> ...just because it's a minority doesn't mean it's inherently wrong.
In this case, at least one of the main points is inherently wrong, because it's based on a lie repeated in some media outlets that Stallman was defending Epstein. But when you actually read his email, you realize it was the opposite.
> This kind of uncompromising, unsympathetic view makes me think less that Stallman stands for something valuable, and more that he wants to use his principles to be a dick.
Stallman is at war, and there are casualties in war. He probably feels that the ends justify the means.
There are few honest people opposing Stallman who has, at the very least, been _extremely_ honest! You can dislike Stallman (as I do) and still believe that he is an honest man.
That sounds terribly exaggerated. If this is the way to describe Stallman, what adjectives could be reserved to the much worse people out there?
You may not care about a random dude in the internet giving you an advice, but consider both sides of the coin and don't fall so quickly into manichaeism.
> These people are attacking Stallman to reinforce their self-image of being "good" and "progressive".
This is a poor assessment, as it doesn't account for the fact that people cultivate the environment they want to be a part of. Removing people like Stallman from positions of influence within the community changes the tone of the community; while you may believe that change would be for the worse, it's better to acknowledge that others genuinely believe the inverse, rather than dishonestly dismissing it as blind reinforcement of self-identity.
>Separately, because Stallman's area of focus extends into community formation and protection of individual rights, I don't agree that his statements about sexual coercion are separate from the rest of his work.
That's a fair point. If someone is going to claim a position of moral leadership over community formation, then being judged on their strange political opinions seems reasonable.
In (what I claim) is an ideal world, the fixed cost to this type of collective action against a person like Stallman, would be high enough that only those who participate in his communities would care about this stuff. I still worry that the fixed cost towards sharing/shaming is so low, that people who have no vested interest in Stallman's locus of influence can still join in for fun. This goes for all internet mob justice.
It is a big difference working on A with people i disagree about B, and actively working against one's values. I can work with non-vegetarians on software, but i would not work in slaughterhouse.
> And not in this case, but what about someone denying the other’s existence?
As an LGBT person (and pro same-sex marriage), i think that mixing up 'being against same-sex marriage' and 'denying the other’s existence' is just horrible rhetorical device, fear-mongering about opponent's position.
>We all have second-hand stories of how, when Stallman came to our cities (in my case Paris) for a conference, he acted like the worst fucking person on earth towards his volunteering hosts.
No we don't. Your vague unspecified second-hand stories aren't any kind of evidence or argument. Come with specifics or this is just slander.
> It is disingenuous to come to the table with clearly cherry-picked evidence
It's a bit like women finding reasons not to like a man (or men in general) or vice versa. [1]
It shows (and I don't know the psych term for it) a very rigid 'good or bad' way of thinking. Life in general is a series of tradeoffs and thinking the way Stallman does just leads to unhappiness. And no question when you become that bitter (in that particular way) you are not happy.
[1] Not sure if Stallmen mentioned or not how Apple and Jobs in particular (at least as reported and popular culture) treated those around him. You know what? I don't care at all about that.
Edit: Note he says 'reasons not to use' he doesn't say 'things that I don't like about Apple'. For that matter he doesn't even say 'reasons I don't use Apple' he is clearly implying that he thinks people in general should not use Apple.
As far as Stallman's choices of what to debate, and how, and where are concerned.
The problem that is being raised here is with the ethics of those who smear an individual's reputation while refusing to admit they were wrong and knowing full well that it is impossible to undo the damage even if they did, and of those who end up supporting the former by shunning that individual.
> I think what Stallman doesn't get is the same thing that I don't get, why should he at all have to be concerned with the feelings or even thoughts of everyone else in the entire world when speaking his mind.
He doesn't have to be.
Of course, equally, they don't need to at all be concerned with his thoughts or feelings when exercising their rights, either.
Now, if he wants them to give favorable consideration to him when exercising their freedoms, well...
> But I suggest that the world would be much better if everyone went even 50% RMS.
I disagree. Stallman infuriates and disappoints just as much as he inspires. He often comes off as rambling and intransigent. Years ago I found an open letter to him that I found reasonable[1]. Near the end, the writer considers how Stallman’s way of presenting an argument is harmful to his goal:
> Dr. Stallman, I have a tremendous amount of respect for your contributions to GNU, emacs and gdb amongst others. You are a man of considerable intellect and programming ability. That said, I nor the people that I spoke with about your talk found you to be a particularly charismatic or persuasive speaker. The only people that seemed convinced by your speech were the ones who had already been leaning towards your point of view to start with. Several friends of mine who had not heard of the FSF before left half way through because they were so put off by some of conspiratorial rhetoric above.
Stallman’s reply was a single line:
> I am skeptical of advice from people who disagree with what I stand for.
Stallman isn’t a paragon or righteousness. He’s a rambling human with as many biases and unreasonable obsessions as the next person. He makes me question if he really wants to change the behaviour of the masses, or if he just wants to mock and deride what he doesn’t like. If he’s going for the former, he’s doing an awful job; you don’t convince people to change their views with aggressiveness and ridicule. If he’s going for the latter that’s his prerogative, but it’s not my belief that people like that are beneficial to the world.
Substitute any group where you feelings for them approaches Stallman's feelings about ALEC. The actual group picked is irrelevant to the argument.
reply