this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
42 points (81.8% liked)
Opensource
1275 readers
24 users here now
A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!
⠀
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Damning, but nothing that hasn’t already been talked about for a while now. Just formalizing the review. He’s a creep who did some cool things with software. It’s time to move on and leave him behind.
Terry Davis
Went to look him up and the Wiki link showed as already visited. Yeah, I remember reading about this guy. Sad what mental health issues can do to people. Said the guy with mental health issues, fortunately less severe.
You might want to remember that he has done more to advance open source software than perhaps any other person on this planet. You don't get to take away someone's achievements just because you don't like them...
I don't see anyone trying to take away his achievement. The report and most commenters even recognize his contribution.
Also this goes more deeply than "not liking them", he has some morally reprehensible views. I admit I haven't read the whole report, but I have seen some of the things it touches on in the past and it's pretty damning.
Stallman earned his position of influence as a voting board member through his software-related achievements, not his sexual attitudes. Removing him for the latter absolutely WOULD take away from those achievements. Paying lip service in the report doesn't change that. In another era when homosexuality was illegal, Alan Turing was removed from his position in British intelligence because of being gay. The two situations aren't identical, but they don't have to be. The point is that they both earned their positions, and taking away what they earned because of unrelated moral disapproval is wrong. This isn't a defense of any of Stallman's attitudes - I'm saying no such defense is necessary or relevant.
I gave him credit for that while also saying we shouldn't platform him or give him attention until and unless he recants and / or apologizes. Just like the report says.
I think, this is what contemporary cancel culture usually tries to do.
I also think, that this is wrong on most occasions. Maybe sometimes possible damage warrants cancelling someone, I don't know
I agree. Uproars like this reflect an irrational fear that rewarding someone for one reason also rewards everything else about them, including stuff we don't approve of. We see a ton of crowd-sourced demonization nowadays. Yes, you cured cancer but you also liked the wrong tweets, so no Nobel Prize for you, spawn of Satan.