The thing is, this one statement is ... tolerable. A bit in poor taste as far as apologia goes.

But then to have a long track record of disagreeing with age of consent; semantic arguments about pedophilia; treating women with disrespect and general creepiness-- it eventually gets to be too much.

Any time you have to say this:

> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.

> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.

After having said this:

> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

You've really screwed up, IMO. https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html

That is, once you've fucked up with pedo-apologia a few too many times, maybe it's time to be really, really careful in what you say in defense of a colleague's possibly questionable sexual actions.

How many disagreeable opinions do you personally allow someone to have before you believe it correct for people to try to coerce other people to stop doing business with them so you can silence them exactly?

That question of your is kinda in bad faith, though isn't it? There's no reasonable answer to that question. The answer is, of course, "it depends".

I would not want to work for a CEO who believed for years that "voluntary pedophilia" doesn't harm children. If I were someone at the FSF with any amount of power, and I found out about that, I would immediately work to get him ousted, or, failing that, I'd quit.

And it's not like this is the only thing he's done; he's been creating a hostile environment for women at MIT for decades. It's about time he was held to account for that, too.

You should care about what people do not what they think.

So, do you think, for instance, FSF donors and contributors should be compelled to keep working with the FSF even if they find the statements of the president of the FSF to be repugnant?

A key reason behind him stepping down is because the GNOME folks wanted to part ways with the FSF over these issues.

I'm curious about this point. If I don't do business with some company, am I silencing someone? Or only when I don't do business with a company for some specific reason?

Now, say I tweet about my boycott of this company. Am I now silencing someone?

Since we're discussing the fine details here, can you tell me exactly when my freedom of speech becomes a tool to coerce and silence others in this scenario?

How many people do you want to force into doing business with someone they find repugnant?