I'll refrain from making any solid claims; There are clearly some actual examples of concerning behaviour and trash opinions from the guy, but in honesty, this report reads to me a hit piece rather than investigative journalism. It makes some seemingly objectively false claims, and some other claims I'd be interesting in hearing more on.
Stallman has done a lot of good work, and it sounds like he really should shut his yap about non FSF-business more than anything (which the paper does call for).
It kinda sucks to say "pretty sure some of these claims are objectively false" and refuse to say which ones.
Stallman's otherwise good work isn't really a factor in how I feel about this, it doesn't buy him a pass. But I do agree its probably a bit of a hitpiece
I kept vague because I'm not really eager to get into any arguments over specific details. I obviously could be wrong.
I'm not saying he deserves "a pass" (whatever that entails), I'm not defending his character. I just don't really think his dumb opinions are relevant to his professional work.
yeah but then like, don't post about it? idk. If you aren't willing to discuss it then why do the rest of us need to hear your opinion? it's a conversation-terminator.
I just don't really think his dumb opinions are relevant to his professional work.
Not sure I'm comfortable making that kind of distinction where we let people just be shitbags and continue to occupy prominent and revered positions in our communities/orgs. I know that's not exactly what you're saying, but I think it's where the distinction being drawn often leads.
Then don't post about it, yourself?? It was very deliberately a conversation-terminator, I'm not interested in a conversation about it.
I agree with not being fully comfortable about that kind of distinction. I don't think we should let people be as shitbags, but I also don't understand why a person in a prominent position needs to not have bad opinions on irrelevant topics.
