Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to say 'People who have a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting are not entitled to have a certain opinion or preference that does not fall within the lines our "society" has drawn out to be normal?'

AFAIK there are plenty of high positioned people in important positions whom have a special preference to something. Whether it be a kink or a total different view/approach on certain topics.

Does that mean we're going to hunt down every one in a high position because they think outside of the box? Because they have a preference to something society seems not normal? Does that mean we'll need to hunt down every thought leader/high positioned CEO/CFO/COO/board member with public appearance that enjoys the occassional whipping?

This topic is pretty disturbing to me personally. Qualified, intelligent people are criticized/publicly shamed for having thoughts/opinions/preferences which have absolutely nothing to do with their occupation.

It feels to me as if we're, as a society, doing anything we can to remove people who think/feel differently from what they're actually good at/dedicated their life to. My thoughts/opinions might not stroke with what people here have written, if what has been reported is true the behavior is not OK but does that mean the man needs to be removed from a position he dedicated his life to?

I mean the guy can think whatever the fuck he wants. He can even tell his friends. He can use nipple clamps and be consentingly spanked with kitchen implements. Nobody gives a shit about any of that stuff.

But if you publicly say stuff like this:

"I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17."

"I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)"

"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] 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."

Then other people might not want to make the highly discretionary decision to let you, specifically, run their organization.

There are many countries in the world where the age of consent is 14. It was so in Canada, our physical and cultural neighbor, until 2008. Why is it so wildly unacceptable opinion to question an arbitrary line of US law?

What about other topics like alcohol? Can I think that the 21 years old limit is weird?

But he was the leader of the free software foundation. Free as in speech.

The age of consent in China is 14. I am assuming that most people there are OK with this.

So, in your opinion, Chinese people are automatically disqualified for any and all leadership positions?

If you can't make your points respectfully, please stop posting here until you can.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I don't think it's disrespectful to call out someone who has previously made the _exact same_ mis-representation of a highly contentious issue as acting in bad faith and thus untrustworthy.

There is a concerted and prolonged attempt underway to completely muddy the waters around this issue and either through emotion or insincerity this poster has been hammering away at what they are aware is at best a distortion of the facts.

If you can't make your points respectfully, please stop posting here until you can.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> no social norms violation

There is a difference between disagreement with a norm (or, in this case, a hypothetical argument that doesn't advocate either way), and a violation. When did Stallman advocate against "fuck[ing] minors"?