Recent searches
Search options
EDIT: this keynote has been cancelled. See the new announcement: https://post.lurk.org/@lgm/114465764697403829
Original Post:
Keynote Announcement: Dr. Richard Stallman
https://libregraphicsmeeting.org/2025/news/2025-05-06_0002-keynote-announcement-richard-stallman
On Wednesday, May 28th at 19:30, Dr. Richard Stallman will deliver a keynote on Free/Libre Software and Freedom in the Digital Society at Libre Graphics Meeting.
See the details in the linked announcement regarding admission to the talk.
I also included a personal note on the decision, as I received mixed feedback.
--Lasse
@lgm What a weird choice of keynote speaker in 2025.
@petrichor @lgm truly!!!
@lgm "After reviewing the complaints and the defense, I concluded that the concerns lacked substantive weight."
This is what enables abuse. If you read https://stallman-report.org/ and still think that, you are abetting abuse.
"There have been attacks against him" - Lasse
So; when you come into a conversation, and this is your framing. You've already pre-decided the outcome and are working backwards to justify it.
I condemn in the strongest the invitation to, and elevation of, someone known to be a danger at physical events, who is unrepentant and who rejected every effort to be helped to find a way back.
LGM is harmed by this action.
@lgm @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo
I’m following this discussion.
Can you explain to me where https://stallmansupport.org is so wrong. Is it completely wrong or just partially? And vice versa, is the “report” completely right?
I also had the impression the “report” was written in a manipulative language and publishing it anonymously doesn’t support it either.
I’d be interested in a discussion that is not so emotionally loaded, and I’m open to arguments. I see and get to feel that you are upset.
@graphicore @lgm @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo More practically and usefully: Why put yourself in the situation of “picking a side” on a clearly controversial issue, where multiple orgs have seen enough to officially cut ties, when there are surely many other people who could enjoy a spotlight and benefit the actual topic - without the risk? Why choose to do this? Pragmatically, does the move make sense?
@mattwilcox @lgm @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo Matt, right. I put the LGM and myself in a bad spot. I did not know or expect that there’s so much explosive hatred in this debate. Especially since it’s a) been a while and b) the “support” page was released later and makes a good argument in my view.
Right now I’m trying to understand the motivations and I’m looking for actual attempts of communication. Thanks for the offer.
@graphicore @mattwilcox @lgm @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo this isn't "explosive hate" this is reasonable people pushing back on someone who is (1) repugnant and (2) irrelevant.
The fact that you think that "its been a while" so that makes thing better is very concerning. If you have to "think" to "understand the motivations" then that is also troubling.
@paperdigits @graphicore @mattwilcox @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo the it’s “been a while” comes from my reading of the “report”being manipulative and I thought that people would change their views when the emotions of reading it had worn off and being presented with reasonable, different interpretations.
Why would “reasonable people [be] pushing back on someone who is […] 2) irrelevant”?
I don’t know where you took the “think” from. It’s that kind of quotation style that makes the “report” manipulative. I may have used “think” somewhere else though and I’d rather “think to understand” than e.g. “eat to understand”.
@graphicore @mattwilcox @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo but people, by your own account, had already pushed back on this on the mailing list, but you disregarded them and went forward with it. Now you're getting the same reaction here. Your assumption that people were just emotional is wrong, clearly.
1/n
@graphicore @mattwilcox @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo All that aside (if that's possible) why would people want to listen to someone say some permutation of the same thing he's said thousands of other times.
Can he even view a computer graphic on a computer he owns?
What could he possibly have to say that would be of value to this group of people that is fresh and insightful?
2/n
@graphicore @mattwilcox @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo I'd assume that you "trying to understand the motivations" would require some "thinking"
@paperdigits @mattwilcox @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo nobody is forced to attend the talk. This discussion is on another level.
@graphicore @paperdigits @mattwilcox @halla @celesteh@lgbt.io @federicomena @doctormo When someone takes an event for all the people and uses it to say, only certain people's safety is important to us, the hall empties. Ask me how I know.
@paperdigits @mattwilcox @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo I’ve had mixed feedback. Not a lot. Not that emotional. Not everyone gave negative feedback.
The style of discussion here clearly makes it uncomfortable to support me, even at least with an actual attempt of communication, in the public to others. To me the RMS-opposition creates a toxic environment—and they tell me I’m enabling bad behavior. Including “leaders” calling me outright an “idiot”.
@graphicore @mattwilcox @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo that's interesting because to everyone else here, platforming RMS makes it a toxic environment.
" they tell me I’m enabling bad behavior" -- why do you think that is?
@paperdigits @mattwilcox @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo I understand where it’s coming from. But it’s fighting fire with fire. It’s not coming from a good attitude, reasoning would be better. And reading any Code of Conduct from the communities involved in this, I was honestly surprised being treated that way.
@graphicore you are not LGM and LGM is not you. People saying "ew RMS, I won't go to that" is not directed at you personally.
@paperdigits @mattwilcox @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo thanks for the debate. I need some sleep now. I will join again.
@graphicore @paperdigits @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo “Reasoning” … As though that hasn’t already been gone through over the years.
As a generality; if we get newly involved in a topic that has its own Wikipedia section, multiple websites devoted to it, and a long history including companies alienating themselves over it: there is well explored depth there; to which any newcomer is not going to add anything unique.
@graphicore @paperdigits @mattwilcox @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo RMS himself is toxic. I can say after having met him.
@f4grx @graphicore @paperdigits @mattwilcox @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo I’ll second that. I had the displeasure of meeting him in person in Denmark a few decades ago. If I recall correctly the issue of inviting him again never came up for the events that followed.
@graphicore @paperdigits @mattwilcox @halla @federicomena @doctormo
Fwiw, I also thought the report was troubling in how it was constructed and some of the conclusions seemed to lack evidence.
However, even if one disregards that particular document, many of the issues it raises have been also documented elsewhere. Stallman has a history of making women feel unwelcome. That by itself should be enough not to invite him to speak.
As you know, there is still a gender gap in FLOSS participation. I don't participate in events that perpetuate that.
The reason I commented is because I have been to an LGM and presented work there. Its a great disappointment that an event I like that had such nice people and good presentations has made this choice.
I would like to go to another LGM, but I only go to events that are on the side of gender equality and that make real efforts to represent the diversity of FLOSS user bases. I'm a white bloke, but if I only see people who look like me, I'm out.
I do hope that you reconsider and approach some women-in-Foss groups for help in how to rebuild trust. LGM does need that help now. While this moment is painful and I wish it hadn't happened, it is also an opportunity for growth.
@graphicore @paperdigits @mattwilcox @halla @federicomena @doctormo
I'm glad to see that this keynote has been cancelled. Please do also reach out to women in FLOSS groups for advice on how to avoid finding the organisation on a similar position in future and for trust rebuilding. I'm afraid that cancelling by itself is not going to be enough, but is a good first step.
@paperdigits @graphicore @mattwilcox @lgm @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo This is absolutely explosive hate with very poor justification. I read through all of the original materials and most of the things that Richard has posted as well as all the things that I could find critical of him. I find it to be a barrel full of smoke.
@wbpeckham @paperdigits @graphicore @lgm @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo It’s a good job we’re all entitled to our own opinions, and it’s ok to think different things. The take-away isn’t who’s right and who’s wrong though.
It’s that getting involved in topics with multiple years of history, multiple involved parties, and multi-company and multi-person ramifications is at best unwise.
@mattwilcox @paperdigits @graphicore @lgm @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo I disagree. I don't care how much emotion there is about an issue or how long it is existed, I truly believe that it is important to be on the right side. Censorship is almost never the right side. I have found many of the things said about Richard offensive, but in looking carefully at what Richard has said, I don't find any of it offensive.
@wbpeckham @paperdigits @graphicore @lgm @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo We all want to feel we are on the right side of things. No one argues to be on the wrong side of something. There comes a point though where it is sensible to ask yourself: how much damage is the argument causing vs the original issue. Is it worth it to yourself. Does further argument achieve anything beyond arguing.
@wbpeckham @paperdigits @graphicore @lgm @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo Also worth pointing out; you may not find things offensive. That is your personal reaction; you’re allowed it. Others do; and that is theirs, and they are allowed it. (1/2)
There is no such thing as “correct” feelings about other people’s behaviour. It’s ok to disagree. And, importantly, no-one involved has or should try to force anyone else to do or think anything else than what they do.
The fact is, some people said “go ahead, and we will not come”. That’s fine. That’s not a threat. That’s a statement. That’s people making choices for themselves. (2/2)
@wbpeckham sorry, but this isn't just "emotion" from one side, nor is *not* inviting someone to give a keynote a form of censorship.
If you really want to be on the right side of things, I'd suggest trying to look at the issues from points of view other than your own. Ask yourself, "Why might this make someone else who is different from me feel unwelcome or uncomfortable?"
@paperdigits @mattwilcox I already did that and I can see why some people might be made uncomfortable but that's not an excuse for censorship and I don't see that the reason for being uncomfortable is adequate or convincing. It's absolutely valid to feel uncomfortable. It's not right to let your discomfort alone control other people's access or opportunities. I'm six foot, two retired military, and some people find me intimidating. I try not to be. But I don't change my travel plans or decisions about what to do or where to do it based on their discomfort. Neither would you.
@wbpeckham again, this is not a case of censorship. Not getting an opportunity is not the same as censorship. And other peoples' discomfort doesn't need to be validated by you, its completely irrelevant if you find others' discomfort "convincing" or not.
The discomfort that arises from RMS has nothing to do with his physical stature, so I don't think your analogy is a good one.
Lastly I'd thank you not to project what I would or wouldn't do.
@graphicore The cancel campaign worked. May your brave decision undo some of the damage, and unmask the real perpetrator.
@LucKeyProductions @graphicore why are you so obsessively going around posting a link to a site that only RMS defenders find credible, in defense of a decision to have him speak at an event where he has little relevant subject matter knowledge?
(there are also plenty people tied up in false beliefs about the victims, induced by violence; whether they're mere victims of falsehoods or accomplices to the campaign of violence hinges on how they respond when called out for the violence they're participating in)
CC: @graphicore@post.lurk.org @lgm@post.lurk.org @halla@kde.social @celesteh@lgbt.io @federicomena@mstdn.mx @doctormo@floss.social
Unspecified major premise.
@graphicore The Stallman "report" website can be traced back to Drew DeVault.
@graphicore @lgm @halla @celesteh @federicomena @doctormo I don't see half of the discussion, so keep in mind I'm only responding to this specific post.
It's difficult to have a reasonable, deep, unheated and productive discussion here since so many servers - like mine - has very short character limits on toots. And both the report and the support website are quite long, so mentioning and explaining every argument and kontrargument would take quite a while.
@lgm ... and Libre Graphics Meeting is now dead to me. 
@davidrevoy @lgm Why? I understand you’re not a fan, but this seems quite harsh. 
@tirifto @lgm Hey Tirifto! It's already well documented ( eg. https://drewdevault.com/2023/11/25/2023-11-26-RMS-on-sex.html ) and I have my own reasons and my own negative history with the FSF because of him.
LGM deliberately chose to praise something with this invitation. Just something I don't want to waste my time on or be associated with anymore. So I'm moving on.
@davidrevoy @lgm I’ve red about much of his behaviour (though I wouldn’t call that link good documentation) and didn’t know you had a personal history with him (beyond what happened at LibrePlanet), so I can understand if you’re that uncomfortable with him. But to be honest, I asked in part because I am deeply disturbed by the sheer single-mindedness and lack of care from what seems like the majority of his critics; I might ask you to hear me out, if you will and can spare the time. 
Remember the open letter against him from several years back. It brought some valid criticism that people had every right to complain for – which they have! But it also brought shameless lies, and yet very few people ever seemed bothered by that. It paints him as a fervent ableist transphobe, but the supporting material doesn’t show any of that if you take a closer look. Yet somehow the letter has accumulated the signatures of many individuals and prominent organisations, none of which took an issue with that. You wrote a post explaining your signature, so I never thought it your intent to put weight behind the false accusations (even though you may have, in practice), but many others didn’t even bother – they just happily signed away.
I don’t find DeVault’s takes on the subject much better, since he relies a lot on guesswork and reading between the lines. While he raises some sound arguments, I find some of his conclusions uncomfortably far-fetched and unacceptable as any kind of evidence. Same with the anonymous report he hosted, listing any statement one could interpret in a negative way, but not those showing care and support for workers’ rights, women’s rights, trans rights, etc… which any sincere attempt at analysing his thoughts and behaviour as a whole can’t afford to leave out.
My point is not that we should accept Stallman. There are valid reasons one may choose not to, and I fully respect them. But that shouldn’t give anyone carte blanche to encourage others to do so with lies, wild guesses, and misinformation. And yet, those have dominated the anti-Stallman discourse for years, and I find it extremely concerning that everyone has been seemingly fine with this. We can and should do better.
For how much the whole outcry has been about morality and thoughtfulness towards others (or Stallman’s lack thereof), no one seems to mind when those are thrown away for the sake of removing Stallman even faster and harder. Not once did I see someone scold GNOME, Framasoft or Mozilla for stooping to this. Only once or twice (out of many dozens of times) did I see someone publicly express their concerns with Stallman while also taking care to distance themselves from hearsay, speculations and blind vitriol – and they’ve earned my respect with that.
Whenever Stallman is brought up, people who’ve rejected him jump at the chance of taking the right side and distancing themselves from (and berating) anyone willing to empower him. (See also other replies to the original post.) But they seem content just knowing they’ve taken the right side, not caring if that side actually behaves in a righteous way. The only problem they see is the other side; they turn a blind eye to the wrongdoing of the people they themselves (directly or indirectly) associate with and give voice to. And I don’t think that’s nurturing a healthy, welcoming and righteous community. (And if that’s not our goal, then… why do we even bother?) You can’t get that by simply keeping out the bad apples; you need to be strict with your own garden, too. But nobody likes to do that. 
Incredible - Drew even goes so far to accuse rms of desiring to rape minors (is Drew deflecting something?).
(Of course in reality, rms is only into adult woman).
People who were mistaken in the past are not allowed to realize they were mistaken and change their mind and therefore deserve to be forever cancelled huh?
I don't see how LGM inviting him to discuss a technical subject is something to be concerned about.