3 ms·

So he was crashing on their couch rent free, and he thanks them by posting crazy screeds on the mailing list? It's not terribly surprising it turned out like th

So he was crashing on their couch rent free, and he thanks them by posting crazy screeds on the mailing list? It's not terribly surprising it turned out like this.

SergeAx 7y ago
Or he was lending them his name in exchange for a couch.
rodgerd 7y ago
His defence of Minsky - that there's nothing wrong with adult men fucking children procured by a child trafficker, because the children like it - was merely the last straw in a long line of obnoxious behaviour, ranging from being angry at people for celebrating having a child, to a spirited enthusiasm for the idea that small children are enthusiastic sexual partners that goes back decades. Moreover, anyone putting in even the smallest effort to look at what's surfaced will see this goes hand-in-hand with sexual harassment of undergrads and "funny but not really" stories of women cultivating plants in their offices because it keeps him away.
- iliketocomplain 7y ago
  He never said that there's nothing wrong with it, which means you're lying. Shame on you. (disclaimer: I dislike Stallman a lot anyway, but this is just a typical SJW witch Hunt. Because he did in fact never say it's ok nor defended it.) Edit: typo
  - vkou 7y ago
    He has, on record, said that he thinks there is nothing wrong with statutory rape 'as long as both parties consent'. I'm not sure he understands the concept of consent.
    - wiz21c 7y ago
      Read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape (see Romeo and Juliet clause) Stallman being a defender of freedom has, obviously, a very powerful definition of consent ('cos consent is a form of freedom). It's far of ours, and in a dangerous territory. But that doesn't make it wrong.
    - iliketocomplain 7y ago
      He did say (write) that, yes. Still different to what the other poster wrote: that he's ok with non-consentual stuff. He specifically wrote that it might have _seemed_ consentual to the other guy. He nowhere implied it actually was. He also did not defend someone forcing others to do with things against there will while making it look consentual. I assume if one asked him this exactly, he'd say that yes of course it's terrible to force people do to things against their will. I guess, don't really know the guy of course. Cheers on not making stuff up btw, that's really, really cool :) and becoming a rarity :( Edit: excuse all the errors, I'm a phone poster

So he was crashing on their couch rent free, and he thanks them by posting crazy screeds on the mailing list? It's not terribly surprising it turned out like this.

SergeAx 7y ago

Or he was lending them his name in exchange for a couch.

rodgerd 7y ago

His defence of Minsky - that there's nothing wrong with adult men fucking children procured by a child trafficker, because the children like it - was merely the last straw in a long line of obnoxious behaviour, ranging from being angry at people for celebrating having a child, to a spirited enthusiasm for the idea that small children are enthusiastic sexual partners that goes back decades. Moreover, anyone putting in even the smallest effort to look at what's surfaced will see this goes hand-in-hand with sexual harassment of undergrads and "funny but not really" stories of women cultivating plants in their offices because it keeps him away.

iliketocomplain 7y ago
He never said that there's nothing wrong with it, which means you're lying. Shame on you. (disclaimer: I dislike Stallman a lot anyway, but this is just a typical SJW witch Hunt. Because he did in fact never say it's ok nor defended it.) Edit: typo
- vkou 7y ago
  He has, on record, said that he thinks there is nothing wrong with statutory rape 'as long as both parties consent'. I'm not sure he understands the concept of consent.
  - wiz21c 7y ago
    Read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape (see Romeo and Juliet clause) Stallman being a defender of freedom has, obviously, a very powerful definition of consent ('cos consent is a form of freedom). It's far of ours, and in a dangerous territory. But that doesn't make it wrong.
  - iliketocomplain 7y ago
    He did say (write) that, yes. Still different to what the other poster wrote: that he's ok with non-consentual stuff. He specifically wrote that it might have _seemed_ consentual to the other guy. He nowhere implied it actually was. He also did not defend someone forcing others to do with things against there will while making it look consentual. I assume if one asked him this exactly, he'd say that yes of course it's terrible to force people do to things against their will. I guess, don't really know the guy of course. Cheers on not making stuff up btw, that's really, really cool :) and becoming a rarity :( Edit: excuse all the errors, I'm a phone poster