I feel confident with my assessment. He showed no indication that he understood the current movement to hold powerful men accountable for their actions. For example, where's the due process for the women Stallman excluded by his horrible behaviour for decades?
Stallman went down for being a creepy perv for decades. He should have gone down for one of the many lines he crossed before today. Eventually, when you give a creep enough passes he'll say something so creepy it's indefensible, Yet here you are trying.
So it seems like we agree that this particular aspect (snap firings) of the USA sucks. So why is this _not_ the one to fight? If we both think the core issue is a problem, it doesn't seem intellectually honest for one of us to say that a specific instance of that general concept doesn't count because the dude at the heart of it is scummy.
If you can build a strong and convincing argument that his termination is wrong, it'd be trivial to apply that argument to the case of the fast food worker. And therefore have a better shot at improving their lot.
Not sure that's fair. In the conclusion he writes:
> The goals Selam G. seeks to advance are good ones. Institutions like MIT need to closely consider their past and present treatment of women. People at those institutions, and perhaps even Stallman himself, need to have their worst impulses checked, or possibly even be removed altogether.
He was arguing for something like a due process in firing Stallman, not for not firing him.