the people who like rms are wrong because rms is demonstrated trash, the people who don't like rms are wrong because they read articles about what he wrote that are factually incorrect. thus we proceed

@sneak trash or no, circulating a public document that calls someone a "dangerous force" with a "dangerous ideology" for having the bad manners to be a stinky nerd who wears his kink on his sleeve is some serious WTF.

@alrs rms is a creep and has regularly gone over the line and trying to normalize it by calling it "kink on his sleeve" is an insult to kinky people everywhere.

also nobody who eats his own toejam in public should be in any position of leadership regardless of how you feel about sjws

@sneak I'll take your word for it. I don't see the danger "old, icky fat man hits on women," neither as a deed nor an ideology. If he's a criminal, someone should press charges. If he's not in control of himself he should be committed. Perhaps if the full-text of the Open Letter About a Dangerous Man was simply "ewwwww!" I'd find it more honest.

@alrs there are tons of things one can do that makes one a creep and makes others feel alienated and unwelcome that aren't criminal but are total disqualifiers for being in any position of leadership.

@alrs the "danger" you aren't seeing is causing drama (which harms the fsf and free software) and alienating people (which harms the fsf and free software)

@sneak "danger" is an argument to put him on a no-fly list or bar him from setting foot within 500ft of an elementary school." In reality the sentiment is: he's gross, he's annoying, we don't like him. The authors of that letter are drama queens of a higher magnitude than #rms, elevating their aesthetic displeasure to a solemn warning about the dangers of some guy they resent. "Profiles in Courage" it is not.

@alrs @sneak Tbh I always thought of Stallman as kind of a dick, but also always that he’s done good stuff. The comment about how “voluntary pedophilia (!) doesn’t harm children” took that to another level though, and I personally wouldn’t associate with somebody who had views like that (even if he retracted the statement for PR reasons.) The main thing I read today seems like people in the org were upset that he went back on the board or whatever -

@northernlights @alrs saying he is skeptical of the claim that voluntary pedophilia harms children DOES NOT EQUAL saying that voluntary pedophilia does not harm children (or that he believes voluntarily pedophilia does not harm children). they are ABSOLUTELY not the same statement.

rms is a hacker, and you have to read what he says in a very literal and explicit manner, or you will read what you imagine he is implying, which is usually wrong.

@sneak @alrs Pedophilia is not something I am interested in having a "rational," "skeptical," conversation about, nor is there a dearth of evidence about it, nor do I have any moral qualms whatsoever about the matter. And this was in the explicit context of a Dutch pro-pedophilia party, which you can go look up, which is something along the lines of NAMBLA, but a political party, and probably a little more extreme. It was extremely stupid, and I'm extremely uninterested in carrying on a conversation as though there's some sort of deep intellectual respectable conversation to be had on the subject of adults fucking children.