[core-questions]

> I'm pretty sure the mechanism is: backing down from your position of power, apologising, being quiet in the community, and finally reintegrating once you've shown that you've learned from your past mistakes.

This requires that you actually accept that your punishment is deserved; which implies giving into the Woke Mob. Not all of us are interested in doing that. Not all of us care so much about "disadvantaged" people, especially in the area of open source which has been as close to a true meritocracy as the species has ever created.

> This person has done some crummy things

RMS is clearly autistic, so whatever "crummy things" he's done need to be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe a boulder of it. I don't care what RMS thinks of women, honestly; I care what he thinks about code and computers and freedom. Why would you look to him for an example of how to treat or think about women? It would be like looking to him for how to think about the NFL or about the coronavirus or something: totally outside of his wheelhouse and ultimately not that important to what he contributes to and works on.

> Being able to do anything with no social consequences would allow people to serially commit to doing horrible things, without ever losing their ability to continue doing them.

The problem is that the Woke Mob has co-opted the control of the definition of what is horrible, and expands it continually over time into areas that were not always considered horrible; and what's more, they apply it retroactively. Giving those assholes access to controlling what happens in computing is not exactly a win for the species.

[krapp]

>Not all of us are interested in doing that. Not all of us care so much about "disadvantaged" people, especially in the area of open source which has been as close to a true meritocracy as the species has ever created.

>I don't care what RMS thinks of women, honestly; I care what he thinks about code and computers and freedom.

God, I love it when the mask comes off completely.

[core-questions]

Implying I put a mask on. Do you think I'm bothered or intimidated by the fact that I hold a contrarian opinion?

I think RMS is a net good in the world. 99% of everything he's ever said and done has been some weird superposition of cringe and prophetic. The entire world owes him a debt of gratitude, but instead he's being slow boiled like so many other folks. I find it disgusting, and cowardly.

Go on ahead and pretend "equity" is somehow progress for as long as you want; eventually, when you're living in a failed state along the lines of South Africa, you'll understand.

[krapp]

Your opinion isn't contrarian at all - plenty of people around here believe as you do that Richard Stallman has earned the right to harass as many women and offend as many people as he likes because his advocacy for free software is more important than human morality. Hell, if it came out tomorrow that Richard Stallman had a private suite on Epstein's island, half of this forum would just wind up thinking the better of Epstein for it. Or that the children were actors planted by Microsoft.

It's just refreshing to see the sociopaths come out to display plumage from time to time, without the usual pretense or prevarication.

[core-questions]

Let me tell you, you don't want to know what I really think about these people. Put it this way: there is indeed something Epstein, Stallman, Weinstein, and many others have in common that seems to enable them to get away with whatever they want to do for ages before it catches up to them.

At least in the case of RMS he's still a net good for the species, in a utilitarian sense, even with what we know of his misdeeds. I won't defend them, rather, the way I look at it is that there was undoubtedly going to be someone of their ilk harassing women, and at least this one has also done something meaningful to go with it. At this point of civilizational decay, I will take what I can get.