It doesn't do rms any favors, because it makes him look like a weakling.
What's wrong with being a weakling? Some people live in wheelchairs; some people can't do math. It's wrong to target a weakness like that as a means of ridiculing a person, and it's wrong (though effective in most circles) to stigmatize the views by stigmatizing the person.
Richard Stallman is not very socially gifted, and no matter how much he polishes that turd he will never be able to hide his weakness and pass himself off as socially "strong." I identify with Stallman in that people who have a reason to resent me find it very, very easy to despise me for being a little socially out of tune. I'll never be able to perfectly hide it, so people will always find it easy to look down on me if they wish to do so. If you want to make it into a contest of "strength" I would have to mock them for their intelligence, their income, their boring jobs, the fatness of their girlfriends, how small they have to make their worlds to feel big inside them... that doesn't sound very attractive, does it? How much time would you want to spend around people who act that way? You can't win that way, not without becoming what you despise. So I'll stick up for Richard Stallman against those who personally insult him.
What can he do to stop them himself? They don't care what he says; they're doing it because they enjoy it and think that everyone else who matters enjoys it. The only thing that will stop them is knowing that people find their behavior generally repugnant.
How about this, stated more simply: this defense of rms ignores his achievements and points out his shortcomings, and so fails to defend him effectively. By discussing his social awkwardness instead of the free software ideas, organizations and artifacts that he worked for, we respect him as an individual in only a superficial way.
This may be a defense against an ad hominem attack, but it's still an argument about the qualities of the man himself.
I have two responses, one speaking to the social logic of the situation (which I think is essential to what's going on) and one speaking to his merits as a human being (which I think are a red herring.) I don't know how to relate them to each other, so I'll just lay them each out.
First, the social logic. No amount of achievement makes you less of a dork. Bill Gates is an incredibly rich dork, but he's still a dork. Most of the country can revel in their superior social appeal, their superior ability to add life to a party and make every kind of social situation more easy and enjoyable than Bill Gates would. Oprah is rich and accomplished, but every skinny woman in America can read about Oprah's weight problems and think, "I may have my own problems, but at least I'm not Oprah." These things aren't amenable to reason. They go right back to childhood pecking orders and insecurities. It's just raw, ugly aggression, plain and simple.
Second, though I think it's irrelevant to this childish mockery, the merits of the man. To make a case for Richard Stallman is to accept that his dorkiness is something that needs to be apologized and compensated for. Is it? By most accounts, he has worked hard to be a good ambassador for his ideas and has only tried to retain the aspie qualities that he felt were helpful for his life and his goals. Like any other person with a weakness, he can only be blamed to the extent that he indulges his weakness in a lax or perverse way. I've read enough about RMS to guess that he gets his fair share of legitimate criticism in that vein, but (as you would guess) the stuff that is noised about in public is always just mean and nasty, meant to ridicule and discredit him, not to push him to be better. Legitimate criticism deserves a legitimate answer. Bullying only deserves disdain. Bullying depends on the perception that it elevates the bully over the target, and we should make it clear that we don't see it that way, that it degrades the bullies and doesn't have the slightest pertinence to Richard Stallman himself.
There are plenty of people debating free software and championing various positions. It is fashionable to insult Stallman, that's unacceptable, and it's worth standing up against it.
What's wrong with being a weakling? Some people live in wheelchairs; some people can't do math. It's wrong to target a weakness like that as a means of ridiculing a person, and it's wrong (though effective in most circles) to stigmatize the views by stigmatizing the person.
Richard Stallman is not very socially gifted, and no matter how much he polishes that turd he will never be able to hide his weakness and pass himself off as socially "strong." I identify with Stallman in that people who have a reason to resent me find it very, very easy to despise me for being a little socially out of tune. I'll never be able to perfectly hide it, so people will always find it easy to look down on me if they wish to do so. If you want to make it into a contest of "strength" I would have to mock them for their intelligence, their income, their boring jobs, the fatness of their girlfriends, how small they have to make their worlds to feel big inside them... that doesn't sound very attractive, does it? How much time would you want to spend around people who act that way? You can't win that way, not without becoming what you despise. So I'll stick up for Richard Stallman against those who personally insult him.
What can he do to stop them himself? They don't care what he says; they're doing it because they enjoy it and think that everyone else who matters enjoys it. The only thing that will stop them is knowing that people find their behavior generally repugnant.