31–40 of 943 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, maybe it was "hard to interact with him" only if one was unwilling to accept his difference?
Please stop. He argued that pedophilia was okay.
I wish FSF also started caring about the developers. Free software was and is a great idea, but unintended consequence is that it also facilitates exploitation of software developers by big corporations who from the perspective of FSF are just users as regular people. This means they make billions off of a software who someone built in their rented flat, living a modest life, sometimes struggling with bills, meanwhil…
The creator is free to create what they want, the user is free to support them, or not. What you are not free to do is appropriate the "creation" itself.
I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally of…
As someone who actually has schizophrenia and struggles with it in the workplace and in society: it honestly makes me sick to see people defend Stallman’s reprehensible behavior with some bullshit about “neurodiversity.”
You are throwing an entire population of people under the bus because you’re too immature to accept that RMS is a bad person. It’s pathetic.
There are many invididuals in the Free Software world that backstabbed RMS and tried to destroy him with malicious character attacks. Here is one example:
https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and...
Has Andy Wingo apologized?
I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally of…
I do not. Being unusual does not free you from the burdens of being a decent person, especially while in a public leadership position, especially when your violations are a repeated trend over a very long period. With the right diagnostic criteria just about everybody who is an asshole could be diagnosed with some mental disorder or another and that is more or less the present state of psychology, that kind of reason…
Sure it was a very risky and emotionally charged email thread but RMS still very much seems like a decent person.
I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally of…
I do not. Being unusual does not free you from the burdens of being a decent person, especially while in a public leadership position, especially when your violations are a repeated trend over a very long period. With the right diagnostic criteria just about everybody who is an asshole could be diagnosed with some mental disorder or another and that is more or less the present state of psychology, that kind of reason…
There goes half of Congress, half of Hollywood, many historic figures, and a fair share of executives. How can someone be “disqualified” from being a “public figure” anyway!???!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
plenty of autistic people manage to be decent. making excuses like this simply dodges responsibility and assigns bad credit to millions of autistic people who don't deserve it, and amounts to concern trolling.
Your statement is analogous to saying “all autistic people are the same” which is itself very offensive.
autistic people are not uniquely malevolent, and it is not offensive to suggest autistic people are not uniquely malevolent.
the premise at the root of the thread was that autistic people can't tell bad ideas from good ideas, and should thus go forever uncriticized. both in that it's wrong, and in that it casts autistic people as corruptible and dangerous, when we know very well most "normal" allistic people are perfectly capable of great evils.
advocating that it should be acceptable for autistic people to cause harm is not helpful. it promotes the stereotype that autistic people are harmful, resulting in further social rejection and discrimination, and allows abusive people to hide behind the label.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your statement is analogous to saying “all autistic people are the same” which is itself very offensive.
To me, the only thing implied by the above comment is that "all autistic people are capable of being decent to other people." That doesn't seem offensive, although it may be incorrect (I simply do not know).
I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally of…
There is absolutely zero evidence Stallman has autism, none whatsoever, and absolutely no evidence that he has any neurological disability. The fact that he once described himself as “borderline autistic” isn’t evidence of anything (except perhaps that Stallman is a jerk who doesn’t care about people who actually have autism). As someone who actually has schizophrenia and struggles with it in the workplace and in soc…
I wish FSF also started caring about the developers. Free software was and is a great idea, but unintended consequence is that it also facilitates exploitation of software developers by big corporations who from the perspective of FSF are just users as regular people. This means they make billions off of a software who someone built in their rented flat, living a modest life, sometimes struggling with bills, meanwhil…
They obviously want everyone and anyone to use their software and don't care who makes money from it, if its licenced that way. They can licence it so it excludes large corporations, or even demand recompense under certain situations, such as company size.
Your attitude just sounds like you object to large corporations (and their executives) making money from free software. If it's not your software it's really none of your business.