That is a straw man argument. I don’t have a cushy gig at MIT, but that doesn’t mean I am condemned to homelessness and poverty.

He was in two roles that were largely about PR and put him in positions of power over young women. I certainly am willing to condemn people to no longer holding positions of power they have demonstrated they will abuse, and if your job is as a figurehead a big part of that job is not being so gross people avoid the institution. He got fired because a significant part of his job was ensuring the fsf could raise funds and he was being bad at his job.

> He was in two roles that were largely about PR and put him in positions of power over young women.

1st, you're assuming his relative power based on claims in an article by a young woman who didn't know about him, and still hasn't met him.

2nd, the least old of these claims was written 13 years ago.

3rd, for god's sake... he wasn't defending pedophilia. there's no reason to say that! why on earth do people keep repeating it? it's clearly inaccurate.

I think that's one of the only sane comment around there, not thinking in a vacuum. Thank you :-)

As a society, we should ensure there are processes to ensure nobody is condemned to homelessness and poverty. As individuals, none of us have to interact with people we don't want to. We could, for example, build reasonable welfare systems and pay people to administer them - or any number of other mechanisms.

There is no rule that states that a person should be free to say anything without any consequences.

He made a choice to say some words and based on those words people felt they would be better off without him in their workplace. Seems fair to me, people have been fired for much less.

For better or worse, that's how societies work. They're composed of individuals who do things based on their own values.

Suppose you're an employer. Would you want to hire a neo-Nazi who has visible swastika and Hitler tattoos? Would you put this guy in front of your customers? Probably not; your business wouldn't do too well. So when you decline to hire such a person, you're exercising your freedom of association, but also helping to condemn the neo-Nazi to homelessness and poverty. In some countries, he might be able to get some social assistance so he doesn't turn to crime, but it'll probably still be poverty-level.

Societies aren't just a bunch of people all doing and saying whatever the heck they want. There's consequences to your actions and your speech. If people like you more, you get better jobs and do better socially. If people don't like you, then you become an outcast. This can be good or bad: if the overall attitude is something awful, such as the idea that some people should be enslaved, then you get a society where lots of people are horribly oppressed. If the overall attitude however is that oppression is bad, then people who promote oppression (like neo-Nazis) are punished by being ostracized, and ideas like that are made unpopular and kept from spreading too much.