An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF

Since the other side (non-autists) can usually not distinguish between disregarding social norms on purpose (being a jerk) or by accident (autism), autists are often judged as jerks. Escpecially since the high frequency of "social fuckups" rules out "normal" human mistakes.

Has he though? Has he actioned this idea, or was it just something he blogged about amongst 1000's of other thoughts that floated through his head?

One of my life lessons I think is worth pointing out, is that people's actions are far more important than what they say. And this is the problem with modern western society: someone says something stupid and everyone jumps on them as an opportunity to further their own cause.

So yes you can associate with someone like this, unless they DO something terrible.

How is this in any way equivalent? Being jewish or black are not disabilities. Downs syndrome is a horrible condition that greatly impacts your quality of life.

I personally think abortion is horrible, but aborting babies who are going to enter life with awful disabilities is the least objectionable form of abortion there is.

You should be outraged at the millions of perfectly healthy babies that are aborted every year just for convenience. Not this.

I've been in OSS for decades. I've actually argued with RMS personally on certain subject (he called me evil, which I disagree with, but that's not the point). I've read a lot of his writings and a lot of writings about him. I never heard about this until today. I have no idea what RMS actually said on the subject (you didn't provide a quote, as it usually happens) but whatever he said, it's clearly wasn't something very important among all his body of work, if mostly nobody heard or cared about this so far.

In fact, I can't bring myself to care about RMS's views on the subject right now - even if your most uncharitable interpretation is completely correct (I am 99% sure it's not, but even in unlikely case it is) it's completely immaterial. RMS has never been and never will be in a position that such an opinion would matter for anything, he has never killed any babies and has never contributed or influenced anything that mattered in this area. He did, however, contributed a lot and mattered a lot in other areas.

One of the most idiotic and toxic features of cancel culture is reducing the immense complexity of the person's life to one - almost always distorted and misinterpreted - statement and focusing on it as if it were the only point ever. There's no "someone like that". "Someone like that" is a bullshit - no one is "like that", and "like that" is an insanely awful criteria to guide your actions. Literally everybody has done something in their life some people may not like. One can disagree with somebody on some subject and still agree with them on other subjects. That's how human society works. People can not be reduced to a single "like that", and shouldn't be. Get out of Twitter and purge it out of your system, for the benefit of yourself and humanity.

He did not say that. You make it sound like he's suggesting babies actually born should be killed. No. He's supporting the current practice of testing the fetus during pregnancy, and aborting if it has down syndrome.

Warning to others, this is what happens when you get caught up in cancel-culture wokeness, repeating allegations of others without verification. You end up repeating falsehoods as justfication, take things out of context, and confirm to onlookers you don't have the ability to form your own opinions through rational, logical thought.

Would you mind providing a citation on this? Because I have yet to really read about it anywhere else.

EDIT: Ah, so it was a rather uncharitable interpretation on his views on abortion [0]. Again, a symptom of someone with zero social awareness and I'm sure it'd be thought to be beyond the pale for some people, but far from a genocidal maniac.

[0] https://stallman.org/archives/2016-sep-dec.html#31_October_2...

It would be interesting to know what are these "important discussions".

> 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs

I don't think it literally prevents them, more like it makes them scared to share their political beliefs for fear of being called out when those are not "acceptable" beliefs. If anyone can give me an example of some political belief that is not justified in being "unacceptable", I'd be happy to re-evaluate this situation as being bad.

Honestly? No.

And the problem with the numbers in that poll is that there is no reason to think that all those people assign the same meaning to the words. Everyone's in favor of "free speech," but can they articulate a nuanced definition of it and the effects on society of that definition?

This applies to your entire comment, but the quoted line is most salient: Be careful not to fall into the victimized underdog mentality. There are legitimate concerns on both sides here, but there is a ton of noise in the form of pointing to imagined persons/crowds and accusing them of persecution. For example, submissions are frequently flagged for the poor quality of discussion they trigger - not simply because "somebody" is "trying to keep people from even discussing it", which is an easy sentiment to reach for, and falls under the category of fallacy that boils down to "our sociopolitical enemies are simply evil - don't you agree, fellow people on my side?".

I think this can be appropriate when the situation is dire and all other courses of action have been exhausted. I'm just not sure this is such a situation.

In addition to not being particularly constructive, I agree with your point: the mob mentality means if I'm interested in discussing how to proceed _before_ everyone on the board of the FSF is fired, I open myself to the same mob that wants it done _now_. This makes discussing an already difficult problem significantly harder and more risky. Even if I bring myself to engage in conversation, many of the more deliberative folks I would like to hear from won't engage, likely for the same reasons that gave me pause. I encountered this to a surprising degree reading through comments on Ars Technica's coverage of this[0].

On the topic of the FSF, I really value that RMS has a very mature and well-considered understanding of the dynamics of computers and their software, and how those can shape society. But the points about him making others uncomfortable on a routine basis are concerning, and I think a more charismatic leader would certainly be an improvement. I would want that leader to have a similarly strong understanding of the core issues, though. I wonder if someone like Eben Moglen could perform in such a role. Come to think of it, it might be cool if Cory Doctorow could play a public-facing role for the FSF.

[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/free-software-ad...

This seems irrational. For example, I both "believe that political correctness is a problem in our country" and believe that "the free speech movement", in the modern context, is composed largely of "racist dog-whistles" and "far-right talking points". They aren't mutually exclusive opinions, yet the author writes as though they obviously are. Besides believing that "political correctness" has silenced important discussions, I also believe it's only one example of many forms of irrational side-taking and hatred that have silenced important discussions, committed across the political spectrum. It seems like the author is taking advantage of the instantly recognizable noun "political correctness" as a way to package a biased opinion that purposefully ignores closely related things that are damaging discussion and civility just as dramatically.