this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
323 points (86.1% liked)

linuxmemes

21222 readers
56 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

  • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    So him changing his mind was fake, him leaving his own foundation was fake, is there anything that could prove you wrong then?

    He was only sorry once he got a lot of flak for his pro child rape opinions.

    No, he got in trouble, because he was misquoted by the media when he talked about Minsky. If he is such a liar, why didn't he apologize for that, since that was actually what the drama was about? He could have said that he was wrong and that he no longer believed that. But for some weird reason he didn't.

    Put it this way - if Andrew Tate all of a sudden said that sexism is wrong and he’s sorry for his actions, only once YouTube started removing his videos, would you believe it to be genuine? Or just him trying to maintain his position?

    So mentioning pedophilia 3 times over 10 years (2003-2013) makes it comparable to Andrew Tate?

    It certainly seems like a convenient time to have a change of heart, no?

    Let's see. He mentions it for the last time in 2013. Then people dig up his old posts in 2019 and he responds. He had only 6 years to change his mind, very suspicious. Btw, do you know how people knew about those posts? They were on his public website. It was not a secret.

    Sorry, I have no time for people who want to see children get raped.

    You're just salty, because we are going to destroy your precious little proprietary software and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

    [–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    They're obsessed.

    And their whole argument is based on believing that changing an opinion which wasn't really thought that hard about at the time, and rarely stated, is implausible. But everyone holds at least some opinions which they have not done too much research on, and do not think about much. Why would this one be thought about frequently? The answer is it wouldn't have been.

    Of course, when such an opinion is scrutinised you suddenly have to dig into it and scrutinise it yourself, and this is where Stallman changed it. It's not some mad conspiracy to save his (volunteer) job, it's basic stuff.

    I'd disengage if I were you. Eventually, they'll get angry at you, then they'll try to claim that you support his old, misinformed opinion (even if you explicitly condemn it).

    As you've seen they'll also try to claim that Stallman himself wants to do these things, when that has never been so much as hinted at. They make things up. They have no real argument.

    [–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

    Exactly. There have been things that I had believed for most of my life that were false. If we punish people for being wrong, then nobody will ever change their mind. The cost of doing so will be just too big.

    Richard also doesn't care if some subject seems disgusting or if his ideas seem radical to most people. He will talk about the ethics anyway, without any emotions attached. That's what philosophers do.

    They have to make it look like some conspiracy, a "cult", etc., since they have nothing else that they could use. There are always people attracted by that sort of thinking and for them it will be enough. In 2019 we saw multiple Free Software projects joining a hate campaign against Stallman based on a blog post that misquoted him and another blog post with fake rumours. The second one was linked by the Software Freedom Conservancy (https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-speak-for-us) and it contained stories like these:

    I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”

    I think all of those people are either blinded by hatred or have some other motive (in this case it's hard for me to believe they are all this stupid and can't recognise obvious trolling). Maybe some of them want proprietary software to exist and Richard's ideas are too radical for them. But the only way they can fight him or the FSF is with lies.

    [–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

    It took me a while to realise this, but 2 of the quotes that this person has posted were not full quotes. I will post them here in case you are curious.

    The one from 2003:

    The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

    Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.

    For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).

    Source: https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html

    The one from 2013:

    There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

    Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue.

    Source: https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia)

    The one from 2006 was a full quote, but that post contains a note now:

    [Many years after posting this note, I had conversations with people who had been sexually abused as children and had suffered harmful effects. These conversations eventually convinced me that the practice is harmful and adults should not do it.]

    Source: https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party)

    [–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

    If you genuinely believe he just happened to have an epiphany on his decades-held opinion that child rape is fine, right when his job was on the line, then I have a bridge to sell you.

    And how are you unaware that top-level people in companies and in government and the like are given the opportunity to "resign" to save face when they're being kicked out? Surely you know that's a thing.

    "Oh well he only publicly said raping children is fine a few times" - Wow. This is the level that the Stallman cult operates at? Oh well he could have publicly advocated for raping children more, so he's a nice guy really!

    Brightened my day so much finding out that sick fuck got cancer. Can't rape kids, or advocate doing so, when you're dead.

    [–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

    Let's create a society where people can't be wrong. Instead they will be always right! Otherwise they will get cancelled! Isn't that a great idea?

    We will only discuss opinions that everyone agrees with. Child abuse? Well, we don't like that, so let's pretend it doesn't exist and never talk about it. Somebody mentions it? Cancel them! Disagrees with us? Cancel! Changed their mind? Too late! Already cancelled!

    “Oh well he only publicly said raping children is fine a few times”

    He never said rape, so you are wrong! Cancelled!

    Brightened my day so much finding out that sick fuck got cancer. Can’t rape kids, or advocate doing so, when you’re dead.

    I hate to worsen your day then, because he is not dying. You were wrong again. Double cancelled!

    [–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

    Stop trying to justify child rape. It's not acceptable.

    And yeah, someone who uses their workplace email address to champion the noble cause of raping children probably should be out of their job.

    I know if I started talking about the merits of having sex with kids using my workplace email address, I'd be out of a job pretty quick. As would you.

    This guy you simp for is a creep. I can't believe you're so deep in his cult that now you're defending having sex with children. Have a word with yourself.

    [–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

    Don't talk to me, you are cancelled.

    [–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

    Cool beans. Don't want to talk to a paedophile lover anyway.

    Remember, children can't consent and they don't want your dick.