[noobermin]

I hope this isn't a minority opinion, but making people uncomfortable should not be a reason to take their livelihood from them. If they actively mistreat people and abuse their power to hurt people, that is different. Being socially awkward and insufferable might make you not want to associate with them, but to me that's not enough of a reason to take their life from them.

[X6S1x6Okd1st]

If you are in a leadership position part of your job is making sure people are comfortable associating with you.

Firing someone is not taking their life from them.

[noobermin]

I don't agree with either of your statements. There is a dividing line, which I was pointing out, between making someone uncomfortable and being toxic. I'm not sure, tbh, but it sounds closer to rms was just socially uncouth, he didn't abuse his position of power or anything like that, he just was an unpleasant person. I don't mind may be some sort of intervention over that, similar to what Linus Torvalds faced. Perhaps he has been "called-in" so to speak but that hasn't been stated in this conversation so far. What I consider toxic is closer to retaliating professionally against subordinates you don't like, forcing subordinates to do unprofessional things like favors to curry good standing with you, etc. I could be proven wrong, but a lot of what I've read from rms is he was just annoyingly pedantic, silly at times with off-collar humor, and too much of a "true believer" in various causes. None of that I consider beyond the pale for being toxic, some of those traits (like the "true believer" bit) are actually somewhat commendable, and why extremists often are good in pushing us to better ourselves or at the very least question the foundations of the status quo.

Also, firing someone is taking their livelihood from them. rms might be more comfortable than the average worker, but part of the reason there are special rules around work is in society today people need to work to survive. rms might be wealthy and have a cushion, I have no idea and so this might not apply to him. On the other hand however, free software has been his life's work, and he is being forced out of the organizations he started in order to further that cause. He probably will be hampered from ever contributing to free software moving forward. It might not be on the level of a walmart worker living paycheck to paycheck (which sure is a larger problem) but it is a wrong, at some level, to him if he is not offered a better deal or a chance to change.

[X6S1x6Okd1st]

He has been acting in a manner that drives women away for a long time. There's been plenty of time to cut that shit out.

https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

You may not like the source, but they link to actual examples.

It's the leader's responsibility to create an environment that others feel safe joining.

He did a shit job at that.

I'm in a group he had been fine towards, but I've never found him someone I'd like to follow.

His bad behavior is not new, it's been going on for a very long time, why does he need more time to change? His statement on why he left makes it pretty clear he feels like he didn't say anything problematic.

[shadowgovt]

> part of the reason there are special rules around work is in society today people need to work to survive.

In America at least, we have an entire social safety net intended to avoid that scenario. Doesn't always work as intended, but there are too many counter examples to that simple description to accepted it at face value.

What people often do need work for is self-actualization, money for non-essentials, or to feel like they're making meaningful contributions to society. I don't see anything about RMS stepping down from the FSF that precludes him from submitting patches to whatever open source project he would like, or precludes him from publishing his own thoughts and research on his own website.