 Some Stallman apologists seem to hold the view that the criticisms of RMS *were* valid, but that he has apologized, acknowledged wrongdoing, and changed his views and his behavior, and therefore deserves forgiveness I would agree if it weren't for the fact that he has done none of these things -- it's a myth. He has never apologized and he has not meaningfully retracted his views and his problematic behavior has continued post-reinstatement at the FSF. 6 comments | Expand all CWs
Debunking the mythical stallman apology fantasy is probably the next blog post I'll write about him, assuming I write anything else about him.  @drewdevault Honestly, being able to read all the events in a concise matter would be nice. Nobody wanted to talk about it openly in great detail, so collecting the timeline is like picking up pieces of a broken glass.  @drewdevault I think it's obvious to everyone he's on the board because of what he achieved in the past, not because of who he is. It would follow that he should also not be on the board because of what he did in the past, regardless of what he may or may not be. No one would think of dismissing his actual work because "oh he only did that because he's ND". @virtulis "who he is" - load bearing phrase How about "what he has done" or "what he is doing"? What he's done in the past is relevant to you insofar as it can be viewed as an "achievement", how about what he's done in the past that causes harm? Or how about his achievements in the present weighed against his actions -- in the present -- which still cause harm? @drewdevault that was the point i was trying to make, guess I failed :) That either you weigh all of his past actions against each other and admit he's not a person that should be in position of power or publicity. Or you have an old man that no one really likes but "that's just the way he always was", in which case he most certainly should not be in that position. |
Gregory's Server
Caveats:
* He has, to the best of my knowledge, made one vague and narrowly scoped apology
* He has changed his opinion on one issue (children consenting to sex), but in a manipulative way that does not account for minors above the age of 13