[dvfjsdhgfv]

While I agree with the essence of your comment, I find the statement "Clearly Stallman did some completely unacceptable things and that can't go unpunished" is questionable. First, it's not "clearly", because the main argument (that he was defending Epstein) is false. Second, as to "unacceptable", it depends to who and when - certain things that were acceptable 20 years ago are unthinkable now. Third, as for "can't go unpunished" - again, the question is who should judge the guilt and who is going to pass sentence.

[ahelwer]

It's way more than the Epstein thing. This has been going on for years. Telling an undergrad he would kill himself if she didn't date him is one example.

[feverzsj]

Then ask yourself: When did this happen? Told by who? Any reliable evidence?

[ahelwer]

This has been an established pattern of behavior reported by multiple women over time, fitting with what we know about his interactions & attitude toward female colleagues. Zooming in on a single incident to cross-examine it like a court case is exactly what leads to these zero-consequences outcomes that drive women out of the field.

[zihotki]

That only makes him a weirdo, not more than that. Should he be prosecuted for being weirdo? I doubt so. It was uncomfortable for women but they weren't forced or threatened (remember he was saying he will kill himself, not her/him).

[ahelwer]

We aren't talking about prosecution! We are talking about him facing any consequences whatsoever!

The idea that you don't view that situation as threatening is just so myopic. People who are unstable enough to threaten suicide because of romantic rejection are a danger to others, not just themselves. Ask a woman, literally any woman you know, about whether they would feel safe in that situation.

[zihotki]

> People who are unstable enough to threaten suicide because of romantic rejection are a danger to others, not just themselves. For the first, the context (situational, non-verbal, etc.) matters, as it's explained in a number of articles about the subject.

I asked a few (non-representative anecdotal sample) womans (programmers, managers, etc.) around, they all considered it safe unless the person crosses the line and starts stalking or exibit any other kind of oppressive behaviour (coming/staying too close, "accidentally" touching, stealing your belongings, starts looking for a ways to be alone with you).

Everyone of course is different and the same situation could be interpreted differently by different people. Some could even overreact a single glance or intonation therefore we need to draw a line between harrasment and being a weirdo and don't jump to conclusions too early.

From what I currently see (I haven't been there and can judge only by media), the situation has been pushed from personal issue to a political leverage. And this is unacceptable. What could have been done instead? I don't know, may be an open letter from a few persons to ask him to be more polite and/or ask to seek consultation with a psychotherapist? But cancelling is not the way.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

I was in such a situation twice. My ex-girlfriend threatened she would kill herself if I leave. Another woman said if I don't stay with her she will likely get very ill. It never ever crossed my mind to inform their employers these women were harassing me. Even if I did (why?!) I don't think it would be fair to fire these women.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

So how should we punish him? How long did this evil act take place? Do these actions have statute of limitations? In Massachusetts rape has 15 years SoL, but clearly this is a much more severe offense.

[ahelwer]

The point is there was no punishment for that! Nor for the many other things he has done! People closed ranks and it was as if nothing happened. Now the final bill has come due. And you start talking about statute of limitations. This is someone who has acted in a consistent way over many years. He should not be a leader in a project which purports to fight for the freedom of all people. Such a role is a privilege. Statute of limitations is a legal concept applying to the legal arena. This is not that. Stop conflating them.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

This is so completely wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin arguing it with.

1. The Founder of a project is the one who gets the biggest say in who should lead it, not some random virtue signalling dude from the internet.

2. Why should I stop conflating these issues? You judge the person for his actions, just like criminal judges do. However, the very criminal and ugly offense of rape is NOT punishable by the law after a number of years. But you are such a severe judge that you demand a punishment with no lenience or clemency and no statute of limitations for being an unpleasant person who is very awkward with women, and allegedly made someone uncomfortable three decades ago.

3. Found your own project, run it the way you like, decide who will have a 'privilege' to lead it.