Here he is, 70, under chemo, giving a speech. He keeps being a force of nature.
May he recover well, or at least have long enjoyable years ahead.
He has/had arguable/unacceptable behavior, but I believe we strongly owe him. He has built incredible software, defined important stuff and kicked our asses in the right direction.
Having cancer myself, I can tell you that there are a lot of misconceptions about what life “under chemo” is like. I’m in a clinical trial for pills now, but when I was doing infusions, the worst of them had me out of commission for about 4 days - chemo day (which was about schedule, not side effects), then days 4, 5, and sometimes 6 after chemo day. The rest were completely manageable, in fact I looked forward to working.
This is not to belittle his experience or cast him in a negative light; I wish him well and I know that overall it leaves you feeling less than normal, and I can completely relate. But “under chemo” is not always as debilitating as you might think.
> the worst of them had me out of commission for about 4 days - chemo day (which was about schedule, not side effects), then days 4, 5, and sometimes 6 after chemo day
Isn't chemo tolerated differently in different patients? It's still anecdotes, but I've heard many stories of people, some usually very dynamic, being strongly weakened by it. To the point some even decide it's not worth it and stop the treatment altogether. I personally know someone currently under chemo too.
Anyway, it's good you tolerate it well and I wish you a good recovery!
> Isn't chemo tolerated differently in different patients?
Chemo subsumes a large number of different medications. What they have in common is that they are basically poison, and you hope that the cancer cells die faster than you. The effects differ wildly between different treatments and patients.
It's also true that chemo treatment has gotten better over the years. Chemo 20 years ago was much harsher and it's not the same anymore. Advancements in pharmacology.
"under chemo" though, isn't some single shared experience. Everyone in that infusion room with you is getting some different sort of poison cocktail in a different strength. And most of the drugs are, quite literally, poison. There's at least 7 broad, very different types of chemo drugs, and subcategories under that. Also, very different total duration and frequencies of infusion. And they all may have other things going on in terms of cancer progression, other unpleasant treatments (radiation, surgical procedures, etc) going on at the same time, and so on.
Doxorubicin might be a good example. It has nicknames like "red death" and "red devil", and many unpleasant secondary side effects. Side effects that are different from other chemo drugs, including an unusually high rate of congestive heart failure.
No, you're right, but the fact that Stallman is 70, and "under chemo," and still giving talks would suggest that whatever chemo he's under is relatively easy on his body.
Most chemo nowadays will make you feel sick for a day or two, but they also usually give you something to manage the symptoms. If it had been a few days since his last dosage, he was probably feeling decent all other things considered. Radiation therapy, on the other hand, is still being burned alive from the inside out, and even opioids are insufficient most of the time. My dad tried to ration my mom's painkillers during her treatments below what was prescribed for her. I told him I was going to quit my job and drive down there to keep him away from her if he wasn't going to be supportive.
even radiation is different for different people - I have had a couple of treatments for brain metastases and due to my proximity to Boston I am lucky to get the most up-to-date treatments available. There's something called Proton Beam Stereotactic Radiosurgery which is a single session, they are somehow able to curve the beam so it enters in three different places and the place where the beam(s) meet is the place that gets the treatment. It's a single session and I don't have any side effects at all.
But yes, when I spoke to radiation oncologist when I was diagnosed 2.5 years ago (and before they had a full picture of what my cancer looked like), he told me to expect to be hospitalized multiple times because the lymph nodes they'd treat were so close to my esophagus and the treatments would burn my espohagus. "Thankfully" the cancer was spread too far and the field was too large for radiation, so the only radiation treatments I've had have been the ones described above.
Modern management of side effects can help a lot, but it's not a surefire thing for any given patient on any given chemo.
When I did chemo, I had cycles with 5 days on - and I couldn't do anything useful during that week, or most of the next week. It was, truly, an awful experience. I completely understand and respect how some people can decide treatment isn't worth it and surrender to the disease.
I have a friend who has been suffering from blood cancer for about 7 years now. Her father died around the time she was diagnosed and she was a 25 year post office employee, so she was able to retire with an inheritance and live her life. She's spent more time on ships on vacation this year than the total vacation time I've taken in my 40+ years on this planet including childhood trips.
> He has/had arguable/unacceptable behavior, but I believe we strongly owe him.
Arguably that describes most people ever considered heroes. Just look at the controversy of anyone who ever had a statue made of them
I think to change the world you have to be somewhat not of it - you have to rebel against social norms. The people who rebel against social norms don't just rebel against the right ones but also are wrong sometimes too.
> However, you don't need to make women uneasy (among other things) to promote free software.
Plenty of people with physical disabilities make people "uneasy" -- who's wrong here? The burn victim or the person taking offence to it? Stallman didn't do anything towards women that warrants the criticism he received. The claims have been debunked and it just comes down to him coming across as a 'creep' -- aka considered unattractive. Yeah, okay.
> I remember being walked around campus by an upperclassman getting advice during my freshman year at MIT. "Look at all the plants in her office," referring to a professor. "All the women CSAIL professors keep massive amounts of foliage" s/he said. "Stallman really hates plants."
If this is true, he must have been doing something to women that goes beyond being unattractive, no?
You really really should avoid making people build such workarounds to avoid you. And the fact that it's women specifically is suspicious.
Now, I'd really like to be proven wrong, that'd be pretty great. It saddens me that RMS was like this.
People are complex and rarely just pure good or bad.
I agree its incredibly dangerous to accept bs just because someone is famous, but i also worry that if we throw out all the sinners we'll have no heroes left.
Its a hard question how to square all that and i don't have the answer.
I think we can recognize heroes as such, without idealizing them and still accept to hear about and recognize their worse sides. I would not want to throw RMS away.
And I think we should also stop considering huge assholes as heroes / models, like Picasso.
Hmm I'm curious. He's been basically running non profits all his life. In the US. How can he afford the treatment? Is the FSF big enough to be able to get medical insurance for their employees?
>Hmm I'm curious. He's been basically running non profits all his life. In the US. How can he afford the treatment? Is the FSF big enough to be able to get medical insurance for their employees?
Since he's 70, he's eligible for Medicare[0]. And likely has access to other insurance through his professional affiliation(s) as well.
If you are poor, medical care is essentially free in the US. I know a few people that had excellent cancer care at some of the best oncology clinics in the country all paid for by the US government.
In that comment, just like in this one, you avoid mentioning anything specific. It appears that you are doing that because you can't defend any implied claims; that doing X, Y, and Z is unacceptable. It's a whispering game where the claims are prefixed with "according to some" or "perceived by many" because it's all smoke and mirrors and no substance. E.g you don't even specify whether it is some behaviour or opinions that are what are unacceptable.
I don't find any opinion of RMS unacceptable. I actually happen to find him very reasonable on most things.
I've read he has had inappropriate behavior with women. I can't know for sure to which extent it is true or false. I find this plausible but have no proof and it could be wrong. The best I can find is this tweet from 2018 I cited in another comment about women at MIT trying to avoid him by putting plants in their offices. I find this quite bad but would agree it's weak.
I also had in mind his harsh email answering this guy announcing his baby on some mailing list, or the numerous times he harshly dismissed questions at his presentations that were not perfectly phrased (that I actually saw it first hand).
There's also this great talk from Keith Packard [1] were he states they didn't use the GPL for X (mostly) because RMS was so annoying.
But the unacceptable status of any of these things is arguable and I fundamentally don't want to witch hunt him. In the end I still admire him and spending time on this is just annoying.
So let's just say that I indeed have no strong evidence of him having unacceptable behavior, so let me clean things up and retract this claim until some strong evidence shows up.
He's also been the victim of some pretty vile smear campaigns and is still going on. I know if I was the target of the crap he got, I wouldn't want to continue doing anything anymore.
I know someone personally that he behaved unprofessionally and inappropriately towards. This was before allegations of his MIT went public. So I was not shocked when that happened.
I guess that's why fake, phony, status-oriented people can't stop themselves criticizing him for all his superficial shortcomings. It's as if his genuineness is a trigger for them and they need to attack him to feel better about how phony they are in comparison.
- the MIT mailing list discussion of a few years ago where he got a lot of flakes for what I indeed believe was a lot of misunderstanding. He seemed reasonable to me, but you really need subtle and careful reading to notice this. It was easy to misread and understand the contrary of was he thinks. I think he should have refrained from participating in this discussion though. While I don't know if it was intentionally driven by opponents, I do think he was defamed a lot, regardless one's opinion on this story.
- his inappropriate behavior with women, who mostly had to (find tricks to) avoid him, from was I read there and there. I don't think he is misogynistic (many examples on stallman.org supports the opposite) but I believe there's no excuse for this inappropriate behavior if true. He should have shown more respect and learned to avoid making people and women in particular uncomfortable. He is incredibly clever, I can't imagine he would be unable to learn what patterns to avoid, he should have bothered more. I know it's difficult in particular for some autistic people (which he might be) to take hints, but I also know some who became incredibly good at it after learning (better than non-autistic people even, precisely because it was a conscious process - not saying it's easy; it is exhausting for some people). And it does not require being able to take subtle hints to avoid obvious sexist behavior. I was thinking of this and the many times he was mean to someone when I mentioned "unacceptable" in my first comment.
> He is very clever, I can't imagine he would be unable to learn what patterns to avoid
I've worked with some very clever people in the past, and many of them are indeed no longer around (in the industry) because of their flabbergasting capacity to not pick up on 'patterns' that would save them from social assassination.
But autistic people are not doomed. They can learn to avoid problematic behavior. Pretty well.
As well as the rest of the population can learn about the difficulties autistic people can encounter in a mostly non-autistic setting and be more understanding / show some empathy.
Probably in the case of Stallman, he grew up in an era before better understanding of the condition and how to deal with it properly. I'd also assume from his general attitude that he wouldn't take too well to being told how to behave.
> I don't think he is misogynistic (many examples on stallman.org supports the opposite)
Intent, outcome and self-image can drift apart quite substantially. Few misogynists would consider themselves as such. Usually because misogynist behavior is still considered normal by quite a few people and pushback against the status quo comes at a social cost.
When I hear stuff like "you need really subtle and careful reading"... it's just an excuse to discount the actual content of the message and invent the meaning you wanted all along. Like, how could I be so stupid to not pick up on this totally opposite point from what RMS was saying?
This point was discussed at length over the years. You have your opinion on it. Likely different from mine. At this point I don't think any of us can change their mind, we both have been forming our respective opinion for a long time now.
Let me precise my phrasing: you might have read this thing with "really subtle and careful reading" and reached a different opinion from mine. I believe it. It's fine. But I do maintain that, in any case, you need really subtle and careful reading to avoid jumping to widely wrong conclusions. I think it was easy to understand horrible things from his wording by skipping a word or two or thinking too fast. The thing with Stallman in particular is that he is particularly very careful with his wording, and I think this whole MIT discussion was no counterexample to this. It's up to us to understand the right thing and it is clear that strongly different interpretations emerged this time, for some reason. And what's worse is that his clarifications might have strengthened both interpretations.
Anyway, that's why I said "Regardless on one's opinion" on the matter. It's easy to find inappropriate comments on RMS that defame him.
That's a long way to say "I gave every statement the maximum benefit of doubt".
A lot of people need to learn that culturally engrained bad behaviors aren't the same as intentionally being a bad person. But neither does it free you from responsibility for your behavior.
What one thinks / what one's ideals are is different from how one actually behaves. Especially when speaking about sexism. Apart from obviously bad behavior, there are many things we do that are sexist without even us noticing and it's important to be aware of this so it can be fixed.
[*] With a difference: I understand a "misogynist" as someone who actively dislike women. See [1]. Sexism ≠ misogyny.
Knew him a long time ago. It's a very different thing not understanding what other people are, compared to bearing them ill will. Definitely interactively incompetent, but doesn't carry ill will.
> From what I gather the big thing is that he's basically very misogynistic.
> And I've seen very little that can disclaim that.
Hang on, no. It's those that claim that someone is misogynistic (let alone very misogynistic) that has the burden of showing that the accused has hatred or prejudice against women, not on others to disclaim it.
If, to that, we add the absolute vilification against anyone trying to defend the accuse, then the allegations can't be evaluated properly in such an environment and deserve nothing but dismissal.
Really? Should OP just bask in Stallman's glory and not notice things that were bad etiquette even in the Victorian era?
Stallman's done some amazing somethings, some average things and some repugnant things (including the field of software engineering/Free Software; see the Emacs and GCC forks, his maintanership of Emacs in the latter part of his time as main maintainer, etc).
Like clockwork, women in tech continue to beg for our community to hold a reasonable standard for how half the humans on earth should be treated when they choose to work in this industry.
Woohoo RS and thank you for your contributions. But one of those contributions is being a living example of how brilliant and highly valuable people in this field can still need to learn the basics on how to treat other people with respect. For the women he's mistreated, it's very unfortunate they had to play a role in that collective lesson. The least we can do is not ignore it or rationalize it away.
On that note, I just don't appreciate or frankly understand the repeated insistence from some people that this is some kind of scheme, there is some kind of conspiracy to complain about successful contributors for mistreating the people around them. This take especially makes no sense to me when the mistreatment is well known and documented. Like, some of us don't want to be treated like shit! So we bring it up when the community lauds praise around someone who does! I don't think this is related to some personality complex held by RS' inferiors with a compulsion to tear down his achievements. Most of the time when I see these criticisms voiced, they are actually wrapped in a highly-polite package that includes heaps of praise besides.
It's exhausting, isn't it? Moralizers will come for anyone and everything.
Tearing down the world, one individual at a time, until finally, after enough characters have been destroyed and enough personalities beaten down, we'll all happily exist in a world where no one's behavior will ever offend. We can all rest easy knowing that we won, that the _____ists of the world have been banished, and finally egalitarianism will prevail.
For those in this thread chomping at the bit to attack a dying 70yo's character, did I do your cause justice?
May he recover well, or at least have long enjoyable years ahead.
He has/had arguable/unacceptable behavior, but I believe we strongly owe him. He has built incredible software, defined important stuff and kicked our asses in the right direction.