4 ms·
> willingly resigned from his position at the FSF because of it. I don't think willingly is the best way to put it. It was more along the lines that he was to
by u801e 6y ago
> willingly resigned from his position at the FSF because of it.
I don't think willingly is the best way to put it. It was more along the lines that he was told there would be consequences and he could avoid them if he resigned.
- cmeacham98 6y agoIt's possible this is true, although I personally suspect if he was willing to put out a statement that said something like (paraphrasing) "I did a dumb thing, I'm sorry, I now understand why rape is bad, and I'll work on being better about understanding why these types of things are bad" he would have kept the position. However, even if I'm wrong, and he really was forced to resign, I don't think it detracts that much from my point that GP is arguing against strawmen like "fired for hitting on a women and being rejected" that are completely unrelated to RMS's case.
- belorn 6y agoHe could write out an exact description of what he said and what he has changed his views on, but I doubt people who has seen the media characterization of his comments would be made any happier. He could say "I previous thought the word sexual assault meant the word assault added a qualifier that required the application of force or violence, but I now know that the word assault in this case mean a legal definition that also includes negligent to seek consent and absent of intent to cause harm.". Would that change the media perception?
- cmeacham98 6y agoIt would change my perception, I can't really pretend to speak for "the media" though.
- refenestrator 6y agoNah, that is an optimally bad strategy. Don't concede things you didn't actually say or mean in the hope that it will mollify people, it never works and will only be held against you.