It wasn’t just a few statements. It is a constellation of issues that make him very hard to interact with.
A few final statements did bring him down, but he had been chipping at the foundation for years.
A few final statements did bring him down, but he had been chipping at the foundation for years.
I also don't really know all that much about Richard Stallman I just don't like the idea that if you accept someone for themselves all the difficulties of social cohesion magically disappear because it's untrue.
'boys will be boys' doesn't assert that 'boys' get away with whatever they want because they are neuro-divergent, it asserts that gender allows for additional privilege.
>Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep
For the sake of argument : what if that person has neurological quirks which disallow 'non-creep' , to use your parlance, behavior?
To take the example even further , it's illegal with fine attached to say curse words on certain beaches in the United States. Is it reasonable to fine an individual with Tourette Syndrome when they scream expletives on such a beach?
If swearing at the beach is unacceptable, full stop, then it's unacceptable for a person with or without TS. (Personally, that sounds like a dumb law, but what do I know)
But I do agree with the idea that letting someone off the hook for all consequences on account of a mental illness isn't viable. That makes things a lot harder for neurodivergent individuals, but that's why we should have extensive support programs and provide resources to help them cope with the expectations of general society.
It's a tricky problem, because to meaningfully distinguish between someone who is mentally incapable of following a law and someone who is capable of doing so but systematically elects not to, you are functionally deciding which humans do and do not have free will on an individual basis. I think most people would believe that either all humans have free will, or no humans have free will, not somewhere in between, so this is a scenario that is uncomfortable to pretty much everyone.
A TS individual for instance may be annoying, however they aren't causing actual physical harm to other people, in the same sense that a murderer might be.
A lot of the internal-to-the-free-software-community frustration with RMS was how he had basically stopped contributing code to GNU but still felt entitled to overrule maintainers. He is a talented coder! He could have continued to use his skills to write free software and delegated the work of being the face of the movement to others. He could have listened when people suggested to him that he'd be of greater service to the movement that way. He didn't do any of that.
Not everyone is ideally suited for every role. That's part of being understanding of neurodivergence.
In my experience, the same sort of people who crusade against the Richard Stallmans of the world are the creepiest and by far most unpleasant to work with, yet they themselves are constantly being celebrated, uplifted, and raised into positions of real power and real harm.
Unfortunately, when someone is in a position of power, often the only recourse is the sword of Damocles. This is especially difficult for people who become relevant by leading a movement rather than rising through the ranks. But that means that there is a natural tension between social mobility and a culture of accountability, which is likely the source of a lot of dissatisfaction in society.
Do I now suddenly get to punish you? Do I get to go to your boss and try to get him to fire you?
See the problem?
If you personally are in a position to punish someone who you believe is a jerk, then yeah, you'll probably punish them, because that's just how social interaction works.