> To me this list of people and organizations are not some silly knights of "woke activism", they are people who'd feel misrepresented by RMS due to his beliefs. I'd not be so dismissive to that. We try to make software a more inclusive place.
Several of these organizations engage in woke political D&I activism, e.g. Mozilla and GNOME.
The woke sense of tolerance is to be intolerant to violations of its fundamentalist norms, while most expect tolerance to be a two-way street. Serious accusations put into political activist wording, like in this petition, is a commonly used woke tool to remove viewpoint opponents from positions of influence. How are we supposed to judge what part of their reasoning stems from political activism, and what stems from evidence of malfeasance?
> I just want to know if he can come around to his beliefs, or if he sticks to them. He came around with beliefs concerning the "age of sexual consent" and how that should not matter. I find people's ability to come around when presented with evidence a good thing.
On top of the accusation of "misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety", this is another serious accusation.
An old political trick often used by the woke is to reduce the opponents moral standing by having them answer an accusation of bad things, true or not. "Sir, how do you respond to those that accuse you of pedophilia?". Even if one answered "Absolutely not; I just argued that a 19 year old is not a pedophile for engaging with one two years younger", the association sticks in peoples minds. How can you retain your moral standing by answering such a question?