I can abstractly conceive of philosophical arguments around emergence of ability to consent, but here in the real world I am solidly with the majority on this one.
That's not what Stallman advocated, or at least, that borders on a bad faith description of what he advocated, which was legalizing and normalizing sexual relationships between adults and children. He literally referred to the distinction as "voluntary pedophilia[0]" as opposed to "involuntary" pedophilia, believing that children were capable of giving informed consent to sexual relationships in some cases.
And bear in mind that he later recanted this view[1].
If you read his other posts[2], it becomes clear that his primary concern was not simply reducing the legal age of consent - context is important.
Add to that the numerous (albeit, granted, anecdotal) claims of unwanted sexual advances and harassment by Stallman over the years, then yes, I believe he should not have been in the position of leadership and advocacy that he was, which is what "cancellation" implies here.
Anyone other than Richard Stallman would have been run off campus and possibly out of town on a rail years ago for much less egregious behavior. But Richard Stallman, being the prophet of free software, could be found in flagrante delicto with a literal infant and half of this forum would praise him for his revolutionary anti-establishment behavior, and half of the rest would insist the infant was planted by Microsoft.
>I don't agree with this idea but it seems dangerous to pressure society to stop advocating for more controversial stuff.
Why? Simply because it's controversial? No, society shouldn't be run under the edgelord principles of a board on 4chan. Controversy is not in and of itself a value worth preserving for its own sake.
But bear in mind that Stallman's behavior and beliefs were tolerated until the point where they caused a social media shitstorm. He really wasn't even cancelled because of his controversial views, he was cancelled because his controversial views suddenly became a PR nightmare for MIT, which, remember, had taken donation money from Jeffrey Epstein.
> Just a few years back you would cancel me(or even worse) if I suggested interracial marriage is OK (what a deviant idea ...)
You're drawing a set of false equivalencies. Ideas can and should be judged, accepted or rejected on their individual merits or lack thereof. Opposition to pedophilia is not equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage along any moral or ethical axis.
[0]https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...
[1]https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
If you're wondering "How can a grown man not know that child sexual abuse causes harm?" well, this puts us back into awkward nerd territory: what you think is common sense may not be to a sufficiently awkward nerd.
If he'd put as much effort into distancing himself from his past beliefs as he did advocating for them, he likely wouldn't have found himself in the position where no one was willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt when he footgunned himself and MIT with an awkward, tediously pedantic argument on the nature of consent. What happened to him wasn't a smear campaign by enemies of free software, or a witch-hunt by prudish SJWs who hate neuro-atypicals, it was inevitable.
Perhaps it was inevitable that RMS would be taken down by neutral third parties, but now we'll never have any way to know. The reality is he WAS taken down by people who had been smearing him with exaggerations and half-truths for at least the last quarter-century, and this was part of that dynamic.
I don't feel bad if people are taken down fairly. I only feel a little bad if people are taken down by, in your words, "a witch-hunt by prudish SJWs." I feel very bad when people are taken down by enemies spreading half-truths.