[strken]

People who denounce sexism because they've got a moral framework or intuition that tells them sexism is bad are principled actors. People who denounce sexism because they're trying to get likes on social media, because it grants them social approval, or because they've made a job out of it are acting out of self-interest. Not everyone who is in the second group knows what their motivations are: people usually come up with seemingly altruistic reasons for self-interested behaviour, and genuinely believe those reasons, even though they wouldn't behave that way if they weren't getting anything out of it.

As per the article, "punishment should be proportional to the offence", and punishments should ensure the offender will "constructively come to understand, repent, and make amends for an infraction". The first group can be relied upon to see transgressions in light of their broader moral principles. They won't always seek punishments that are proportional and restorative, because those are moral principles in themselves, but they'll at least be trying to do what they believe is a good thing.

The second group is scary because they just don't stop. They'll keep doing things in order to get the reward of social approval or social media, for as long as that reward lasts. Even worse, because they don't have good introspection about the underlying rewards that incentivise them, they'll reward each other for escalating. They'll tear people's lives apart without a shred of guilt, because they're getting something out of it, which is why they're seen as predators.

[dguaraglia]

I understand your argument, but wouldn't be the opposite be true too? Aren't RMS's comments defending Minsky just a form of 'clout seeking' and being argumentative for arguments sake?

If people are making the case that RMS is neurodivergent and therefore his behavior should be tolerated, shouldn't we be making exactly the same argument about the people you put on the latter group? Or is it only people we agree with that get the benefit of being 'neurodivergent'?

[strken]

The argument was explaining why Twitter mobs form and what they're getting out of it, not in favour of RMS. I think the general principle of scepticism towards people who benefit from the stance they hold applies to you and I, to RMS, and to his detractors.

That being said, I don't think he expected to benefit socially from the opinions that got him cancelled in general, or from complaining about the term "assaulting" in particular. His autism is less relevant than there being no real gain for him. It being a costly opinion for him to express is evidence he genuinely believes it. Whether or not he should be tolerated is another question, but I don't think he's the metaphorical wolf here.

[_euac]

This seems like a very arbitrary and capricious partition between those doing something for 'clout' and those doing it because they can't help themselves.

Do you think the people now being attacked in this thread because they originally called for Richard Stallman to face consequences are being 'canceled'? I see a lot of people claiming nobody should take them seriously ever again, blah blah blah. Sounds like 'canceling' to me. Is this mob any better than the supposed 'cancel culture' mob?

In other words: should we stop using the term 'cancel culture' only in one direction?

[strken]

It's not a partition between the things you said, it's a partition between beliefs that would be held absent any reward vs beliefs that are only held due to a reward. RMS doesn't gain anything from arguing that the age of consent should be lower, since it just makes everyone call him a paedophile, therefore he's probably making it in good faith, therefore he's making a genuine attempt to do the right thing and should be engaged in good faith. His autism is only relevant insofar as it makes him more likely to say things without understanding the social consequences.

Additionally, nobody in this thread has been removed from any boards, fired, barred from attending conferences, or in any way cancelled, to the best of my knowledge. If that happens it will be bad. It hasn't happened. Donglegate got both parties fired, and that was also bad. I don't think cancel culture is used only in one direction, it's just that tech industry workers don't cancel the left very often. Steve Klabnik is allowed to go around calling himself a communist without getting removed from anything, for example.

[_euac]

> It's not a partition between the things you said, it's a partition between beliefs that would be held absent any reward vs beliefs that are only held due to a reward.

You keep implying that the only possible reason people would denounce RMS's behavior is because they 'get rewarded' for it. I'm surprised you can be so certain about it, when it's perfectly possible they are doing it because they've suffered abuse themselves or have a genuine concern that certain arguments - even when made in good faith by a supposedly autistic person - might make other people feel uncomfortable or unsafe.

Imagine being a young freshman woman at your alma mater and someone starts waxing philosophical about whether a 50 something year old man having sex with a minor is assault or not depending on whether 'they presented themselves as willing'. Would you feel safe? What if the same guy is known around your alma mater as somewhat of a creeper? What if he's defending someone who is associated with a guy who owns an island where people go to have sex with underage girls and is now accused of having had sex with one of them? How safe would you feel then?

> Steve Klabnik is allowed to go around calling himself a communist without getting removed from anything, for example.

Weird that you'd somehow equate being a self-declared Communist (a political ideology) with defending pedophiles (a literal crime).

[strken]

I don't mean to imply that all criticism of RMS is invalid at all. If that's what you got from my explanation that his detractors fall into two separate camps, then I must not have explained it very well. Let me be absolutely clear, then.

Some people criticise RMS because they don't like the things he said for moral reasons, whether intuitive or explicitly thought through. Those people mostly act in a way that they believe is effective at stopping the thing they don't like. I support these people, even though I don't agree with them all the time.

Some people criticise RMS because they've been trained by the Skinner box that is social media to dogpile onto anyone who's the target of criticism, or because all their friends don't like RMS and they want to fit in, or because they've made a career out of outrage. I don't like these people and view them as pack-hunting predators.

With regards to the rest of the post, I feel like you're fishing for things to be angry at me for, on the basis of a fundamental miscommunication.