Nope... people will not agree and call you out, drumming up outrage until you resign or get kicked out.

From what I’ve read about the Cultural Revolution and Jaquereies, what’s going on looks pretty much the same mob pattern.

I think the idea is, let’s not revere or put in power people who do/say/espouse these kinds of views

Stallman is a legend, which means he has a great distance to fall. His point was lost in the fray. I wish he could’ve just kept it to a private conversation with a friend.

Obviously no child can consent to being pimped, for money or otherwise.

> I wish he could’ve just kept it to a private conversation with a friend.

It was actually a private conversation.

A large university department mailing list is hardly a private conversation. One of the participants in that conversation even referenced the thread inevitably being sent to the press.

You can say anything you like in North Korea too. The government might not agree with you and that's fine.

If it was as simple as a disagreement, that would be fine. But it's not just simple disagreements anymore. It is costing people their livelihoods and futures because they're not toeing the ever shifting line.

When exactly was this mythical time when not toeing the line came without consequences?

I'm not sure, I'm just as confused as you about this mystical time. I don't remember ever mentioning a time where words didn't have consequences, just when you wouldn't lose your job because someone across the country heard you say something they didn't like.

The internet and the IT industry used to be a lot more free-form and libertarian, where people could debate or advocate almost anything.

I think you managed to perfectly exemplify the point parent is making. Stallman never argued this, but in the frenzy of outrage his points are being misconstrued and he is villified to rationalize the punishment he has received.

he downplayed the severity of it with his wording, which is tacitly arguing in favour of it

I mean, RMS definitely wasn't helping by any means but I think "tacitly arguing in favour of it" is kinda a leap.

I get being mad he wasn't helping but thats a looooong way from supporting the human trafficking.

Not what this was about.

By disagree you mean people might put pressure on your employer until you are fired in order to silence you and anyone who thinks about expressing such thoughts.

You mean people might exercise their freedom of speech to express their view to a company? If I do that, am I censoring someone else with my speech?

Just like Stallman you can express disagreeable things.

If you control money that goes to Fred who employs Bob and tell Fred fire Bob or I fire you then while your actions may be verbal they aren't merely communicative. Clearly you are acting to censor Bob. You may well simultaneously be within your rights to do so and also wrong to do it. If I tell you so I'm not controlling you I'm just trying to persuade you.

Gervais is hugely powerful because he has the money to survive being unpersoned. Not everyone is in his position. His comment is like Shaquille O’Neal saying you actually can walk around and punch anyone you like in the face, because nobody retaliates when he does it (just a hypothetical, of course Shaq wouldn’t do that).