Even if I don’t agree with you on all of what you said I agree with most of it. Sound reasoning and all that. The autism/aspergers ‘excuse’ is definitely hard to accept given his history.
Regardless, someone like him simply shouldn’t be at the positions he has held if the open source community is to gain progress.
I’m conflicted here. The fact that he’s a weirdo is kind of irrelevant imo. He’s philosophically uncompromising and unmoved by social pressure. The only thing separating him from most tech CEOs is that he lacks an organization investing millions into his health, image, publicity etc Most big time executives are degenerates but no one cares because they are good at what they do. I think he’s good at making software free even if he’s a socially inept [insert criticism here] in his personal life. Additionally I’m saying this as someone who disagrees with him on basically every other issue he takes a stand on.
The kind of life he’s led has not given him the types of socially safe situations in which to learn the things that you shouldn’t say. I think it’s fair to say that the same influences that might have moderated his public statements would also have moderated his public work and he would not have accomplished what he has.
When I listen to him talk I hear a type of clarity of thought and direction of speech i’ve never heard from someone who isn’t autistic, like I am myself. I think with him it’s a case of you taking the good with the bad, and recognizing that when he says something it’s not necessarily coming from the same place as it would be from someone else with a similarly wide public exposure.
I’ve not heard that he’s done anything horrible to anyone, and if memory serves his worst statements still recognized the importance of consent, while totally missing the definitional limits of being able to provide it. What i’m getting at is that he doesn’t seem to be a horrible person. He seems to be a tone deaf person with very little context for understanding how other people’s brains work, and perhaps no idea how different his really is.
Even if I don’t agree with you on all of what you said I agree with most of it. Sound reasoning and all that. The autism/aspergers ‘excuse’ is definitely hard to accept given his history.
I’m conflicted here. The fact that he’s a weirdo is kind of irrelevant imo. He’s philosophically uncompromising and unmoved by social pressure. The only thing separating him from most tech CEOs is that he lacks an organization investing millions into his health, image, publicity etc Most big time executives are degenerates but no one cares because they are good at what they do. I think he’s good at making software free even if he’s a socially inept [insert criticism here] in his personal life. Additionally I’m saying this as someone who disagrees with him on basically every other issue he takes a stand on.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
The kind of life he’s led has not given him the types of socially safe situations in which to learn the things that you shouldn’t say. I think it’s fair to say that the same influences that might have moderated his public statements would also have moderated his public work and he would not have accomplished what he has.
When I listen to him talk I hear a type of clarity of thought and direction of speech i’ve never heard from someone who isn’t autistic, like I am myself. I think with him it’s a case of you taking the good with the bad, and recognizing that when he says something it’s not necessarily coming from the same place as it would be from someone else with a similarly wide public exposure.
I’ve not heard that he’s done anything horrible to anyone, and if memory serves his worst statements still recognized the importance of consent, while totally missing the definitional limits of being able to provide it. What i’m getting at is that he doesn’t seem to be a horrible person. He seems to be a tone deaf person with very little context for understanding how other people’s brains work, and perhaps no idea how different his really is.