"I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time"

I do. How the hell do you think I figured it out for RMS? That same critical filtering can happen not just across time, but across various axes of context.

I didn't say that he's "irredeemable" but that the constant hagiographic/endless forgiveness for his chronic boorishness by his acolytes is annoying and serves no benefit.

> the constant hagiographic/endless forgiveness for his chronic boorishness by his acolytes is annoying and serves no benefit.

Most relevant is that it deprives him of useful feedback neurodivergent people can actually use to better communicate with neurotypical colleagues.

Karl Marx and his letter to Engels regarding Lasalle comes to mind, as an example.

http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.html

> I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time, before you denounce Richard Stallman as irredeemable to history.

This is illegible and does not seem to follow from the rest of this thread. I'm missing where the GP made a statement about a person's "philosophical brilliance." Did I miss something, or is this meant to infer something else?

I believed I was responding to a comment by the user "zeruch". I may not be using this comment section correctly.

>His philosophical brilliance has always impressed me, his personal presence is like rotting offal in the sun. He doesn't get the benefit of being remembered for the former when he puts in so much effort to broadcast the latter.

Sorry about that. Trying to figure out what both comments meant to convey given the ambiguity of language, especially in a heated discussion.

No problem at all.