[badatshipping]

Fair point, but the expected norm in society, the one that posts like this draw from, centers around outward tact. Like, the whole moral injunction the author is trying to establish here is that he's saying tactless things.

[krapp]

The author might be offended by Stallman's lack of tact, but I don't think that's the "whole moral injunction." Rather, she places him as an exemplar of a culture that tolerates, if not celebrates, sexist and abusive behavior to the point of excusing and dismissing rape and sexual assault.

[AndrewBissell]

No, it's not about tact, it's about advocating a viewpoint which demonstrably enables child predators and instills justified feelings of fear in women working at institutions alongside Stallman.

[badatshipping]

That's my whole issue here. The author's post makes it sound like her problem is with his lack of tact. She complains about his "choice of words," about how it wasn't "appropriate" to send an email to undergrads, how "shocked" she is.

If the problem is that his viewpoint is morally reprehensible, why not just say that, and let's hear some arguments in that direction?

[krapp]

>If the problem is that his viewpoint is morally reprehensible, why not just say that, and let's hear some arguments in that direction?

I had no problem parsing that subtext from the article. I don't know why you didn't, maybe you just skimmed it?

[badatshipping]

I know she thinks that, but it's not what her post is about. She quotes Stallman, assumes the reader will agree that what he said was problematic, then spends the rest of the article discussing how we shouldn't tolerate problematic people.