5 ms·
For what it's worth, lots of us have been trying to have him be removed for being a sexist dirtbag for a long time. No one really needed media sensationalism t
by KirinDave 7y ago
For what it's worth, lots of us have been trying to have him be removed for being a sexist dirtbag for a long time.
No one really needed media sensationalism to draw a pattern of behavior unbefitting the leadership of the FSF. That some random people overstated some aspects of his Epstein thoughts isn't really why this happened.
It's also a bit ironic you've decided to call it a witch hunt. Witch hunts happened when folks decided to start blaming women for everything without even a veneer of logic or civility. And here we are with a man, having possessed a long history of specific behaviors, being called to account for exactly those behaviors. It's ironic simply because the privileges RMS was exercising are so ingrained in your worldview that demanding he stop treating women like lesser beings is–to you, at least fundamentally irrational and unfair demand.
RMS had hundreds of other controversial opinions. Uttering them did not result in this. In fact, no single act of sexism got him here either. So suggesting that this is merely society punishing a misunderstood outsider on a whim is itself pretty uncalled for.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- atypicaluser 7y agoSo... sexism in and of itself ought to be a punishable offense?
- _jal 7y agoOh, stop it. The GP clearly did not say that. If you need to scroll up and read it again, do so.
- KirinDave 7y agoAre we talking about RMS? If so, RMS wasn't "punished." Folks were tired of his bad leadership and demanded he leave, because he was consistently bad at his leadership job. You can decide this is punishment and it might feel that way to RMS, but I think we can all agree sexism is a bad trait to have in the most senior leadership position of an organization founded around principles of liberty in expression and action. RMS was bad for that cause, and he couldn't keep his position on pure tenure and prestige anymore.
- atypicaluser 7y ago"...principles of liberty in expression and action." It amuses me that you fail to see the irony in your use of that phrase when it comes to RMS being forced to resign for what he said.
- KirinDave 7y agoOh yes, in this case liberty would be allowing a man to stay in a leadership position with power over others despite their defiance of his legitimacy. As we all know, real liberty is when one person has power over others who object to it.
- kentm 7y agoOther people exercising their rights to speech and freedom of association in response to someone's speech is not an attack on freedom of expression.
- emptyfile 7y agoYes, of course, how is this even a question? I wouldn't want a person in my team voicing sexists opinions, I would want that person removed from the team. Let alone as a figurehead and leadership figure.
- atypicaluser 7y agoIt's a question because I'm trying to assess where the line is drawn, eg. if a person is sexist in their private life, but keeps things professional on the job, should they be punished for being sexist? You've helped draw that line, but where does the line really lay?
- KirinDave 7y agoSorry, But I've been around the block enough times here to know that your actual goal is to label this action as "punishment." That's a position with enormous rhetorical value to you. You can use that framing to turn a conversation about a man's actions over time into a philosophical question. That way you can avoid any inconvenient particular facts.
- atypicaluser 7y agoWhat could it be other than punishment? RMS committed no crime. What he did was offend certain people by having the audacity to speak up on behalf of his dead friend. That was his 'act.' Inconvenient enough?
- KirinDave 7y agoWhat, indeed?
- povertyworld 7y agoIt's not punishment. The "most plausible scenario" is that he resigned "fully willingly".
- kentm 7y ago
- butterfi 7y agoum...Yes? Don't we already have laws regarding sexism? Isn't there a whole history of sexism law, going as far back as the Romans? Maybe I don't understand the question...