I don't find him threatening, but I find him offensive. The concept of freedom for human beings is an incredibly important one that people have fought and died over, and needs to be protected at all costs, even our own lives. His movement has consciously coopted the word and the emotive properties that go with it for the purpose of something that is orders of magnitude less important, the freedom of software. I would love to put him in a room with a real freedom fighter and have them discuss their causes. "So, I fight for the freedom of programmers to play with source code" "Oh really? I fight for freedom from the people who have enslaved my race, raped my wife and daughter, and have my son in slavery"
I also don't agree with him, and think he's a jerk for calling people like me unethical for writing non-free software (even though I often contribute my time to writing and improving free software, and live my life in a very ethical and honorable fashion), but honestly, if that was the only thing I wouldn't care so much. Like you said, there are loads of people that believe all sorts of kooky things out there, and life is too short to get bent out of shape over things like that. But man, using terms like he does to paint himself in the light he does really really rubs me the wrong way, and the fact people in my industry stand for it pisses me right off.
Freedom of the mind (which is what software freedom is) and physical freedom are equally important and you can't really be free without both. What good is being safe from physical harm if you can't express your own points of view and make your own determinations? Restricting what software you can use with a computing machine that you own is a harm and RMS is right to fight against in the way that he sees fit.
It's more than freedom of the mind--it the freedom to use and modify tools to do as you see fit. Software isn't the only industry that necessarily harmed by "closed" tools--Ivan Illich started making this point in the 1970s. If workers completely lose control of their tools, they necessarily lose freedom.
I don't buy it. A designer with Photoshop is no more empowered then a designer with Photoshop and its source code. The only people source code matters to (and helps) is programmers, but then we start leaving the realm of the FSF and start entering the realm of open source, which is rooted in practicality.
Freedom of the mind is something like 1984 thought crime. What the FSF wants is the right to modify any program, which is completely different, and I think FAR less important.
> His movement has consciously coopted the word [freedom]
> for ... something ... less important
I don't think you realize how ubiquitous and critical to everyday life software is becoming. It's not just "freedom to play with source code," it's freedom to travel, read and form relationships as one sees fit and without being tracked.
The ability to "Travel and form relationships" is critical, but these are orthogonal concepts to what the FSF is fighting for. Beyond that, the technology that has enabled that ability is something the FSF is fighting -- facebook and twitter -- because they don't provide source code.
Now, I wouldn't call the ability to use facebook or twitter a "freedom" either, but I think not restricting their usage is also something that is more important then the "freedom" the FSF is fighting for
Your comment doesn't address the "as one sees fit and without being tracked" part. Both twitter and facebook track everything, and facebook is directly and opaquely influencing discourse through its feed filters.
But no one is talking about restricting their usage anyway. Stallman has taken direct action by refusing to use them (modulo using twitter for authentication) and is encouraging others to do the same. There are no restrictive laws on the table.
When those things become essential to civic discourse, the line between need and choose gets blurry. How many people choose to go without cell phones without being branded as RMS-type weirdos? And the recent thread on RMS's rejection of facebook had lots of complaints about the resistance people face for staying off facebook, and the price they pay in terms of disconnection from the discourses of their social circles. Yes, these are choices, but the price paid for rejecting these choices is getting higher and higher.
I also don't agree with him, and think he's a jerk for calling people like me unethical for writing non-free software (even though I often contribute my time to writing and improving free software, and live my life in a very ethical and honorable fashion), but honestly, if that was the only thing I wouldn't care so much. Like you said, there are loads of people that believe all sorts of kooky things out there, and life is too short to get bent out of shape over things like that. But man, using terms like he does to paint himself in the light he does really really rubs me the wrong way, and the fact people in my industry stand for it pisses me right off.