the people who like rms are wrong because rms is demonstrated trash, the people who don't like rms are wrong because they read articles about what he wrote that are factually incorrect. thus we proceed
@sneak trash or no, circulating a public document that calls someone a "dangerous force" with a "dangerous ideology" for having the bad manners to be a stinky nerd who wears his kink on his sleeve is some serious WTF.
@alrs rms is a creep and has regularly gone over the line and trying to normalize it by calling it "kink on his sleeve" is an insult to kinky people everywhere.
also nobody who eats his own toejam in public should be in any position of leadership regardless of how you feel about sjws
@sneak I'll take your word for it. I don't see the danger "old, icky fat man hits on women," neither as a deed nor an ideology. If he's a criminal, someone should press charges. If he's not in control of himself he should be committed. Perhaps if the full-text of the Open Letter About a Dangerous Man was simply "ewwwww!" I'd find it more honest.
@alrs there are tons of things one can do that makes one a creep and makes others feel alienated and unwelcome that aren't criminal but are total disqualifiers for being in any position of leadership.
@alrs @sneak Tbh I always thought of Stallman as kind of a dick, but also always that he’s done good stuff. The comment about how “voluntary pedophilia (!) doesn’t harm children” took that to another level though, and I personally wouldn’t associate with somebody who had views like that (even if he retracted the statement for PR reasons.) The main thing I read today seems like people in the org were upset that he went back on the board or whatever -
@northernlights @alrs @sneak - pretty much suddenly, without any discussion or transparency, from the way I read about it. I would find that obnoxious.
@northernlights @northernlights @sneak Nobody knows (so far) what's going on inside FSF. My guess is that they realized that as an FSF-outsider Stallman was going to start criticizing (and probably competing with) the FSF, and it was easier to keep him quiet as a board member.
@northernlights @sneak Stallman did not promote or condone rape or underage sex.
@alrs @sneak I’m not quite sure what to make of this quote, during a convo about a pro-pedophilia party in the Netherlands: “I am sceptical 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.”
@northernlights @alrs @sneak Maybe he was being provocative or there is some *very* charitable way to interpret this, or he misunderstands the definition of the word pedophilia.
@northernlights @alrs his claim
was about his being skeptical. he did not make any statement about the harm being real or not, he did not make any statement about pedophilia being good or bad. we should always promote skepticism and scientific inquiry and thought. it isn't anti-x to say "i am skeptical of x".
@northernlights Dunno where that one fits on the timeline, and wow, what a waste of reputation, but even in that one he's not advocating for it. My understanding is that Draper got banned from Defcon for the underage "massages." Has Stallman ever been accused of something like that? With all this "danger" talk I'd really like for someone to present a credible case that Stallman is likely to groom toward, commit, or attempt statutory rape.
@alrs There’s never been any sort of behavior of the sort on his part as far as I know, no. But there are very unfortunate comments about pedophilia and CP (multiple, over years.) It might be more along the lines of just extreme cluelessness and a tendency to say whatever he wants, and maybe be provocative for its own sake. “Dangerous” might well be blowing it out of the water; I wasn’t aware of apparent harassment allegations (whether true or not), just some -
@northernlights @alrs saying he is skeptical of the claim that voluntary pedophilia harms children DOES NOT EQUAL saying that voluntary pedophilia does not harm children (or that he believes voluntarily pedophilia does not harm children). they are ABSOLUTELY not the same statement.
rms is a hacker, and you have to read what he says in a very literal and explicit manner, or you will read what you imagine he is implying, which is usually wrong.
@northernlights @alrs that said, his inability or unwillingness to communicate in a way that doesn't confuse and anger normal people is a strong argument for his not being a board member of anything
@sneak @alrs Pedophilia is not something I am interested in having a "rational," "skeptical," conversation about, nor is there a dearth of evidence about it, nor do I have any moral qualms whatsoever about the matter. And this was in the explicit context of a Dutch pro-pedophilia party, which you can go look up, which is something along the lines of NAMBLA, but a political party, and probably a little more extreme. It was extremely stupid, and I'm extremely uninterested in carrying on a conversation as though there's some sort of deep intellectual respectable conversation to be had on the subject of adults fucking children.
@sneak @alrs Statutory rape laws when both parties are near in age to 18 is another matter, and in fact why “Romeo and Juliet” exceptions came into being. I’m far and away not a prude, nor am I saying that Stallman is some horrible monster or anything, but these kinds of statements (again, there is no sort of behavior of the sort on his part that I know of) are not somehow rationally defensible. At the least they’re incredibly stupid.
@northernlights @alrs they are indeed incredibly stupid, but your own decision to not take a rational approach to *what he actually said* versus what people said that he said is perhaps telling.
@northernlights @alrs i'm not really sure how to continue to discuss this topic with you if you aren't interested in an intellectual and respectable conversation of the facts, so i guess this is thread mute. please be well.
@sneak "danger" is an argument to put him on a no-fly list or bar him from setting foot within 500ft of an elementary school." In reality the sentiment is: he's gross, he's annoying, we don't like him. The authors of that letter are drama queens of a higher magnitude than #rms, elevating their aesthetic displeasure to a solemn warning about the dangers of some guy they resent. "Profiles in Courage" it is not.