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
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 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.
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.
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.
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
