3 ms·
But agnostic to this specific situation, you would acknowledge that there could be a situation in which the people kept away are morally confused to the point i
by rscoots 6y ago
But agnostic to this specific situation, you would acknowledge that there could be a situation in which the people kept away are morally confused to the point in which it's actually better to do without them from a moral (and long-term business) perspective.
"Having a CEO in favor of Data Privacy/Product Safety/Responsible Bank Lending will lead to thousands of potential employees avoiding our company!"
I'm sure you'll disagree with the particulars on the FSF case, but I'm just saying popularity is not the slam-dunk you're implying.
- hnbad 6y agoYou're being intentionally reductive by pivoting to "popularity" when we're talking about someone who has a history of sexual misconduct, highly inappropriate behavior and outright abuse. Women don't avoid RMS because they think he's a bit of a prick. Women avoid RMS because he's making them feel unsafe. And this comes on top of him being a massive prick to people in general. Also not actively alienating people who work for the FSF is literally part of the job description. He's unqualified to lead a development team let alone the entire organization.
- rscoots 6y agoThen why invoke the "hundreds or thousands" point at all? Seems irrelevant and sort of crass given the gravity of the other qualms you have.