On Recent Controversial Events

The problem is people don't want to associate with an organization lead by someone they have problems with, and a lot of people have problems with his views/behavior. The struggle of the FSF is difficult as it is. He doesn't have to be actively using power/influence.

edited phrasing

> organizations need not and should not elevate spokespeople and leaders who speak regularly on unrelated issues that organizations find do not advance their mission, and/or that alienate important constituents. I, like many other software freedom leaders, curtail my public comments on issues not related to FOSS. (Indeed, I would not even be commenting on this issue if it had not become a central issue of concern to the software freedom community.)

I really respect this. Kuhn is articulating a principle here and then gives an example of how he himself makes a sacrifice to adhere to this principle. This makes him much more credible to me than if he was using the principle solely as an instrument against others.

yes, it's clear that he has some unorthodox views, though all of them are backed by a degree of logic that most people don't apply to these things.

I wouldn't personally touch any of these topics. Too controversial, no gain. But I can't really fault his logic. Of course, social and sexual morality runs on feelings rather than logic, and perhaps that's what RMS doesn't get!

> It really doesn't matter what your view about the controversial issue is; a leader who refuses to stop talking loudly about unrelated issues eventually creates an untenable distraction from ....

I can understand his position, but this is part of the picture of a core problem in society today.

Its NOT that leaders aren't allowed to speak about controversial issues - its that they aren't allowed to advocate ONE side of an issue, while the other side is perfectly OK. You probably shouldn't say "diversity is important but not our only goal" as a CEO, but you CAN say "diversity is the best". That kind of large scale censorship only stifles dissent without changing the dissenters mind. Which is a state of affairs the far left happily accepts - "toxic people dont deserve a voice". Just pray you don't speak against mob or they'll cancel you. Better yet, just don't even think those unthinkable thoughts. Submit to the collective. All your opinions can be inferred from your tribe anyways. You don't really exist, only your tribe does.

> Most importantly, I believe we must find a way to stand firm for software freedom while also making a safe environment for victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, gaslighting, and other deplorable actions.

I understand and I fully stand by his belief that software freedom does not mean egalitarian and morally righteous principles have to be undermined in order to progress.

However, it is not the FSF's job to make sure those values are upheld in every facet of moral righteousness. The goal is clear: make and keep software free as in liberty. That's it. Anything else should be completely within the realm of personal viewpoints.

I completely and wholeheartedly stand by the fact that we as a society need to deal with sexual violence much better than we are currently doing so.

Not an ounce of my being, however, places the burden on dealing with this onto Stallman's, or Kuhn's, or any other FSF member's shoulder. Help if you can. Help if you want, but if your job is to make software free, you're doing great. If you can solve other moral issues while doing so, even better, but it's not required.