[jaxbot]

It also wasn't in isolation; he made very similar remarks in 2006 on his blog that he got flak for, but people mostly brushed aside as 'oh, Stallman..'

Comments here seem to mostly equate this situation to a Cancel Culture outcry over an isolated remark. That's not what happened here. rms has had decades of inexcusable behavior for any individual, much less someone affiliated with MIT and heading something as large as FSF. He had to answer for this eventually.

I sincerely appreciate his contributions to this world. But I also sincerely feel that we can't give people free passes for their behavior (see: courtesy cards at conferences) just because they've done well in other respects. We need to end the acceptance of Brilliant Jerks.

[freedomben]

I think I mostly agree with you, but what should happen to people with "inexcusable behavior?" should they be fired once? Should they be unemployable for all time? Is justice served after decades of living in a gutter? When we react with outrage mob justice we make people toxic to all future employers. It's extremely hard to ever rebuild your life, especially now where everything on the internet lives forever. I agree that we need to turn around acceptance of "brilliant jerks" but the Law of Unintended Consequence here in many cases seems way worse than the original problem we were trying to solve.

[KirinDave]

RMS is not going to have a problem finding employment in six months or so. He's just going to have to spend some time demonstrating he's not a sexist liability before he can take leadership positions again.

That seems reasonable and fair.

> I agree that we need to turn around acceptance of "brilliant jerks" but the Law of Unintended Consequence here in many cases seems way worse than the original problem we were trying to solve.

Which is... what exactly? You're appealing to a slippery slope but from my perspective we climbed UP said slope to get to holding RMS to account for years of bad behavior, and even now reprehensible folks are using awful excuses like, "They're just on the spectrum" as ammo in the "Yes but he's a powerful man" argument they've been winning for a long time.

[nanoanon]

This is the sad truth of the times we live in. You garner an audience, and then you exhibit an opinion that is controversial then well, you shall be promptly destroyed. And these things need not happen now. You garner an audience at any point in the future and your online presence will be decompiled, diagnosed for bugs, and all errors will be promptly ostracized by the armchair armada of online experts. This is the age that the internet lurker is now the commentator, the internet commentator is now the journalist, and the journalist is now the lawyer. Your livelihood now at the mercy of any and all denizens, including bots, though they only give 3/5s the upvote.

[mikeash]

What should happen is that he should either find an employer who will tolerate his inexcusable behavior, go into business for himself, or learn to shut the hell up at work.

We don’t need to worry about his entire life. That’s his job. We can say “this person clearly should not be leading an advocacy group” without figuring out a whole future career path for him.

[electricviolet]

Of course they should still be able to live a good life, but they should certainly not be able to hold a position of power over the people who their opinions are offensive towards and still be allowed to express those opinions.

[JshWright]

> I think I mostly agree with you, but what should happen to people with "inexcusable behavior?"

They certainly _shouldn't_ be in a leadership position... (where that "inexcusable behavior" becomes a barrier to participation for various groups)

[colechristensen]

Definitely RMS should be unemployable in any position which would involve public prominence, leadership, or significant influence. After a decent amount of time if he makes a believable atonement perhaps some return would be possible.

[mangodwango]

His Behavior being commenting or having opinions on things we don’t agree with? I think he should be able to say whatever he wants, and further that in this instance his comments have been taken wildly out of context.

I hate this morality police sweeping in saying that he simply can’t talk about this because it is forbidden, wrong, etc. The majority should not decide what is ok speech or thought, we should judge him by what he has actually done, and challenge his thoughts directly with reasoned argument rather than immediately dismiss and denounce anything that isn’t in the moral majority.

[roguecoder]

Yeah, you can’t excuse pedophilia in decent society because it puts kids at risk. Legally you can say whatever you want, but legally no one has to employ you when you do.

Freedom of association is just as important at freedom of speech.

[jgwil2]

Being fired or pressured to resign from a prominent, public position because of something you say is not a free speech issue. You can say whatever you want as a private citizen, but as an employee of an organization you are held to different standards.

[bairrd]

There's a difference between holding diverging opinions, and defending someone who had sex with a sex trafficed minor, right? If we don't uphold at least that as a society, what are we?

[dependenttypes]

> rms has had decades of inexcusable behavior

Then why attack him now and try to force him out of the organisation that he founded over something people misunderstood? They could just call to fire him over actual abusive behaviour instead.

[corey_moncure]

Stallman's accomplishments and legacy aren't what they are "in spite of" his personality. They're a direct consequence of it.

You're happy to benefit from the freedoms he fought for, the free GNU, built by GCC, and GPL licensed software that runs on your computer, your car, your phone, and your TV, and all the platforms you use on the internet (including this one). But you won't accept any Brilliant Jerks! I'm sure you'll put your money where your mouth is, and boycott all of these.

And while you're at it, why don't you list your numerous noteworthy accomplishments in life, and pinky-swear that you've never said anything in public that you regretted.

[mr_spothawk]

> decades of inexcusable behavior for any individual

That's blowing it way out of proportion. You mention one remark 13 years ago, and refer to it as decades.