"And if someone essentially judges you morally deficient for as much as using a cellphone or MS Windows, it's kind of open season to judge him on superficial things like his choice of ties or personal habits, in return."

No. It's really not.

I think it is. If you make such a tremendous claim (and it is one), you're likely to hear some counterclaims. Even if they are 'your singing totally sucks'

http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossi...

Only if you're prepared to explain why a choice of ties is a moral imperative, and are ready for the ridicule of people who don't agree with you.

Except that, in explaining his choice of no ties at all, RMS resorts precisely to moral imperatives.

By my reading, he says people who wear ties because they feel they need to are complicit. If you just honestly like ties, I don't think he has any beef with you, provided you're not trying to force them on others.

Yeah, okay, I can see that reading. I interpreted it more like, by wearing a tie, you pressure others to wear a tie, whether you personally like it or not. I would actually agree with this, because it makes sense if you think about our desire to conform to group behavioral norms. It's similar to the pressure women feel about wearing high heels, despite that many of them love to. But you don't need to proclaim moral imperatives in order to be a non-conformist; ironically, an insistence on non-conformity is exactly the same kind of pressure that conformists exert.

Don't get caught in the desire to "judge back". If anything you stoop to Stallman's level. It's perfectly fine to be critical, but at the end of the day, who cares if Stallman doesn't like wearing a tie? If you don't either, cool. If you do, that's cool too.

We don't need to mock vegans, so why should we mock Stallmans? Just live your life and ignore the meaningless fact that they think you're doing wrong according to their personal morality (after you explore the origin/reason for their lifestyle to the extent of your curiosity).