> We're not talking about people in wheelchairs

Me neither, I'm talking about disantvaged categories.
You should knwow before talking.
That's an endless problem with US folks...

> We're talking about prima Donna assholes at work that make everyone else's lives miserable

Yo can't fire me in Italy, not even for being a prima Donna.
And Stallman has never been one.
But the most important issue here is that "Donna" means "woman", so are you implying that bad behaviour is feminine?

> no one cares how good your code is when you make 8 hours a day of their life suck.

Who's talking about imaginary persons now?
They simply don't exist, everybody makes other's people life suck from time to time.
I'm glad you are inventing an hiring manager role that you clearly never had, because your behaviour is unacceptable.

> but fails at being a semi-decent human being

Do you really think you're being one right now?
Or that you are one all the time?
I really doubt that could be remotely true

> Why do I care if you're physically disabled in some way?

Because people like you is gonna make them fell less, because yeah, **they make your life suck sometimes**, they know, and they **feel bad about it**.
So they need you protection, more that the morons the like of you.

I'm sorry to have to write this from a brand new, low karma, account, but this is the time we're living in and everybody supporting the right of Stallman to have a fair trial among his peers (maybe cast a vote?) even if not supporting hime directly as a person or just disagreeing with him while thinking he had it rough, risk of being the next one.
First of all I want to say that I think this is a second wave of "libertarianism" targeting the wrong targets.
First came Stallman, Linus, Raymond and the FSF movement trying to liberate the world from proprietary software and corporations controlling the tools AND the final product, in a way that was hurting the freedom of everyone using the tools or creating something.
It was good, it has been a good thing.

Now I see it as since we lack the same conditions, free software is taken for granted, but some people still need a fight to feel alive and not think that their generation did nothing, the villains have become the unconventional, those that are not exactly like us, with us meaning "me and people like me".
I've never been a Stallman supporter, but I've seen his struggle through the years to change, to become more relatable, to become more socially acceptable.
Unfortunately for a man like him change takes time, he cannot change completely opinion in a few months.
I find it scary: on one side Stallman, like in Lem's Solaris, is not Stallman, he's what we made him through time, legends, word of mouth, we crystallized him in that position, but he's actually a different person from what he was 40 years ago.
If not something else, he's 40 years older.
"I'm suicidal because that's how you remember me.", says Rheya clone (projection? replica? whatever) to his husband. The being doesn't remember who she was, but the husband does and through his memories she learn she was suicidal. Because he said so.
As long as we keep talking about Stallman as a being instead of a real human, he'll always be what we make him and not who he really is.
On the other side, what's acceptable?
In the past few years (3 at most) people have been attacked for:
- using gender pronouns
- using the words "master" and "slave" in software projects
- not accepting PRs about non gendered language (their instead of he or she)
- not having a COC
- not using that particular COC

What's next? If I'm vegetarian, can I target non vegetarians? I've read in some studies the eating meat is bad for the environment, it's a just fight!
Isn't it?

If I'm from a country where age of consent is 14 or 15 (Serbia, Sweden, Italy, France, Denmark, Portugal, Austria, Germany, just to name a few), am I to abiure and ask for forgiveness before talking about something that upset only US audience?
How do I know if I can say something or not?
Is there a manual, a course, a video lesson, where I can learn such things?
Is there a tribunal in case I make a mistake?

Where do we draw the line?
Are you sure this is good for the future of the FSF movement as we knew it?
I have doubts...

He wasn't at work.
Secondary: US society is fucked, at work in my country my opinions are protected by the law, I can say whatever I want and as long as they are my opinions and I don't beak any law, I'm safe.

Jack Dorsey said that Twitter can't fight nazi on Twitter because they are too hard to find and, BTW, they are expressing their opinion.
He's still there.
Why the double standard?

You mean can control the outcome just like Epstein lived almost all of his life without being accused of anything?
Stallman was thrown under the bus for political reasons, everybody with a minimal residual of intelligence understands that.
For example: Eben Moglen was the exact opposite of Stallman, and still he was attacked by the same that today feast on Stallman's blood.
Remember: we don't forget!

It's the exact opposite!
If he wasn't protected, he would have turned violent for sure, because the world around hurts too much!
It psychology 101.

So what? Why is he held responsible for not doing it, while people like Selam G., building killing machines for the US military, can lose their shit and get away with it?

p.s. lucky me I don't live in the US. In my country in Europe companies have the obligation to hire a certain number of people with disabilities to integrate them in the society, no matter how many problems they create, it is their right to live as normal beings and not be pushed on the edge of society just because their mind and bodies work differently from ours. Of course "you're better off without them", too bat that that's the worst of the worst eugenic philosophy at work.

> However, when it gets to the point that others can’t do their job then you are a problem How exactly Selam G. who wrote "Remove Richard Stallman. And everyone else horrible in tech." could not do her job as engineer building autonomous driving vehicles for American defence (AKA killer drones for the military)? Could we ask to remove her too, because she's an horrible person, creating horrible (for the humanity) tools?

And how exactly telling a blind person "I wish they learned to see" is "not being a tool"?
Why are you assuming Stallman was able to learn that precise trait, while it's fairly obvious it was a fault in his human nature, just like yours is not seeing it.
Connecting people means accepting other's fault, helping them when they need help and accepting their help when you need it, not blaming them after the fact.
That's just being shitty humans.