang his head in shame in the presence of the fieldhands. (Unfortunately, on the Internet there’s not enough head-hanging and too much defensive indignation, probably because they don’t feel the actual stare of the actual eyes of those of us who view them with absolute contempt).
Stallman holds the moral high ground here, and everyone, especially those shrieking the loudest for his head, knows it. That’s what matters.
#16 by Jo Shields on July 13th, 2009
1) Fix your fucking Javascript Quote button.
2) You claim that you only attack the message and not the messenger – yet your entire post is a rant about how evil people are who at some point in the past haven’t said “Mono should jump in a lake of fire” who, at a later date, have critical things to say about Stallman’s recent message. You can’t see the hypocrisy in this? That’s what’s sad about this site
And, furthermore, the fact that you go out of your way to hide your identity and accomplishments – yet consider Stallman beyond criticism for any flawed message because of who he is – shows a deep double standard on the concept of messages versus messengers. Nobody would give a shit – not you nor anyone else – about some bad failed comedy from the 1980s if it was given by an anonymous nobody rather than a supposedly important messenger – so the very idea that you only attack messages is deeply, deeply wrong.
#17 by Gabe on July 13th, 2009
Oh boy, another one of /those people/. Here, Jo, you need to read this: http://www.iusmentis.com/technology/remailers/fallacy.html
#18 by Jason on July 13th, 2009
@Jo,
1. It’s a stock template. But I will look at it when I get a chance.
2. I don’t think the whole post is “a rant about evil people”: I give links to what the people are saying; I point to an interview with Stallman specifically on topic; link to other resources; and end with some comments and more links.
Of course, I’m not a Vulcan – I use emotional language when making an argument as well – everyone does. I like to think mine are not pure emotion, devoid of reason, but perhaps that is self-flattery only.
I do mention that sometimes I have to get a little rant-y and over humorous to prevent actually getting mad. It’s preferable to cursing and raising blood pressure, I think.
I’m not “going out of my way” to hide my identity or accomplishments, and even if I were, that’s not germane (as pointed out by Gabe). Again, the focus should be on the argument; which – despite your protestations – I do try to do.
It really sounds like you are eager to know who I am so you can personally attack me – most disturbing. Perhaps that is just my oft-mentioned phobia flaring up? They do say I am paranoid, you know.
Also, please give it a rest with saying I think Stallman is “beyond criticism”. I have repeatedly said he is not – in this thread and others. You know I have. It is rude enough to assert you know another person’s mind, but to directly contradict or ignore when told different is hardly sporting.
I’m sorry to say that I’m still not following your messenger distinction at the end – I think I see the point you are trying to make, but I don’t see how you are actually supporting it. How about you just call me a hypocrite? I’ll disagree and we can move on.
#19 by Jo Shields on July 13th, 2009
Type your comment here
See, there’s MORE hypocrisy.
1) if you’re on-message about only attacking messages and not messagers, then a) why do you have an entire blog post (i.e. this one) dedicated to pointing out how attacking Stallman’s message (which in this instance upset and offended people due to its sexist nature) is wrong because the messenger obviously has the right “attitude” – i.e. why are you putting the messenger above the message? and b) if the message is what matters and not the messenger, why is it wrong for people (who include Mono people, plus other people you’ve unilaterally bundled in with them) to attack the message?
2) Would you go out of your way to defend any random unknown for making offensive remarks? Of course not. You’re going out of your way to protect the messenger because of who the messenger is – and decrying anyone who attacks the message as a “Lynchmob lackey”. That doesn’t seem remotely hypocritical to you?
3) On the basis that you DO attack the messenger and not the message (and any cursory examination of your site will show that, e.g. “Team Mono and the Lynchmob Lackeys”), then why do you feel that it’s fine to hide behind anonymity, yet attack others? “Do as I say, not as I do”? If YOU had accomplishments to show off, perhaps people would take your message as having greater weight – after all, the messenger matters.
#20 by Dan Serban on July 13th, 2009
Jo,
Why are you so hell-bent on tracking down the personal identity of someone with a different point of view from yours?
I came across this blog, liked the articles and stayed for the comments.
I don’t care about the personal identities of blog authors, I only care about the quality of the articles.
Whether you call yourself directhex or Jo Shields, I couldn’t care less; if you chose to disclose your real name, that’s *your* choice, not an obligation of everybody else to follow suit.
Please stop repeating the “hide behind anonymity” broken record, and stay on topic.
#21 by Jason on July 13th, 2009
@Jo,
Your continued instance that I am “hiding” behind anonymity, and that it somehow weakens my points is so contrary to what I consider rational and germane, that I can scarcely comprehend why you are fixated on it.
In any case, the concept of defending someone known rather than someone unknown is not in anyway hypocritical. It is ludicrous to suggest that one can defend everything. So there is one limit. You could call hypocrisy if I were to defend Stallman here, and then later not, say, Mr. Jones if he did a similar thing and it was brought to my attention. But that it surely not the case.
In the matter of those people I address in the post, it sounds as if you would like to construct some sort of situation where they can not be criticized at all, because they are attacking Stallman’s message, and therefore can not be attacked in turn. That is also obviously ludicrous.
I question their motives. I question the appropriateness of the response. I question the pattern of increasing personal attacks on rms. I question the “joining” of the “not scared of code” meme and the attacks on rms.
How would you propose I do that, then, in a way you found satisfactory? Or is no such way possible? Or do you think it un-necessary; that the outcry that
Stallman has been facing since his C# essay is totally in my own mind?
#22 by jon skip on July 13th, 2009
How do we know that “Jason” doesn’t gain financially from badmouthing Mono? Because he says so?
There’s a difference between Mono developers and Mono supporters. Why should the Mono developers be punished for things they do not control?
That’s why “Jason”’s attacks are disingenuous at best.
If he truly believed that he was in the right, he would use his full name. After all, he’d be proud to display his righteousness, wouldn’t he?
Personally, I think the reason he doesn’t use his full name is because he knows that his disingenuous attacks would ruin his reputation. He likes hiding in the dark corners of the internet where he can do his best to ruin other people’s lives and reputations without any worry that his own could be at risk.
In other words, he is a coward.
At least the people defending Mono use their true identities and are not afraid to hide in the shadows. They stand behind their statements.
#23 by jon skip on July 13th, 2009
that last sentence should obviously say, “At least the people defending Mono use their true identities and do not hide in the shadows. They stand behind their statements.”
#24 by jon skip on July 13th, 2009
Btw, here’s an example of an Anti-Mono/Anti-Novell person agreeing with Lefty on the RMS sexism thing:
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/10/revisionism-with-stereotypes/
Scroll down to read Shane Coyle’s comment from July 12th, 2009 at 5:43 am
#25 by jon skip on July 13th, 2009
I just disproved your argument, thus proving you to be dishonest.
Have a nice day.
#26 by Jason on July 13th, 2009
@Jon,
Thank you for bolstering my position!
#27 by Dan Serban on July 13th, 2009
Type your comment here
Whoa, pretty broad brush you’re using there.
The Internet isn’t conducive to people “using their true identities”, nor should it be. We all value our privacy.
I don’t care about the personal identities of any person on either camp, but I also don’t believe there exists (or should exist) an Internet database of registered Mono defenders.
#28 by Np237 on July 14th, 2009
Hey, you all defenders of people victim of “character assassination”, where were you when your friend (or should I say “fiend”) Sam Varghese practised it using the *exact* same arguments against someone who disagrees with you?
#29 by Jason on July 14th, 2009
@Np237,
Are you referring to Mr. Varghese’s diatribe against the young man who posted the “Fuck you, Richard Stallman” screed?
You are aware that at the request of the young gentleman I removed his original text and replaced it with his apology – as he requested? Furthermore, you are aware that Mr. Varghese arguments were in fact not the *exact* same? You are, of course, aware as well that the situtations are not *exactly* the same – in fact one might say they are more dissimilar than similar – considering that the young gentlemen did indeed inarguably profanely attack “Richard Stallman” and “GNU/Trolls” all wrapped up in a big ball of misunderstanding and support of mono; yet there is no coordinated campaign to go after him, in fact it seems to me all have forgiven and moved on? Not to mention that in Mr. Varghese’s own comments section he is rightfully taken to task for such petty tactics as insulting the young gentleman’s grammar (always a sign you are on the wrong track, in my opinion).
Contrast this to Stallman’s situation where he may have at worst revealed an inner bigotry that he knows is wrong intellectually, yet faces a semi-organized campaign of derision, going after his reputation and portions of his livelihood. Not to mention having his private emails revealed and his casual explanations there rejected. Think on the “casual” there – how seriously and how much effort you would put into an “apology” in response to a demand from some random from the internets, and how that might play out compared to knowing that there was a campaign afoot and your every word would be scrutinized by hostile interpreters.
I don’t think Mr. Varghese made a good showing of his response to the young gentleman’s screed. I also wasn’t aware that one had to make a public declaration on every remotely comparable incident, lest one face soft insinuations of hypocrisy.
Actually, I was aware of that last bit – I know good and well that soft (and hard) insinuations of hypocrisy will come, no matter what.
#30 by Lefty on July 14th, 2009
Lefty is a mono supporter, as well. Hell, half of Lefty’s time is spent on BoycottNovell arguing. He has several blog entries supporting mono and deriding mono criticism.
Jason, that’s a fabrication. I have one blog entry deriding boycottnovell.com and its denizens as a bunch of folks who are so caught up in their “cause” that they’ve lost all sense and perspective. My issues have nothing to do with Mono, per se, but with the way the rabidly anti-Mono folks make their “argument”.
You’re actually a pretty good example of that. If you can find links to “several” entries on my blog relating to Mono, please produce them.
#31 by Jason on July 14th, 2009
As you wish:
When Zeal Becomes Zealotry: A Tawdry Tale
A Good GCDS Beginning (with a significant disappointment)
Me, Niether
Will that do or would you like the goalposts moved somewhere?
#32 by Chris Halse Rogers on July 14th, 2009
To be fair, that derision of mono criticism was entirely warranted. And the second post you cite is the one you call out for being a character assassination of RMS and only really mentions Mono in passing, as a “fairly undirected rant about C#”, in part of one paragraph.
There certainly are outspoken people who support Mono; Lefty is certainly not one of them. Your definition of “Mono supporter” might need to be calibrated a little towards neutral.
#33 by Jason on July 14th, 2009
@Chris,
Warranted or not, there it is. Anyway, I’ve never said that all defense of mono is unreasonable (oddly, I’ve never heard the opposite).
Anyway, if the whole “RMS=Sexist” thing wasn’t kicked off by the same dude who has been arguing non-stop on Boycott Novell for a while now and wasn’t all tied up with the “Not afraid of code” slur-meme, I might not be drawing the same conclusion about the relationship between the two.
The way it is now, I seriously doubt Lefty is acting from honest principles (nor are many of those who have jumped on either bandwagon). This is especially sad, because it co-opts a real issue (sexism is surely a problem in the world, in business, and in the FLOSS community). I don’t know what is in other men’s heads, but when I see the viciousness of the original attack, the coordination, the timing, the composition of the opposition, the self-aggrandizing comparisons with the Civil Rights movement and the hints of the “death threat crazy” and “nazi” stuff, it doesn’t ring true to me.
Moreover, I don’t care if someone is a mono supporter – even an avid one – so long as they constrain themselves to honest debate. In fact, I welcome such a person. That’s not what I see here though. You know us crazies, though – always reading stuff into pure coincidence.
#34 by Chris Halse Rogers on July 14th, 2009
Viciousness? Coordination? Timing?
#35 by Jason on July 14th, 2009
Yes.
Viciousness – the most malicious possible interpretation is accepted, and no explanation or exculpatory evidence is considered. The call has already gone out to flatly ban Stallman from speaking at any more conferences. The publising of private emails. He has further been accused of supporting those who make death threats and compared to a nazi – indirectly, but still clearly, in both cases.
Coordination – the blog posts are all over the “Planets”, and Lefty is going around thanking people for their “support” on blogs. There are a couple of adopted/co-opted memes being employed to attempt to spread the word. (The Stop sign and the not-scared-of-code quote bubble). It sure seems like a “call to arms” from my viewpoint.
Timing – This happens right after Stallman makes a FSF-official statement on C#, and follows on the heels of all other sorts of initial personal attacks from that. Many people have said Stallman has been doing a similar routine for a decade or more, yet now things blow up?
Again, let me stress the fact that Stallman may well have made an inappropriate remark. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. But even by the most lurid accounts, I think the response has been disproportionate. In that same vein, I question the actual motives of all these protestors – I think they are using this incident to attempt to demonize Stallman, and probably don’t give two figs about the real issue.
#36 by Chris Halse Rogers on July 14th, 2009
What other interpretation is reasonable? By all accounts I’ve read, many people were offended by his routine, and when this was pointed out to him by by email, he failed to understand the criticism. What is your interpretation?
Yes, it does sound like a call to arms. But in what way is it not a call to arms against sexism? Why must the “I’m not afraid of people who code” meme be linked to commentary about RMS’s sexist comments?
#37 by Jason on July 14th, 2009
Chris,
On Possible Interpretations
One possible interpretation – offered by many people – is that it is simply a joke. Stallman is poking fun at a religion which glorifies a virgin and it comes from there. By all accounts I’ve read (that allowed commenting) at least one person mentioned something along these lines. This is perfectly reasonable interpretation.
Beyond that, I don’t want to get into a detailed defense of what the man said, because I simply wasn’t there, and so I don’t know that it deserves defending. He could have said any number of things that removed the sexism from the situation. Consider:
Going by Lefty’s account – and accepting it a face value we are told first that Stallman talked about “women who had not been introduced to EMACS” and then later in the email Lefty says Stallman talked about “_women_ who had never used EMACS”. But if Stallman called first for “men who had never used EMACS” and then “women who had never used EMACS”, then it is hardly sexist at all, is it?
Now, I’m not saying that’s what happened. I wasn’t there. He could have been all crazy talk about Natalie Portman covered in hot grits; but I’m not trying to defend or condemn Stallman, so much as I am trying to point out the problems with the reaction to the incident.
Personally, judging the man by his enemies, I am inclined to believe it is something absolutely innocent that has been twisted.
On the emails
I’ve made this point before, but perhaps it was overlooked.
If some random person emailed me to explain myself, similar to the one Lefty sent, he would be lucky to get “You are wrong, now FOAD”. However, if someone I respected contacted me, or if I were to make a public statement – I would likely examine my behavior and offer up a considered response. This is one reason public disclosure of private correspondance is vile – it is by definition taking someone out of context.
Also consider that in the original email Stallman is accused of “shouting over people”, being dismissive, sexist, thoughtless, inconsiderate and “mocking Christianity”. That Stallman focused on the anti-religious aspect rather than the sexist is not exactly scandalous. He did have a laundry list to choose from, no?
Even so, in his first response Stallman says:
This strikes me as a perfectly rational first response. He immediately expresses concern that he has offended, but strives to reconcile it with his experience, and tries to see if this is a single kook being kooky on the kookynet. Surely you do not think it is realistic for him to fall over himself apologizing to every claim of offense that arrives in his inbox? The man has been under a bit of a siege lately, you know.
The second email is pure hostility and condensation, so it is no surprise the response is curt. I sincerely hope no one is thinking that those 2 emails are honest in intent to raise a constructive dialog with Stallman. Read them and imagine if you got such tripe in your inbox, in reaction to a little skit you’ve been doing for a decade. What you do? Be honest.
Answer key: |/dev/null
Here’s another way to look at it: imagine someone you respected made an inappropriate statement. You think overall the fellow is alright, but in this area he really needs to get on board with society. Would you write those emails – especially the second one – and then publish them on your blog? Again, be honest.
Answer key: No. Unless you are a grandstanding, self-righteous cretin. Then yes, yes you might indeed. Not that I think anyone on our internet is a grandstanding, self-righteous cretin. But them fellows on them other internets….well, you know how they can be.
On the memes
They must be linked, because people like Natan Yellin are themselves linking them:
Also, note that Lefty posted up the “not scared of code” meme the following day. So, I don’t think it is reaching too much to point out there is some overlap here.
#38 by jon skip on July 14th, 2009
For someone who is so against character assassination, you sure seem to like to assassinate other people’s character.
First, you make a broad sweeping claim that everyone speaking out against RMS’ sexist must be a Mono “supporter” (which you define as anyone who has ever said anything positive about Mono or has spoken out against the anti-Mono zealots like Mark Fink).
Then you accuse the Mono crowd of a “vicious coordinated attack”. Where’s the proof? So far everything you’ve presented as your evidence is extremely weak.
As I pointed out earlier, there are people outside of anyone you could pawn off as a “Mono supporter” who are also complained about RMS’s sexism like:
BoycottNovell creator, Shane Coyle (provided the link yesterday)
KDE developer, Celeste Lyn Paul: http://twitter.com/celestelynpaul/status/2578113011
Melissa Draper: http://www.geekosophical.net/?p=287
Matt Zimmerman: http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/13/backlash-feminism-considered-harmful/
Miia Ranta: http://myrtti.fi/blog/2009/07/14/after-work-beer/
Co-Founder of Debian Women, Amayita: http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/07/emailing-richard-stallman.html?showComment=1247429733169#c5511258066757678525
Stella Omega: http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/07/emailing-richard-stallman.html?showComment=1247449554686#c1273309020590268329
Thalia: http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/07/emailing-richard-stallman.html?showComment=1247464124477#c7505955085287422754
Ubuntu Contributor, Mackenzie Morgan: http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com/2009/07/male-feminists.html
And at least a dozen other women on Lefty’s blog supporting him.
Seems to me your accusations attacking “Mono supporters” is unfounded and meant only to try and discredit them unfairly.
It would be like a “Mono supporter” claiming that Mark Fink was acting on the behalf of all anti-Mono people. Is that true? I surely hope not.
#39 by Jason on July 14th, 2009
@jon,
First off, I never once made a “broad sweeping claim that everyone speaking out against RMS’ sexist must be a Mono “supporter”
When you start off with a blatantly false premise like that it makes it hard to take you seriously.
Anyway, I’ve laid out my reasoning in great detail already in response to Chris. If you disagree, fine. I’m not going to re-hash it because you either haven’t bothered to actually read it, or if you did, you think I’m all wrong and full of poop anyway, right?
I will say it’s funny that you don’t even see the inherent sexism in your own posting, but that’s cool. We all need a laugh sometimes. For that I thank you.
#40 by Np237 on July 14th, 2009
@Jason,
No, I’m talking about personal attacks from Sam Varghese against myself.
#41 by Jason on July 14th, 2009
@Np237
Ah. Sorry then, I’m not aware of that situation.
#42 by Anonymous on July 15th, 2009
@Jason,
I think Np237 was talking about http://www.itwire.com/content/view/22320/1090/1/0/
There was one on Miguel as well – http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17200/1090/1/0/ (I quote “Maybe de Icaza needs a good English dictionary. Senor, please provide me your address and I will send the starving free software developer a copy of the Oxford Dictionary, the same as the one I use.”)
@Np237: I’ve been following your writing for a while and can’t help but agree with you. While I disagree with Jason’s thoughts on mono, I’ve conversed with him over email and he’s a really nice guy and seems to be more interested in debates and reaching a consensus. Might not matter much in the current scenario but I thought I’d put it out there.
#43 by Jason on July 15th, 2009
@Anonymous
Thanks for the links and the word of support!
If Np237 verifies and really cares enough to get my opinion, I’ll read up and render my verdict – I doubt he does though, he seems like he’s a big boy and not much in need of my validation.
On the quote from Sam to Miguel, I will say that use of “Senor” and in some other heated posts Mr. Varghese sometimes employees language that I would not be comfortable using – drawing attention to people’s ethnic or racial background. Personally, I wouldn’t go there.
But, then again, not all can be as Shakesperian in their criticism as your Humble Host.
#44 by Tyler W. on July 15th, 2009
This is about politics. Those who disagree with Richard Stallman’s politics have been waiting for years for a chance to knock him off his pedestal, and now they think they’ve got one.
Politics has always been at the core of the disagreements with him. You can see it during every Q&A session at the end of every speech he’s ever given. At least one questioner will always say something to the effect of:
“But I wanna make a living as a programmer doing exciting stuff and that most likely means doing proprietary stuff for a company with a budget! Waaa!!”
To which he explains that their preconceptions are unfounded; but of course they don’t get it, so he tells them they’re free to do proprietary stuff if they like, but it’s immoral for reasons 0, 1, 2 & 3.
And so they stalk out of the room and sulk all the way home and begin to foster a hatred of Richard Stallman and his pesky morality and his bloody “Free Software” movement.
Those are the people currently salivating over his alleged sexist remark. Seriously, where have these people been? He’s been doing that silly routine for ages. And have they never heard of Jesus, the alleged son of Yahweh, and his allegedly virginal mother? Can they not see the connection there? Do they not GET THE JOKE?! OK, so it’s a lame joke, but give me a bleeping break with this “sexism” nonsense! Just come out in the open with your true agenda.
#45 by Robin H. on July 15th, 2009
I tried to post this in response to this, but evidently there’s something about the content of the message that the blog owner doesn’t approve of. I then figured I’d say it directly to Lefty @ his blog, but he’s disabled anonymous posting. It looks like the blogs coming from the other side are locking up shop, so I guess I’ll say this here in case Lefty sees it:
Lefty,
Words have no power to offend in and of themselves; whatever power they have is given to them by the one who claims to be offended.
We can claim to be offended by anything at all. As a matter of fact, I happen to be offended by your claim to be offended by what I consider to be a manufactured claim of sexism. Is it your fault that I’m offended? No; I could simply shrug it off, and then it wouldn’t offend me anymore. I’m offended because I’ve taken it upon myself to be offended, for what I think are good reasons; and the same goes for you, I’m sure.
So that’s where we’re at: you’re offended by what you perceive to be Stallman’s sexism; I’m offended by what I perceive to be your false and opportunistic indignation. But you’re not obliged to stop claiming to be offended by Stallman in order to stop offending me; and Stallman isn’t obliged to stop doing his spoof on the Virgin Mary in order to stop offending you.
We both could simply shrug it off. But something tells me you won’t, and that the reason has nothing to do with this rather spurious claim of sexism.
#46 by Anonymous Brave Guy on July 16th, 2009
@Jo Sheilds
I like being anonymous when I deliver my messages simply because I want my message to be considered solely on the merit of the message. I do not want my message to be affected by my celebrity status.
If there is a user ID attached to a user, a discussion tends to become a criticizing game. This is exactly the sort of thing I have notice in this very web log. On the other hand, under the anonymous system, even though your opinion/information is criticized, you don’t know with whom to be upset.
Under a perfectly anonymous system, you can say, “it’s boring,” if it is actually boring. All information is treated equally; only accurate arguments will work.
So yeah, RMS did use language that caused offense . That shouldn’t really affect his point that it’s better for the free software community to not depend upon C#.
#47 by Lefty on July 18th, 2009
Type your comment here
That’s not very impressive, Jason. That’s the article I mentioned, and–as I pointed out when I mentioned it–it’s not about Mono, it’s about Roy Schestowitz, and his scummy approach to making his “case” against Mono. There’s a difference.
I don’t care much about Mono. I care a lot about my boss being pestered by anti-Mono cretins because I’ve told someone posting off-topic, anti-Mono flames to the ubuntu-devel list to knock it off. I really get excited about it when I turn up evidence, in the form of a digitally-signed email, that shows that Roy orchestrated the entire thing (while simultaneously telling me to my face that he “didn’t know” the person responsible.
Do you see the difference there?
#48 by Lefty on July 18th, 2009
(And, while we’re at it, “one” isn’t “several”. And that article isn’t even “one”. So, since you assert there are “several”, want to go for a second round of “I Got Caught In An Outright Lie”, Jason?)
#49 by Jason on July 18th, 2009
@Lefty,
It is not possible for me to be less interested in your ongoing feud with Roy or Boycott Novell. I do not care about your drama.
(I also don’t appreciate the crazies you bring with you – my comment moderation queue is full up with some stonemirror/impath craziness about you that I am quite honestly scared to even start researching.)
The links are there. They refer to Mono. That is what you requested and that is what I delivered. Rationalize them how you like. If you don’t think I met your requirements, fine. I care nothing for your satisfaction.
It’s about time for you to run along back to beating the drum of sexism or trolling Boycott Novell or threatening to sue people or whatever it is you do to amuse yourself these days.
You have had ample opportunity here to speak on your own behalf. That you squandered it is your failing, not mine. I think there is enough information here and in the links for people to inform themselves and come to a conclusion that satisfies them.
By and large we are having a constructive dialogue on this site – a massive accomplishment given how controversial and polarizing the topic is – and there’s really nothing you can add to that, except serving as a case study.
Let me stress that, in case you didn’t get it: You are not setting the example, you are serving as an example. And your purpose has been served.
When I come over to your blog and start dropping snark and defecating all over the comments, feel free to level the same criticism at me.
Thanks so much and I wish you the same continued success in your future endeavors.
#50 by Robert Millan on July 18th, 2009
Jason, my congratulations. Looks like you successfully gathered the “best-of-breed” in a single thread.
Btw, Np237, if you want to be friends with Sam maybe you should stop calling him a toxic person. Maybe that helps.
(Never mind that you call me toxic too, that got boring already and I forgive you. Really!)