> He didn’t say that it was “possible”, he said it was the “most plausible explanation”. You're right, I had misremembered. This is still not the same thing as

> He didn’t say that it was “possible”, he said it was the “most plausible explanation”. You're right, I had misremembered. This is still not the same thing as "must have", but it is much scloser. I still have trouble seeing this as problematic, because it's still explicitly referring to "presented herself as willing" and not "was actually willing". > If you personally choose to ignore all of this and worship at the cult of personality here, that’s fine. You do you, I’m obviously not going to convince you that zealotry is wrong. This is another example of you reading a lot into what someone wrote that they did not say. I wish people would stop doing that. I think he takes the free software thing well past the point of counterproductivity. Separately from that, yes, he's said some other things that are not socially accepted, many for good reasons. I didn't even respond to the last paragraph of your comment, because I have no counterargument to it. This does not mean he is automatically wrong about everything. I simply empathize with him in some specific cases, because I also live in a world that's actively hostile to me in many of the same ways. I just wound up with more social skills and less executive function than he did. This is very different from agreeing with everything he says. People are complicated.