Let's not make the mistake of calling Stallman unintelligent or deaf. He simply chooses to direct his attention to other tones.
>having or showing an obtuse insensitivity or lack of perception particularly in matters of public sentiment, opinion, or taste
Having read that I stand by what I said. In my opinion he has shown "an obtuse insensitivity or lack of perception of public sentiment" on more than one occasion. The Minsky message being a very good example. Whether you agree with the sentiment or not is seperate from clearly being obtusely insensitive about the public sentiment I think.
He waded into the crazy internet morass that is sexual assault and Epstein, and didn't realize that quotes like the one below might trigger a response. That is either hopelessly naive, or absolutely "tone deaf" -- these have been over-the-top, hyper-sensitive topics for weeks.
Maybe he's just so used to staking odd or controversial positions and didn't see this as any different, I don't know. But the optics are terrible.
> "The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing," Stallman wrote in his post last Wednesday. "Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term 'sexual assault' in an accusation."
It seems to me the problem isn't that he's tone deaf but that other people have terrible reading comprehension.