Imagine the world if Stallman had been excommunicated from tech after the first awkward/offensive interaction he had with someone.

I sure wouldn’t.

Tangentially: I better not see anyone here lionize Steve Jobs ever again, because he inflicted actual physical trauma on people. He didn’t just piss them off with his failure to recognize social cues.

Imagine the world where that person that didn't do the thing in tech because of an "awkward/offensive interaction" with Stallman did that thing.

Imagine that multiplied by all the someones that didn't do any of the things that had an awkward/offensive interaction with Stallman did those things.

These behaviours, ESPECIALLY by someone in such a influential position in our industry, have a chilling effect on every person they affected.

> Imagine the world where that person that didn't do the thing in tech because of an "awkward/offensive interaction" with Stallman did that thing.

It really seems like they are inflicting it on themselves though. Stallman is not a gatekeeper.

Which is a completely subjective lense.

“The first” is neither what has happened with Stallman, nor is it what I describe in my comment.

Many incidents have occurred, enough to demonstrate that they’re a trend rather than “the first” one-off.

Many folks have noted that most people in Stallman’s position would have chose to learn to be better people to those around them.

He did not make that choice, and the result is that many stories told about him paint him in a severely negative light.

Please don’t use threats here; “I better not see anyone here [any action here]” has no place in this forum’s conversations.

>Many incidents have occurred, enough to demonstrate that they’re a trend rather than “the first” one-off.

Are people deliberately ignoring the fact that his guy is mentally ill? You're ascribing neurotypical social requirements to someone who is demonstrably not capable of them, and then acting surprised when he breaches said decorum.

>Please don’t use threats here; “I better not see anyone here [any action here]” has no place in this forum’s conversations.

Actually my comment seems well in line with the general tone of this thread - which is either intentionally misleading about what actually a happened or willfully arrogant and dismissive about how people who struggle with mental illness can respond to the modern sociopolitical environment and its "requirements".

“I better not see anyone here doing XYZ or else I’ll ABC” is the complete construction of the phrase you use.

In parenting, this phrase typically replaces ABC with “punish you”, “hit you”, “spank you”.

Your construction buries the implied violence of that phrase by leaving off the “or else”, but that does not resolve the inappropriateness of threatening “or else” on this forum.

I’m glad to see you enjoy policing language as much as Stallman’s detractors. Most would consider it “rude” to invent something out of thin air that was not actually said and ascribe “violence” of intent to it - but, again, seems right in line with this thread.

I dunno. I read it as ABC is "call you a hypocrite". I mean it's strong phrasing, but ... your concern seems more of a personal hot-button.

Whether violent ABC or nonviolent ABC, “I’d better not see XYZ or else ABC” is equally inappropriate here regardless.

Is an explicit “I’d better not see XYZ or else ABC” worse than an implicit one? Consider an implicit "you better not have the same opinions as stallman or I will cancel you" for example.

Curious, what exactly do you think would be different in a world without Stallman?

"Imagine the world where people were held accountable and called out for being dicks.."

If his logic didnt matter, shouldnt he be condemned for only being inappropriate or hostile? Yet it seems that his current reputation among the public at large is that of an actual paedophilia/rape apologist. Whether he actually was or not, this lack of concern for subtleties is the very reason why "societal censure" should only be the authority on matters relating to politeness and not criminality.

I disagree. Societal censure is appropriate on the topics you declare exempt. It is appropriate to fear censure and exile from your society when caught to simply be considering such activities, even if no criminal action is occurs. They are societally unacceptable. If his historical actions and present words lead others to be concerned that he’s an apologist, it is appropriate to react societally.

I'm not aware that practicing radical self-censorship for the sake of conformity is the current standard of social justice, and, as far as I can tell, numerous forms of injustice were at one point or another deemed socially acceptable.

Even justifiable concerns are just exactly that, justifiable concerns. If anything, it is the society that cannot behave however it wants but has an obligation to uphold justice. It needs to have a fair legal system as opposed to mob justice and to punish only genuine criminals as opposed to merely people with criminal reputation.