Permanently deleted
Also, GNU foundation , software, and license were product of community efforts. Just like science. We only see names because of our own biases towards the cult of personalities. Imho this is bc everyone wants to be a hero, and no one likes thinking we are just pieces playing a role that can very much be carried out by other people sooner or later. That’s why we all should be doing our greatest efforts, even if you are not the legend you may want to be in whatever field of work you’re doing…
I feel about that with many Software Devs that do great stuff but I cant help but think they must be pretty horrible socially. Not that level actually though.
Permanently deleted
I say this time and time again; only listen to people regarding their field of authority. For anything outside the world of software, Stallman’s opinions should not be seen any more valid or important than any other person on the internet. We should stick to that more. (What happened/happens due to his position in the FSF is a different topic)
deleted by creator
Btw Redhat is working on rewriting code to remove racist trigger words like “slave”,“master”,“white list” and “black list”. Its crazy efford but I am really happy about that
Calling those words racist is absurd. Especially slave and master. It’s literally the function of the device.
People do the same with Musk. What anyone cares what Stallman, or Musk, says about things they know nothing about is beyond me.They both have said crazy things.
Except Musk is a disgustingly rich egomaniac who is using his money to influence the world based on shit opinions and beliefs. Stallman is just some creepy software dork that seems to keep to himself with his shitty opinions and beliefs.
Pretty bad comparison tbh.
They are both very committed and driven people. They both may be on the Autistic Spectrum, Musk admittedly and Stallman maybe though some say no. They both are influential. I would find it hard to choose. Free Software is in everything. Stallman is older so the majority of his work is in the past, Musk is just passing his prime. Musk is good at making money which is his benefit not ours … and hitching is name to other people’s companies and work. His own… Spacex maybe… not sure about the otgers. In terms of accomplishment a lot of both is the result of other peoples money and work… but that is the nature of things. There are other similarities…
The topic was their shit beliefs being the focal point of public discourse around them, not their personal achievements.
Why anyone cares what Musk says about things he knows nothing about is beyond me.
Likely because Elon Musk has built an entire career around convincing people who know even less about the subject than he does that he is an expert in this week’s scientific field
I think he makes the mistake of assuming that every person has a similar life experience to his own. I’ve read his biography, and apparently he was extremely intelligent and acted like an adult from a very young age. It could be that he hated being seen as a child and saw himself as a fully functional adult in a transitioning body.
In everything he says and does there is an extreme single-mindedness: his extremely strict free software and privacy related ideas show this. I think he applies a similar single-mindedness to a clearly nuanced situation, namely that of conscent. The nuance of power dynamics and coercion probably don’t play a role in his experience and therefore he ignores it. This results in the very wrong and dangerous opinions stated in the article.
I am not saying this to excuse any of his opinions, this is just my interpretation of where it might come from. It’s sad that the people around him are seemingly unable to educate him on these topics, but I believe it might be the same stubbornness that made him the proponent of the Free Software movement that is causing him to not mentally grow on this specific topic. It’s a truly unfortunate situation, but one that should not be ignored and people who oppose him because of these opinions are right to do so.
He totally thinks like somebody with highly rigid linear thinking. A person says yes to sex means consent, he does not comprehend kids can’t consent due to not knowing the full future impacts of what they agree to. Especially, if as you say, he saw himself as being autonomous at a younger age.
What biography did you read, would you recommend it? I assume there’s more than one.
I totally disagree with Stallman’s views and personally I do find them pretty worrying.
But I also disagree with the concept that employers should be the executive of the court of public opinion.
We have real courts and real police, we don’t need to invent a secondary one where people lose their jobs due to shitstorms.
If you think he did something illegal, report him to the police or sue him. If not, then this is freedom of speech. Even though he uses the freedom to voice a pretty crappy opinion.
I mean, if everyone who said something that lots of people disagree with, I guess we would all be unemployed now.
I disagree. Things you say have consequences. The things you say actively reflect on your employer and future employers. You can try to deny it all you want but that’s the fact. I for one look poorly on the FSF for reinstating Stallman and I don’t think the FSF is a body of decision-makers that are capable of making the right choice. That’s kind of a major part of the FSF.
The things you say actively reflect on your employer and future employers.
why?
Imagine a interview where employer tries to know every aspect of your personality and ideas, before hiring you.
Seems quite impossible.
For a celebrity like Stallman seems easy. But imagine checking the background of a random candidate just to see if she posted something bad years ago. And rejecting her application because of a post defendig the wrong ideas.
I agree we already have courts and police. If he did something illegal, there’s a course of action there.
For a random, non-public-facing employee, sure. But Stallman is the founder, and has always been the face and the voice of the FSF. He’s their mascot, their evangelist. He’s the one people see and think of when they think of the FSF. If he’s out here spouting extremely problematic views, and the FSF continues to employ him, then it looks like the organization as a whole is supporting those views.
I’m pretty sure that most people are mature enough to differentiate between an organization that makes software and nothing at all to do with kids and/or sexuality and that old wierdo’s personal views.
We live in a world where huge corporations with a revenue higher than the GDP of many countries routinely exploit child labour and work their workers to death or suicide, burning whole countries and pushing climate change while at it. And yet we collectively shrug and still buy Nestle, Apple, Samsung or H&M.
A shitstorm towards such a niche and unknown organisation as the FSF really doesn’t matter. We all know the Stallman and the FSF, because we are into computers, software and/or open source. But ask any random person on the street, thew wouldn’t know who Stallman or the FSF is if you told them that it’s not Android but actually Chrome/Android SDK/Dalvik/Toybox/Linux that runs on their phone.
I’m pretty sure that most people are mature enough to differentiate between an organization that makes software and nothing at all to do with kids and/or sexuality and that old wierdo’s personal views.
That’s not how PR works.
We live in a world where huge corporations with a revenue higher than the GDP of many countries routinely exploit child labour and work their workers to death or suicide, burning whole countries and pushing climate change while at it. And yet we collectively shrug and still buy Nestle, Apple, Samsung or H&M.
This is just whataboutism.
A shitstorm towards such a niche and unknown organisation as the FSF really doesn’t matter. We all know the Stallman and the FSF, because we are into computers, software and/or open source. But ask any random person on the street, thew wouldn’t know who Stallman or the FSF is if you told them that it’s not Android but actually Chrome/Android SDK/Dalvik/Toybox/Linux that runs on their phone.
So just because the FSF is a niche org, we should just ignore the problematic public statements by it’s founder and the person who’s always been at the forefront of their PR?
Tbh, this just sounds like free speech absolutism apologia. Yes, people can say whatever they want. But they are not free from consequences. I want nothing to do with an org that would have Stallman as a part of it. I don’t want to be associated with anyone who would. If you continue supporting an org that supports someone like Stallman, then both you and the org approve of the things he’s saying. Period. Your words mean nothing. Your actions speak for themselves.
Your actions do nothing. You complain on the internet about some guy that said something you don’t like. Nobody from FSF is gonna read it. And neither will Stallman or anyone that matters.
I don’t see you boycotting software related to FSF. And even if you do, it doesn’t even matter, since the overwhelming majority of FOSS users never donate any money at all.
You are no customer of the FSF, you just enjoy their stuff for free.
So your actions amount to angry screaming into a box.
Doesn’t the phrase “wrong ideas” worry you a bit? I don’t agree with everything Stallman says, but I think he has a right to say it, just the same as others have the right to say they don’t like it and think he’s a horrible pig or whatever. This is, of course, very different from acting on beliefs like his, which could certainly end up being harmful.
But when we as a society get to the point where we say an idea is wrong, it provokes the individual to act on the idea rather than talk about it. That’s why freedom of speech is so important. Let the idea air and argue with it in a civilised way, and these things will sort themselves out.
You’re right.
I used the phrase “wrong ideas” precisely to evoke that sentiment. Stallman’s ideas may be “wrong” for us, for good reasons. But that doesn’t make them objectively wrong. And he doesn’t seem to cross any legal boundary using his blog to defend some ideas we don’t like.
And neither should we mix the work of FSF with Stallman’s weird blog posts.
If you think he did something illegal, report him to the police or sue him. If not, then this is freedom of speech.
…and? People also have freedom of association, and people can choose not to associate with an organization that employs someone with morally awful beliefs - especially when they make those beliefs very public.
Apparently, Stallman is a net positive for them, so they keep him.
Doesn’t mean that they in any way endorse pedophilia.
And the freedom of association also doesn’t mean that a bunch of enraged people online have the freedom to decide whom they associate with.
And apparently, in the USA there is a whole party devoted to child marriage and other ways to have sex with minors. That might be the better point to start, because they actually have a say regarding laws on that matter.
And apparently, in the USA there is a whole party devoted to child marriage and other ways to have sex with minors. That might be the better point to start, because they actually have a say regarding laws on that matter.
i’m not sure why we’re acting as if condemning Richard Stallman and the Republican Party for their equally bad takes in this sphere are mutually exclusive of each other.
Freedom of speech is freedom of suppression from the government not freedom of social consequences.
Fuck him and not hiring assholes is praxis. A shitty person isnt isolated from being shitty when they are doing the one thing they are good at.
You can find non shitty people who are good at the same thing and keep the community clean from shitbags.
Our communities dont need terrible people even if they do good work.
There is this tendency to put people into either the good or bad box and that is something we all need to work on.
In light of his position with the FSF, it is unwise for him to say controversial things unrelated to this role simply because people are just waiting to make hay.
However calling someone bad or evil just because you disagree with them is really nuts. Ironic this forum is suppose to be accepting of differences and Stalmann is certainly different.
Yes, the old “hebephilia is not pedophilia, and is normal” shtick.
Obviously yes, there is a very big (biological) difference between sexual attraction to pubescent vs pre-pubescent persons.
That has nothing to do with the Age of Consent, which is a legal standard set in order to account for social dynamics (power dynamics, education differences, etc) that also factor into consent, which is most of the situations he’s talking about, e.g. Roy Moore.
If Stallman wants to do the whole, “there’s no difference between being attracted to a 17-and-364-days year-old and an 18 year-old” bit, I don’t think anyone would care outside of the fact that being hung up on that when you’re not yourself in that dating range just makes you seem creepy. When you’re 18, that discussion is much more relevant. Not so much at Stallman’s age.
But him clearly talking more about the 13-14 year old range, where even someone going through puberty is much closer to pre-pubescent than post-pubescent, just makes him seem like he’s actually a pedophile who wants a loophole.
Yup it is totally weird, why would anyone even argue about this? How did which conversations actually go in that direction, why would they?
I like stallman and I have not read this yet but as much as I like his free software movement, he is not the first person I would seek out to get sex advice from.
I remember reading a comment somewhere that said it’s hard to explain the difference between children and teenagers (in this context) without sounding like a creep. Him being very adamant in pointing out the distinction is a prime example of that.
You might have heard that in a comedy routine: https://youtu.be/nu6C2KL_S9o?si=Wwa-D1QFciB5sb78
Why does this reek of the BBC and Jimmy Savile?
Because it’s the exact same bloody pattern. Only thing is, FOSS circles don’t have enough political clout to hush things up the way the BBC did.
So he’s attracted to Girls plus Puberty.
This analysis is full of non sequiturs. Disappointed in DeVault.
What do you mean?
He said that Stallman had some fucked up views, showed quotes on what his views are, explained how this is a pattern, and finally said why this should make it so that we reject him in the Free Software community.
Which part was the non sequitur?
He made conclusions from quotes which didn’t follow from contents of those quotes.
Examples please
About this quote:
'Senate candidate Roy Moore tried to start dating/sexual relationships with teenagers some decades ago.
He tried to lead Ms Corfman step by step into sex, but he always respected “no” from her and his other dates. Thus, Moore does not deserve the exaggerated condemnation that he is receiving for this. As an example of exaggeration: one mailing referred to these teenagers as “children”, even the one that was 18 years old. Many teenagers are minors, but none of them are children.
The condemnation is surely sparked by the political motive of wanting to defeat Moore in the coming election, but it draws fuel from ageism and the fashion for overprotectiveness of “children”.’
DeVault says that Stallman draws a distinction between children and teenagers
‘especially to suggest that an adult having sex with a minor is socially acceptable’
but Stallman makes no such suggestion. In fact, Stallman makes no mention of social acceptability at all. DeVault is putting words in Stallman’s mouth.
About this quote:
'Calling teenagers “children” encourages treating teenagers as children, a harmful practice which retards their development into capable adults.
In this case, the effect of that mislabeling is to smear Wilson. It is rare, and considered perverse, for adults to be physically attracted to children. However, it is normal for adults to be physically attracted to adolescents. Since the claims about Wilson is the latter, it is wrong to present it as the former.’
DeVault says that Stallman
‘sought to normalize adult attraction to minors, literally describing it as “normal”’
but Stallman did not say that adult attraction to “minors” is normal.
Acknowledgement of correctness please.
That’s the feeling I got too. It’s difficult to take such articles seriously, articles that parse what people said in minute detail with insertions of conclusions for the reader to agree with. It’s like the reader is being led on to the conclusion the writer wants.
IMO Stallman has no idea what he’s talking about and drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, but doing so on a subject that people feel very strongly about - and it’s not a harmless debate about vim vs emacs, but actual human experiences. Topics involving young people evoke something in most people and Stallman is treading right into it. Well, at least in the cherry-picked quotes he is. I have no desire, time, nor will to read investigate what some dude thinks on the topic.
You’re right, DeVault probably made a leap in accusing Stallman of describing sex with teenagers socially acceptable. But I can see where he comes from since Stallman is very insistent on the delineation of children and teenagers especially when child sexual abuse cases are in the news.
On the second point, I think he did say that attraction to minors is normal. He defined adolescents as minors before and he’s saying attraction to them is normal here.
On the second point, I think he did say that attraction to minors is normal. He defined adolescents as minors before and he’s saying attraction to them is normal here.
He said attraction to adolescents is normal. He did not say that attraction to minors is normal. Distinguishing between the two is his whole point.
Instead of paying attention to what Stallman is actually saying, DeVault chose to disregard Stallman’s word, “adolescent” and instead claim that he used a different word, “minor”, a more general word which includes a larger group, children. DeVault is clearly trying to paint Stallman as something he is not. Which, ironically, is exactly what Stallman was criticising the media for in his quote. And bizarrely, even though I’ve pointed this out to you, you’re doing the same.
He defined adolescents as minors before and he’s saying attraction to them is normal here.
“Adolescents are animals. Adult attraction to adolescents is normal. Therefore adult attraction to animals is normal.”
“Adolescents are animals. Adult attraction to adolescents is normal. A person who says that adult attraction to adolescents is normal is saying that adult attraction to animals is normal.”
These are non sequiturs, just like yours and DeVault’s assertions. Please try to think.
https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-logic/chapter/chapter-1/
Stallman said
As an example of exaggeration: one mailing referred to these teenagers as “children”, even the one that was 18 years old. Many teenagers are minors, but none of them are children.
So I believe that he thinks that a “minor” is someone who is below the age of 18. “Many teenagers are minors” meaning not all of them since 18 and 19 year-olds are not minors but the rest are. I think this is a good-faith interpretation of what Stallman means. Stallman also said
In this case, the effect of that mislabeling is to smear Wilson. It is rare, and considered perverse, for adults to be physically attracted to children. However, it is normal for adults to be physically attracted to adolescents. Since the claims about Wilson is the latter, it is wrong to present it as the former.’
Thus, he most likely means that the adolescents he was referring to are minors. Unless he counts 18-25 year-olds as adolescents which is very unlikely in my opinion. Unless something is wrong here with my interpretation, DeVault asserting that Stallman thinks being attracted to minors is normal is a totally reasonable thing to say.
The only thing I know about this guy is that he’s “that” kind of libertarian
This is btw not new at all
