<story><title>RMS addresses the free software community</title><url>https://www.fsf.org/news/rms-addresses-the-free-software-community</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Osmose</author><text>The Minsky defense was not the primary, most important reason RMS can&amp;#x27;t serve as an effective, inclusive leader for free software, it was just the one that got the most attention. This does nothing to address the numerous complaints of harassment towards MIT students, the _other_ times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia, the public gaffes that are unacceptable as a public representative (e.g. the foot skin eating thing), and the fact that the FSF under Stallman kinda lost to open source anyway and hasn&amp;#x27;t really done anything besides virtue signal to others about how pure and ethical they are.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>NoImmatureAdHom</author><text>He has been treated unfairly many times and that is, completely independent of whether he&amp;#x27;s the best choice as leader for the FSF, wrong. You do it here: &amp;quot;the _other_times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia...&amp;quot;. He wants to have a discussion about what makes sex between people of varying ages wrong. He applies normative principles to it and can&amp;#x27;t see why it&amp;#x27;s wrong (e.g., age of consent varies...why would what is okay in one place be abominable 100 meters away?). I&amp;#x27;m sure professional philosophers have written on this at length, and without being punished for going down the exact same road he has. But more importantly he doesn&amp;#x27;t understand very well that the mere mention of this line of inquiry is borderline reputation suicide because of [blue-team elite coastal] public mores idiosyncratic to 2020 rich western countries.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m also not sure why &amp;quot;inclusive&amp;quot; is a good criterion for FSF leader, it seems like just a hollow shibboleth buzzword at this point. People who harp on &amp;quot;inclusion&amp;quot; are usually the most interested in exclusion.</text></comment>
<story><title>RMS addresses the free software community</title><url>https://www.fsf.org/news/rms-addresses-the-free-software-community</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Osmose</author><text>The Minsky defense was not the primary, most important reason RMS can&amp;#x27;t serve as an effective, inclusive leader for free software, it was just the one that got the most attention. This does nothing to address the numerous complaints of harassment towards MIT students, the _other_ times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia, the public gaffes that are unacceptable as a public representative (e.g. the foot skin eating thing), and the fact that the FSF under Stallman kinda lost to open source anyway and hasn&amp;#x27;t really done anything besides virtue signal to others about how pure and ethical they are.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>davexunit</author><text>He&amp;#x27;s mistreated many FSF staff members, many LibrePlanet attendees, many GNU project contributors, etc.  The fact that the public discourse is focused on the Epstein-related comments does RMS and the FSF a huge favor by pointing the spotlight away from the real issue which has been happening for &lt;i&gt;decades&lt;/i&gt;.</text></comment>