"put ferns he was known to dislike in her office so he'd leave her alone "

Nuts. Absolutely nuts.

Whether it's true or not, I don't think DrinkyPoo should be posting (or, more generally, allowed to keep a job or access the internet) under the shadow of those accusations. It's become a distraction.

And was it ok?

There's a game theory aspect, where you say that he may be a creep, but the only safe and consistent response to the cancel mob is to refuse any of their demands. If the FSF board manages to show the strength to ignore the mob, the mob loses all future power over them. The reason they're so shrill and frantic about this issue is that they've been consistently acquiesced to in the open source world. They don't want that power to slip out of their grasp.

The entire source of the homophobia accusations are that he donated $1,000 to support proposition 8.

A proposition which passed, by the way, with 52% of the popular vote. Would you like to avoid doing business with, and spend the rest of your life trying to cancel, 52% of the population of California? Is being IN THE MAJORITY that big of a crime?

Of course, he's a name in the tech industry, and so you're trying to make an example of him, to prevent anybody straying from the orthodoxy.

By the way, I disagreed with him about Prop 8.

What's frightening is that the Mozilla Foundation is every bit the sloppy-thinking, hasty-judging, unconcerned-about-truth idealogue as the grandparent post here is. Highly paid professionals, but they don't even want to understand the actual facts, even when they are so accessible, indisputable, and obvious.

Think about that number for a minute or two, and you'll realize it's not correct.

You are misrepresenting what he said to a point that you're effectively lying. This has to be deliberate; you've seen what he said, and you don't seem illiterate. It must be dishonesty, probably fueled by ideologically-induced blindness.

Or you're trolling.

You're correct. They may respect somebody who chooses not to collect it, but from her position on similar issues, she would have said collecting SS is reasonable under current circumstances. Current circumstance being that money has been taken away from you your whole life, with no choice on your part.

Very few critics of Objectivism know anything about Objectivism. They're attacking a juvenile caricature of it.

How much tax money was collected from her over her lifetime? She was a successful author...

She wrote about similar situations, and thought it was moral to collect benefits back from a state that took your tax money. Her example was federal college grants. She said that it wasn't necessarily immoral, any more than it was immoral to steal your own money back from a thief. The immoral part is advocating for more taxes or other totalitarian laws and regulations to benefit yourself.

He lost, but I'm not sure the lawyers won. I've been seeing this story all over.

Many more deaths have occurred because of the BLM riots than the Washington riot. Calling one an 'insurrection' and another a 'demonstration' is such an obvious example of manipulative doublespeak that I doubt the rationality or maturity of anyone who buys into that nonsense.

Everybody who participated in either riot who broke the law, vandalized, or threatened, should be punished. They're very equivalent... packed with stupid young men fired up by ideological lies.

"Portland Free Zone"

What you're experiencing is called "willful blindness".

Hmm. Do you count any of the deaths from the riots over the spring and summer? Reddit has less blame than Twitter, I suppose...