In Defense of Richard Stallman

Post by johnsea » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 12:51 AM UTC

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #623

doubleunplussed wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally, yes. It's not that they should face no consequences - they should face consequences in the circles in which they express those views, ideally in the form of people disagreeing with them, but possibly also wanting to dissociate with them. If they try to keep those views out of the classroom, I don't have a problem with it. In the classroom, you are the instrument of a consensus view. You must do your job. If…

That's fair, and thanks for the explanation. I couldn't disagree more but that's normal. In this extreme example of mine, would you be happy as a parent to have your children in this teacher's classroom? Would you be taking part in a free speech suppressing pitchfork mob if you were to call the school and express your opinion that you don't want your child to be taught by a pedophile?

Post by eyko » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 1:45 AM UTC

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #367

booleandilemma wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is musing illegal now or what? Can people still have controversial opinions without getting their lives destroyed?

Stallman wasn't convicted of any crime, so please drop the "illegal" thing. He can have whatever controversial opinions he wants.

Post by foldr » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 6:22 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #639

foldr wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he hasn't very publicly retracted that view and apologized (and: he hasn't), then he shouldn't be surprised that people aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he talks about sex crimes.

> If he hasn't very publicly retracted that view and apologized (and: he hasn't) Except he has ( https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html ): > 14 September 2019 (Sex between an adult and a child is wrong) Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how…

Post by paganel » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 6:27 AM UTC

sergioj97 wrote: post #544

paganel wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we should fire people who are borderline pro-paedophilia and are actually pro-rape. Also, just read the accounts of women who have had the bad luck of directly working with Stallman. We’re all grownups, at some point we should all be responsible for what we say and what we do.

Stallman isn't pro-paedophilia. He stated years ago that he didn't see enough evidence to believe sexual relations with children are harmful for them if they are consensual. That's _not_ believing sexual relations with children can be ok if they are consensual, that's believing you don't have enough evidence to believe the opposite. And why are you arguing he is pro-rape?

Post by CathedralBorrow » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 8:40 AM UTC

eyko wrote: post #642

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But surely you can see how that can become absurd. Extreme example: An employee at your company keeps a blog about how having sex with children is perfectly fine, how black people are all stupid and how jews should be exterminated because Hitler had the right idea. Also that almost all accusations of rape are false because all women are lying bitches. All perfectly legal opinions that don't relate directly to his wor…

It depends on wether they act on it or not: do they have sex with children, treat black people at work as if they were stupid, or have problems working with jewish colleagues? Do their biases affect the workplace? To be clear, I believe that all our biases are present in the workplace, which is why the philosophy behind separation of power should apply, somehow. That being said, I'd never campaign or ask for the firi…