> Diversity -- but no diversity of opinion...
Is there any sort of evidence of action? Him having had sex with children?
If anything, it's you who left out the part where Stallman already said, before this incindent, that he was wrong. I.e. he said it because he actually changed his mind and believes he was wrong, not in order to "save face" or clear his image or avoid scandal or whatnot.
> If anything, it's you who left out the part where Stallman already said, before this incindent, that he was wrong. I.e. he said it because he actually changed his mind and believes he was wrong, not in order to "save face" or clear his image or avoid scandal or whatnot.
He posted that after the storm had started, three days before his resignation. A few days after the "Remove Richard Stallman" Medium post was written.
Do you think that's a complete coincidence? Has nothing to do with saving face and only his desire to explain that he had changed his mind?
From what I can tell from the snippets posted here, he isn't saying it's fine, he's saying he's seen insufficient evidence to form an opinion - and in such a state, he resists those who would force one on him with faulty reasoning. Or, to put it another way, he views morality with three responses [yes, no, I don't know], which causes friction with people who view it with two:
"Is involuntary pedophilia bad?" [yes] "Is all pedophilia bad?" [idk - insufficient evidence on voluntary or its inherent lack of existence] "Do you think that all pedophilia is bad?" [no - position held is idk, not yes] "Therefore, you think all pedophilia is good." [no - position held is idk, not yes]
A similar comparison might be being asked if you enjoyed an unreleased book, then using "no[, I haven't read it and formed an opinion]" to justify "you think the book is bad."
ETA: also, if he hasn't said more on the subject in recent years, it's silly to assume that he necessarily still hold these views or lack thereof.
You are right - I was under the impression that was posted earlier, but he posted that immediately after the email thread was "leaked" to Vice. It's no coincidence; I still think that, given his previous as well as ulterior behavior, as well as the timing, that it's a clarification he felt he needed to make (given the public accusations that started pouring). I.e. it still doesn't look to me like a dishonest attempt to save face by hiding his controversial opinions... he reacted too quick with that, while ignoring everything else.
Can people still have controversial opinions without getting their lives destroyed?
Not without losing his job, apparently.
If people need to be concerned about having their lives ruined over what they write in an email, or an online forum, can’t you see what kind of chilling effect this has?
Or an employee that regularly talks publicly about how horrible your company is and that no one should work there. Can't discourage any expression of opinion, so what can you do?
Because what you said is such a broad generalization, that it feels "obviously true". But if you object to a person not being hired because she's black (although that's personally reasonable in some very limited circumstances) - then maybe you should object too for a person being dismissed on words completely unrelated to the work he was supposed to perform.
Or an employee who regularly publishes manifestos on why people of certain skin colors should be murdered and exterminated?
These are extreme examples of course, but you are saying that ideally no one should experience any consequences for expressing any opinion outside of work.
It's not that they should face no consequences - they should face consequences in the circles in which they express those views, ideally in the form of people disagreeing with them, but possibly also wanting to dissociate with them. If they try to keep those views out of the classroom, I don't have a problem with it.
In the classroom, you are the instrument of a consensus view. You must do your job. If you do it well, that's great. Your views outside the classroom should be irrelevant, and I can't help but notice that a lot of the time when people get in trouble for their views outside of work, it's because someone de-anonymised them.
We cannot have a world where people's actual opinions are forced to be equal to those their employers would be comfortable with. Your extreme examples are extreme indeed, but there are many examples, particularly in authoritarian regimes, where the extreme view is the correct one. So extreme-ness is not a good metric for whether views should be allowed or not.
I think the solution for everyone is to stay silent, and to discuss their views anonymously online. Their views will still have force at the ballot box - as they did at the last election (as much as I did not like the outcome, it was evidence that social shaming has limited power at changing how people vote). We should be suspicious of attempts to de-anonymise the internet.
Basically, dissent is important. So important that it is worth tolerating bad views to ensure dissent is not suppressed when it is needed.
Everyone who pictures the cancel-culture norms resulting in some sort of paradise where everyone believes nice things are delusional, they are simply ceding power to those who will use it for personal gain, and giving the currently powerful the tools to to cement that power.
In this extreme example of mine, would you be happy as a parent to have your children in this teacher's classroom? Would you be taking part in a free speech suppressing pitchfork mob if you were to call the school and express your opinion that you don't want your child to be taught by a pedophile?
“There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.“
I can give you the links but it's quite easy to Google.
Edit since I dug them up for another comment:
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20...
https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
Are people allowed to change their mind after having conversations that convince them that their position is wrong?
Especially if that recanting happens to take place right as the shitstorm about his writings and behavior has started.
I pretty much fully agree with this. I don't think he's evil or anything. The consequences of his statements just finally caught up with him, and in a big way since he seems to have had a strong "It's just how RMS is, he's such a great leader, just ignore him or steer clear of him or whatever" shield around him for all those years.
He was merely voicing the opinion "if all is consensual what's the problem"... An opinion he changed from later.