121–130 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I'm sure part of it is that he's been unjustly branded as a pedophile. Also I doubt he cherishes the prospect of starting FSF Round 2.
I haven't seen him branded as a pedophile. I'll happily brand him as a former pedophile apologist, and have yet to read anything that suggests he has renounced those views explicitly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are people in prominent positions not allowed to have opinions or interests outside of their job? That is basically correct.
You're allowed to have interests outside of your job, but most workplaces expect you to leave them aside, and focus on doing WORK at work. If your job involves being a public speaker, who is 'on' 24/7, then that's what you have to deal with. You're always free to pursue flipping burgers, or fixing cars, where you only need to be focused on work for 40 hours a week.
Remember this wonderful bout of collective insanity: https://reason.com/2017/04/18/drupal-developer-ousted-over-k...
> 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…
I think this idea that "free speech" means that you're not allowed to criticize or take actions based on the speech of others is a bigger problem. This idea that "free speech" makes you immune to consequences is somehow believed by a huge number of people who are otherwise well-educated. But the position seems to me to be impossible to support. It's just completely logically inconsistent. How can defenders of "free s…
It took about five years for the cultural zeitgeist of Germany to swing from extremely liberal to extremely fascist starting in the late 1920s. Sure, false flag and other political shenanigans hastened the process along - but it was the culture, or in your words, "the market", that managed to move rapidly to the right quite alright on its own.
Imagine if the nascent nationalist tendencies in the US and Europe really start ratcheting upward in a serious way over the next decade. Imagine that, at some point, "the market" judges pro-healthcare or pro-LGBT ideas to be harmful and best avoided. What then?
My point is that what you've done with your argument is handed Nazis all the moral authority they need to repress your ideas if their ideas become popular.
The argument for free speech is that we pay the small price of hearing vile ideas as insurance premiums against good ideas being censored if the pendulum ever swings the other way.
> 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…
The problem is that RMS undermines the FSF's progress by being a dumbass. No one's expects him to solve a moral issue, they expect to him to avoid harming their mission by being a ridiculous troll.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that RMS undermines the FSF's progress by being a dumbass. No one's expects him to solve a moral issue, they expect to him to avoid harming their mission by being a ridiculous troll.
Their mission is his mission. FSF didn't hire Stallman, he created it. I think it's baseless to say that Stallman is either trolling or harming the FSF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their mission is his mission. FSF didn't hire Stallman, he created it. I think it's baseless to say that Stallman is either trolling or harming the FSF.
He created it more then 30 years ago. It has evolved into something much, much greater than himself and so the organization has a very serious responsibility to more stakeholders as well.
That's why I find it hard to believe that his behavior was so harmful to the organization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymous speech is always the last refuge of freedom of speech. You can have that anywhere, it doesn't require a "free country".
thats observably not the case: countries where the government is unopposed in speech censorship do it pretty well. the only way people can engage in speech banned by the authorities is to do so on platforms run by countries who dont care about what they want to say
But it's true that it's going to be a lot easier to remain anonymous when your opponents don't have the resources of a government.
> 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…
If RMS had said "diversity is important but not our only goal", there wouldn't be any FSF drama. He didn't say that. His comments are the wrong comments to defend, I think, for reasons adequately explained in the article. Minimizing the harm powerful people have caused to their victims is not "dissent" we should avoid stifling.
What exact comments? His comments on Minsky controversy are totally just.
>human sexual behavior not a topic on which RMS has adequate expertise Ouch!
I think that's factually accurate. He's not a professor of sexology and (to my knowledge) has never pursued any formal study of the topic. Not everybody needs to be Dr. Ruth, but in some sense, Stallman going on about sex topics when he's not is as much a problem as Sagan once going on about the "reptile brain" without considering how much of the neuroscience he was contemporary to had already disproved that hypothes…
It's not a question of sexology, it's a question of ethics. I doubt that any of his critics are professors of sexology as well, people are arguing on moral ground here.
Many of issues people are attacking him on, are not issues in my country. I don't see many fellow Europeans bothering what he said, it's American moral issue totally.
So this practically means the moment you become the leader, you renounce your freedom of free speech. RMS is a freedom fighter, there is no way he would agree to that. And I'm grateful he didn't give up.