4 ms·
Except reading the links and keeping the timestamps in mind pretty much the opposite occurred. In 2016 he was blabbing about bestiality and pedophilia / rape of
by deft 7y ago
Except reading the links and keeping the timestamps in mind pretty much the opposite occurred. In 2016 he was blabbing about bestiality and pedophilia / rape of minors and excusing it, but later on he was mostly talking about not calling 18yos children, and saying that not all 'Sexual assault' is equal and different words should be used to describe different actions, he even provides a pretty logical argument for this.
His worst comment was probably this one https://web.archive.org/web/20180131020215/https://stallman.org/archives/2017-jul-oct.html#29_October_2017_(Pestering_women) https://web.archive.org/web/20180131020215/https://stallman....
- fencepost 7y agoRegardless of how his stated views changed over time, the article is more about how such outside-the-mainstream views end up being a significant distraction from the already (unrelated) outside-the-mainstream views of the FSF. Even were he to turn out to be an incredible coder and lover of open source, I also wouldn't expect the FSF to hire David Duke as a spokesman because the combination of two unrelated advocacy positions would be a distraction for both.
- ng12 7y agoI think we need to keep in mind that RMS was posting this stuff very publicly all the while FSF was a runaway success. If RMS were being nominated to lead the FSF today, sure it might be appropriate to point out that he seems like a wack-job. However, as it stands we've lost one of the most impactful thought leaders of the past several decades over some mudslinging and theoretical "distraction".
- XorNot 7y agoFrankly, how? He hasn't been silenced. He still has internet access and the many publishing platforms that affords him. He's been dissociated from a role in an organization. If his ideas so clearly stand on their own, then he should have no problems. What he will not be doing anymore is acting as a direct representative of the organization.
- ng12 7y agoWell I'm sure part of it is that he's been unjustly branded as a pedophile. Also I doubt he cherishes the prospect of starting FSF Round 2.
- XorNot 7y agoWho is branding him as this? He's being branded as an insensitive twit who's pattern of behavior has showed no signs of attempts to change, understand or really engage with the criticism he chooses to attract, and has finally broken the camel's back and this is the result.
- neumann 7y agoI haven't seen him branded as a pedophile. I'll happily brand him as a former pedophile apologist, and have yet to read anything that suggests he has renounced those views explicitly.
- ng12 7y agoI would argue the delta between calling someone a pedophile and a pedophile apologist is pretty negligible in the age of clickbaity news bites.
- fencepost 7y agoIt's not a direct comparison, but what was the financial impact and mindshare/market impact on Uber of Travis Kalanick's perceived 'dudebro' leadership? Heck, how much did Uber spend just on damage control? A controversial and divisive leadership figure is a problem for any organization, particularly once that's dependent on donations. Edit: have you ever witnessed something where all you could think while watching it was "Guy, just shut up, you're doing nothing but hurting yourself by talking."? Now imagine that instead of being some guy on news coverage it's someone who's seen as the public face of your organization, he has a history of doing the same thing and you have zero faith that he won't do it in the future.