Richard M. Stallman resigns

> All that being said, it is hard to be all "free speech is over" doom-sayer when the person in question has repeatedly (and we're talking decades) said creepy things that cumulatively sets up a pattern of behavior. This isn't Joe Shmoe hopping onto the internet the first time and losing his job. It's disingenuous to try to spin this event that way.

I think that’s the point here. RMS was always a creep who had very odd opinions on many different topics. I never liked the man nor thought much about his opinions and yet I was using software he created. He is creep, but he was tolerated.

I find 2 perspectives here. First is - am I the creep right now who is being tolerated. Maybe? I don’t know 2050 standards. Maybe I am and will be removed because I shown 2050 Toxic Behavior for years, which might be criticizing social media. No idea.

Second is - RMS is a human being. Not every one of us is pristine human being nor have luxury of being pristine and perfectly moral. Biology and past traumas do their thing. As far as I know, there aren’t any crimes he committed and if there were, he should be properly sentenced. If he was tolerated for past 30 years, shouldn’t it be more in sense of “ok dude, your time is up, here are your accolades, pack your stuff and have fun” instead of having witch hunt bringing every single piece of dirt people can find? Nah, that wouldn’t make sense, right?

Free speech is not all over, because I’m typing this right now. I am aware, though, that criticizing RMS “process” might bring consequences to my life if the mob decides to target me. If this process progresses we’ll end up in the state where I won’t discuss anything online and keep all my knowledge and experience for myself. And there was a time in history where life was just like that.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if I had made such a comment on a public platform and any of my previous employers learned of it, I could 100% expect to be terminated if it came to light. Whether his final philosophical view on the matter is morally correct or not is not the focus here. I can completely understand why a foundation would not want a man who apparently had to be talked into understanding why sex with a child is wrong to be its very visible leader.

You're talking about a role that has to inspire by example, someone responsible for advocating for your institution publicly, recruiting supporters, and so on. No one who has a history of making incredibly suspect comments about children and sex should expect to stay in such a role.

Incidents like this are NOT about setting up an ethics court and decide the morality or immorality of the person's views. They're about an organization waking up one morning and saying, You know what, we really would rather not have someone with a history of bizarre pro-pedophilic comments as our leader. For god's sake, how would you feel if your CEO had a personal web page with a history of arguing for lower age of consent laws? At a certain point people just don't want to come 'work for' such a person.

And really, who among us would be surprised to wake up and find "RMS indicted on child porn charges" on the front page news? People with normal views on child sex topics tend not to be the ones out there talking about 'ephebophilia' and "now I'm no psychiatrist, but here's my argument for why children actually CAN consent to sex with adults." I'm not saying I'm convinced he's a pedophile, or even that I believe him to maybe be one. It's just not a revelation that would shock me.

Citation needed.

Not saying it is or is not true. But these are powerful claims to be marking with no sources.

From your description and other things I'm reading here, I somewhat expect him to commit suicide.

His work life is over, and he doesn't seem the type to be able to transition to anything else.

He'll write a letter saying: "I've done everything I intended, and can do nothing further."

RMS: If you are reading this: I highly suggest you throw yourself into a major programming project. Something you've been trying to finish for years, but never had time.

> It seems there are many people here who likewise are blind-sided as to why suggesting an underage girl would be entirely willing to have sex with an adult and presented herself willingly would be nothing more than a 'controversial opinion'.

As what he said is literally presented, it is a possible interpretation of the facts: that Minsky may not have known she was coerced because of Epstein's instructions. How much of Minsky's culpability this erases if Minsky did indeed have sex with her (which is disputed itself) is open to debate.

Buuuuuuut, that's a pretty nuanced point to make. It needs to be made more carefully and respectfully to not just descend into rape apologia. Epstein's (and maybe Minsky's) victims are still alive and have feelings. And we want to create a better culture.

And if you're the guy who has already gone on record for not knowing why "voluntary pedophilia" is OK--- maybe you're not the guy to make this point. Because, after all, there's plenty of evidence that you're not so good at it, and your history taints it all.