[ChrisMarshallNY]

“It’s only bad if there’s a law against it.” We used to be able to buy LSD on sugar cubes at record stores, because there was no specific law against it. Most folks just became really annoying for a few hours, but a number ended up in hospitals for the remainder of their lives.

There’s a strong argument that all drugs should be legal, as it will allow natural selection to work, but tell that to the families of drug overdose victims; many of whom OD on their first go.

As a former manager, and as someone that holds a fairly senior position in an organization that has very little to do with what we talk about here, I can tell you that words have consequences. They can be tremendously good, or tremendously bad. They can manifest into true criminal behavior, and that’s one reason why cult leaders and other instigators are prosecuted; even though they, themselves, didn’t get their hands dirty. Anyone remember Charlie Manson? Some of the worst criminals, during the Rwandan genocide, were radio DJs, who whipped people into a frenzy, and reported on the locations of Tutsi families.

That said, I am also someone “on the spectrum,” as they say, nowadays, and have spent my entire life, being held to account for my blunt comments and lack of empathy. I learned to compensate, and am now in a position to do real damage, if I’m not careful about what I say.

A bricklayer can spout off a bunch of nonsense with few ramifications, but the owner of the construction company needs to be careful what they say.

[beaconstudios]

> “It’s only bad if there’s a law against it.”

From my question:

> but has he actually harmed anybody? Committed any crimes?

So I'm not sure who your argument there was aimed against, but it wasn't me. I suspect any resemblance between the law and the morality of harm-reduction is merely coincidence.

> As a former manager, and as someone that holds a fairly senior position in an organization that has very little to do with what we talk about here, I can tell you that words have consequences.

Obviously yes, saying dumb things will get you criticised and people may think you're a dick. But there's a difference between saying "RMS is socially indiscrete and thus should not hold a political position within our advocacy organisation" and "RMS is a bad person and even suggesting that he hold such a position is a resignation-worthy offence". FWIW I agree that RMS seems to be socially incompetent enough to not be a political leader, but that doesn't account for the feeding frenzy around the prospect of his re-appointment.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Well, since this was honestly asked, as opposed to "Why don't we swan dive into the cesspool," I'm happy to relate my experience, and the opinions derived, thereof.

First of all, I don't have an axe to grind, re: RMS. I'm grateful for his contributions, and find some of what he says a bit annoying (but not something I lose sleep over). I honestly don't care whether or not he sits on the FSF board. It has almost nothing to do with the day-to-day work I do.

> but has he actually harmed anybody? Committed any crimes?

Well, the actual question was "Committed any crimes?", verbatim, so answering, by referring to the law of the land (or lack, thereof), is quite understandable. We live in a time, where "If it's legal, it's gold." seems to be the modus operandi of the business world. I find that we spend precious little time, considering such trivialities as Honor, Integrity or Honesty, when looking only at the legal code.

As to "harming someone," I suspect that we may not be the best judge of that. I deal with highly traumatized people, several days a week, and am quite aware of the grievous harm that can be done by folks, not intending to do harm. Often, the most damage is done by simple words (or lack of words), from those in a perceived position of authority (like parents or bosses).

> Obviously yes, saying dumb things will get you criticised and people may think you're a dick.

When people in positions of authority (and RMS is definitely an authority, whether or not he sits on a board) say stuff, it has a lot of impact. In my extracurricular world, I also spend a lot of time, running around with baby wipes, and a pooper-scooper, cleaning up emotional and physical damage, caused by the careless words of folks with authority that refuse to take Responsibility for their positions of influence. I have been one of those people, and have caused damage, by careless words.

I get rather peeved at people that have achieved some position of influence, then disregard the considerable Responsibility that comes with the trappings of power. Like I said, a bricklayer can spout off a bunch of guff, but their bosses are morally (and sometimes, ethically, and even legally) Responsible to watch what the heck they say. Today's hyper-connected world makes this even more imperative. Jerome Powell can crash the stock market by taking off his glasses to rub his eyes.

I really wish that society did a better job of teaching simple ethics, courtesy and logic. As someone who actually has a somewhat diminished capacity for this, I have had to learn it from scratch; often the hard way. I have caused a lot of hurt and embarrassment, over the years, been held to account, and have had to apply a great deal of self-discipline to mitigate my natural inclinations. It has not been fun. It's difficult for me to be sympathetic to folks that should have it come natural, and I know, for a fact, that there is a better way.

[beaconstudios]

> Well, the actual question was "Committed any crimes?", verbatim

Perhaps my grammar was too ambiguous, but the question was intended as an either/or, not a continuation clause. I listed real harm first as a higher priority too. Committing a crime was if anything, a secondary concern - if someone had claimed he was guilty of stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family I wouldn't be up in arms against him.

> I find that we spend precious little time, considering such trivialities as Honor, Integrity or Honesty, when looking only at the legal code.

True enough - codification is treated as a very Holy concept under modernism. If the letter of the law doesn't explicitly state so, then it's OK. I consider that one of many of modernism's failings.

> As to "harming someone," I suspect that we may not be the best judge of that. I deal with highly traumatized people, several days a week, and am quite aware of the grievous harm that can be done by folks, not intending to do harm.

This is not a useful measure because people can claim harm for nearly anything. The best thing that can be done for highly traumatised people is to help them get over their trauma and successfully begin navigating society again. Wrapping victimised people up in cotton wool does nothing to help anybody, especially if doing so requires that wider society constrict itself. I say that as someone with complex PTSD myself.

> In my extracurricular world, I also spend a lot of time, running around with baby wipes, and a pooper-scooper, cleaning up emotional and physical damage, caused by the careless words of folks with authority that refuse to take Responsibility for their positions of influence.

Emotional and physical damage are not equivalent. If I say something in innocuous innocence and you take offense or it triggers an unreasonable response from you, it's not on me to navigate your issues. If I do physical harm to you, I should be in prison. Of course there's a line between being accidentally and intentionally hurtful, and the line is intent.

> I get rather peeved at people that have achieved some position of influence, then disregard the considerable Responsibility that comes with the trappings of power. Like I said, a bricklayer can spout off a bunch of guff, but their bosses are morally (and sometimes, ethically, and even legally) Responsible to watch what the heck they say.

Of course that is true, and why I don't believe RMS should steward the FSF: he's just not socially capable of the position, too abrasive. But that doesn't make him a toxic person or worthy of cancellation or whatever - it's just not his wheelhouse. This entire thread is about me asking if he's actually done anything bad, besides being socially inept.

> I really wish that society did a better job of teaching simple ethics, courtesy and logic.

That's what parents, personal experience and community are for. Unfortunately, community is dead in the city, so parents and personal experience it is.

Most people in my experience get stupider as they become more logical. HN is a perfect example of this.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Well, I sincerely wish you well, in your journey. I am familiar with that kind of thing. Well worth it, to do the hard work.

I am not a fan of what is termed "cancel culture." Unfortunately, the whole thing has turned into a polarized litmus test. We forget that there are real people connected to these words and actions; on both ends of the exchange.

Let me tell you about Onnig.

Onnig was a former engineer, in Lebanon, and had to flee to the US, with his wife and children, when things went bad, over there, in the 1970s or 1980s. I met him, because he lived in the apartment one floor above my girlfriend (now wife). Back then, he was in his nineties. I'm sure he's long dead.

He was a survivor of the Armenian genocide/massacre/whatever you want to call it. A lot of people died. It truly sucked.

Onnig and his wife had nothing. The apartment was a cheap living arrangement. I suspect their kids helped them to stay above water (I know their daughter, at least, was a lawyer).

Onnig and his wife were some of the kindest, and most generous people I have ever met. They helped my girlfriend out, numerous times. She was a single mother, and didn't have a pot to piss in. They used to leave bags of day-old bagels on her apartment door, a couple of times a week. They were also Salvation Army bell ringers. I'd run into them, at a local mall, at Christmastime.

Onnig was also pretty damn racist. I quickly learned not to let the conversation go to places that would let him go off. I never confronted him on the matter. I just refused to feed the beast.

Some folks would have absolutely destroyed him, without a second thought. I'm sure that some folks, reading this, have already labeled me an "apologist," or even worse, because I didn't call him to account.

He had no authority. He was a tired old man, in the last few years of his life, and had been through stuff that most of us couldn't imagine. His words did little harm, and his actions benefitted many.

It's never a simple thing. We are humans, and humans are complex. It is up to each of us, to be the best we can, and live the best life we can. If we are fortunate enough to reach positions of authority, I believe that it is incumbent upon us all to take Responsibility and Accountability, as stewards of this authority. Most of us can usually find some way to use that authority to benefit society and others.

[Jochim]

> There’s a strong argument that all drugs should be legal, as it will allow natural selection to work, but tell that to the families of drug overdose victims; many of whom OD on their first go.

I've never seen legalisation argued for from this point of view, usually people in favour of legalisation argue that it allows the government treat addicts in order to reduce the chance of them dying from an overdose and also operate programs to get people clean. Legalisation enables this by redirecting budgets that previously went to enforcement action as well as the taxation that the less harmful options bring in.

[platonq]

So words "have consequences", and you asscociate Stallman's gaffes with:

- Dangers of LSD.

- Words of actual cult leaders, who are universally charismatic and manipulative. Stallman is the exact opposite and has zero influence outside the free software topic. Stallman is incapable of being manipulative.

- Mass murderers.

- Charismatic DJs in the Rwandan genocide.

I'm speechless that in this supposedly rational forum people employ the same dirty tactics as on Twitter.