3 ms·

You miss the argument. The question isn't whether people should have the freedom to disassociate. I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise. The question is whethe

You miss the argument. The question isn't whether people should have the freedom to disassociate. I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise. The question is whether it's wise or beneficial to use that freedom in this way.

mthoms 7y ago
The parent seemed (here and elsewhere) to argue that RMS was having his freedom of speech hindered vis-a-vis the fact that people were disassociating with him. Further arguing that RMS should be able to say anything he wants as long as he's honest (paraphrased). I only argued about freedom of association to counter that simplistic thinking. That is, yes it's your right to say whatever you want, but it's my right to disassociate from you if I don't like what you're saying. > The question is whether it's wise or beneficial to use that freedom in this way I agree whole-heartedly with this more nuanced take on it. In a round-about way, that was kind of my point - That the matter is not as simple as being able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, and not have repercussions.
- lisp-missionary 7y ago
  No he was fired for not agreeing with other people on a topic completely unrelated to his responsibilities. Software liberalism at its finest.
  - kazinator 7y ago
    The thing is, there are very different kinds of responsibilities. One person's responsibilities are to perform some assembly line step in a factory. Another person's responsibilities consist of being a representative of an organization. If a person has responsibilities as a representative, then there isn't a clear cut separation between their private conduct and that representation, and they have to be aware of that and accept it, however reluctantly that may be. Anything that leader says and does may be interpreted by the public, rightly or wrongly, as being part of the representation.

3 ms·

You miss the argument. The question isn't whether people should have the freedom to disassociate. I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise. The question is whethe

by humanrebar 7y ago

mthoms 7y ago
The parent seemed (here and elsewhere) to argue that RMS was having his freedom of speech hindered vis-a-vis the fact that people were disassociating with him. Further arguing that RMS should be able to say anything he wants as long as he's honest (paraphrased). I only argued about freedom of association to counter that simplistic thinking. That is, yes it's your right to say whatever you want, but it's my right to disassociate from you if I don't like what you're saying. > The question is whether it's wise or beneficial to use that freedom in this way I agree whole-heartedly with this more nuanced take on it. In a round-about way, that was kind of my point - That the matter is not as simple as being able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, and not have repercussions.
- lisp-missionary 7y ago
  No he was fired for not agreeing with other people on a topic completely unrelated to his responsibilities. Software liberalism at its finest.
  - kazinator 7y ago
    The thing is, there are very different kinds of responsibilities. One person's responsibilities are to perform some assembly line step in a factory. Another person's responsibilities consist of being a representative of an organization. If a person has responsibilities as a representative, then there isn't a clear cut separation between their private conduct and that representation, and they have to be aware of that and accept it, however reluctantly that may be. Anything that leader says and does may be interpreted by the public, rightly or wrongly, as being part of the representation.