In Defense of Richard Stallman

Post by xyzzyz » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 9:18 PM UTC

rando832 wrote: post #293

throw0101a wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every episode I read about fell into the category of "socially awkward adult male". If we can't, as a group, tolerate awkwardness, we are very much down the rabbit hole of mandatory social conformity. Perhaps you need to read about more episodes: > I worked 10 years ago at VA Linux which had Richard Stallman on its board of directors. You might have heard that Stallman applied his open source ideas to his publicly…

This story has obvious falsehoods and as far as I can tell, is totally false or about the wrong person. 1. As far as I can tell, he was never on the board of VA Linux. 2. RMS was never married. https://www.quora.com/Is-Richard-Stallman-married 3. It is a widely known that if anyone ever associates RMS with "open source", he will interject to say that he vehemently disagrees with open source and had nothing to do with…

Post by CathedralBorrow » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 9:19 PM UTC

doubleunplussed wrote: post #573

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So ideally you'd have no qualms with a preschool teacher who blogs about how sex with children is perfectly fine in their spare time? Or an employee who regularly publishes manifestos on why people of certain skin colors should be murdered and exterminated? These are extreme examples of course, but you are saying that ideally no one should experience any consequences for expressing any opinion outside of work.

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…

Post by coldtea » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 10:08 PM UTC

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #325

sgt wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's entitled to have an opinion. He's not promoting pedophilia, merely stating that he's skeptical to the current opinions about pedophilia. It could be that in 300 years from now, pedophilia or rather hebephilia (what most people mean) is perfectly accepted by society. I honestly hope it won't, and I don't agree with RMS on these points, but he's allowed to be skeptical.

Oh absolutely he's allowed to be skeptical. He's allowed to say whatever he wants, and he certainly has used that freedom.

Post by dang » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 10:41 PM UTC

eej2ya1K wrote: post #94

sascha_sl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

before someone goes into a defensive rage... rms being a creep and particularly women at MIT going to great lengths to avoid him is well documented these remarks, while slightly distorted by the media, are still part of a pattern of dismissing sexual assault (including the way RMS insists on not using the word assault despite it being well understood that assault does not have to be physical violence) rms is the sort…

You, too - stop lying. People have been asking for documentation in every thread about this and it never shows up. Stop fucking lying.

Post by dang » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 10:57 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #616

frabbit wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the first time you have made this untrue allegation DanBC. It is clear now that you are acting in very bad faith. It speaks volumes about your reliability.

Read what RMS says. 1) "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." 2) "Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of "child pornography", and points out that if in the US you observe th…