21–30 of 681 posts
He might’ve been an influential figure, but he’s still a creep. Just because someone made something once doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye towards them.
How is he a creep and what did he do to justify how he was treated? Did you read his comment about his defense of Marvin Lee Minsky? Precisely what was creepy or wrong about it?
He might’ve been an influential figure, but he’s still a creep. Just because someone made something once doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye towards them.
> What’s most disturbing about this is how many of my friends and peers support Stallman’s removal. At first it was because they took the false accusations at face value. When I pointed out that these accusations were lies, they supported Stallman’s removal for other reasons. They focused on his tone deaf communication style and awkward demeanor. They spoke of behavior from decades ago and pointed out the fact that h…
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Stallman/Archive_...
Now let's address the underlying point: You don't get X good thing without Y bad behaviour. I don't agree with this. It's a weird sort of blackmail "Put up with my bad behaviour because you need me". Firstly, For all we know, if we had been less tolerant of bad treatment of people in the free software movement, it'd be a much more powerful movement today than if we had allowed a small number of toxic individuals to take leadership roles and drive out many potential contributors. I see that as no less likely than the scenario put out in this defense.
Secondly, this attitude shifts the responsibility away from the individual for their actions. If someone has a lot to contribute but it never happens because their attitude sucks, that's on them. It's not on us to enable them.
"Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism."
What about BSD?
He might’ve been an influential figure, but he’s still a creep. Just because someone made something once doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye towards them.
Am i reading it correctly that the author implies that the end justifies the means (in this case stallmans behaviour) because without it we would not have what we have today. Unless you have a time machine that is just speculation.
"The end justifies the means" makes it sound like he was a Nazi soldier.
Tell me what you mean by "the means".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is he a creep and what did he do to justify how he was treated? Did you read his comment about his defense of Marvin Lee Minsky? Precisely what was creepy or wrong about it?
It is not an isolated incident. There are multiple documented cases of him behaving like a creep and spouting "controversial" statements.
this just makes me sad. I believe, everything Stallman said but I could never say it out loud. He did. He was right. "Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism."
Am i reading it correctly that the author implies that the end justifies the means (in this case stallmans behaviour) because without it we would not have what we have today. Unless you have a time machine that is just speculation.