5 ms·
And what standard is that—not allowing leaders to discuss cases objectively in public in case they might be misconstrued?
by jkbjotnip 7y ago
And what standard is that—not allowing leaders to discuss cases objectively in public in case they might be misconstrued?
- chroma 7y agoI think it's worse than that. IIRC, he discussed it on a private mailing list and someone leaked his emails.
- dlp211 7y agoThat's not what happened. If RMS had actually argued the case objectively, he would have used reported testimony that cleared his friend. Instead he went off on some hypothetical to excuse the bad behavior (which reportedly didn't even happen) of his friend. It was the wrong forum, the wrong topic, and the wrong argument. It shows a complete and total lack of good judgement. Combined with his history of such a lack of judgement, that is the standard which we should hold people to.
- flukus 7y ago> It was the wrong forum Apparently it was the right forum to be inviting people to protest Minsky and to label him a racist and pedophile. So why not to defend him? Were the people calling him a rapist and pedophile sacked as well?
- dlp211 7y ago2 wrongs don't make a right. And again, there was a non-hypothetical, objective argument that could have been made to defend Minsky. RMS did not make that argument, instead he went off on some hypothetical that may or may not have happened, but there is at least one eyewitness testimony that says it didn't. And this wasn't RMS's first time wading into bad positions on topics that honestly aren't up for debate.