10 ms·

It is rather hard to support his statement of his "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm see

It is rather hard to support his statement of his "I am skeptical 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."

bemeurer 7y ago
For what it's worth he retracted that statement. https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_Septe...
- benatkin 7y ago
  He does it using his alternative to singular they: "Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically." Doesn't really seem sincere when he's grinding another axe at the same time. https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html Another variant of his invented nomenclature besides per is perse which I'd rather not be called. It sounds like a child of purse and hearse.
  - smhost 7y ago
    you must not be very familiar with rms if you think he's not being sincere for "grinding another axe at the same time". stallman has been grinding all of his axes, at all times, without exception. this is the only time to my knowledge that stallman has ever gone back on one of his fundamental positions.
- MobileVet 7y ago
  ...two days ago after numerous articles came out highlighting his gross views. Damage control at best, hard to give it much weight given the circumstances.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    I've argued couple of people into doing things my way; the typical pattern is that they disagree vehemently in conversation for a few hours and then a few days later start doing what I asked them to do. On rare occasions it takes a few months. And I've occasionally been on the receiving end of that treatment. Minds don't change in seconds, particularly around what language to use to describe an issue; it usually takes a few days of thinking. It might be damage control, but realistically this whole blow up is absurd for a few emails on an academic mailing list. Academic mailing lists are supposed to be the best place in the world to encounter views that will change people's minds.
lone_haxx0r 7y ago
No one is asking you to support his statement. No one agrees with someone else on every issue. I don't agree with him either. The important thing is to agree on the issue at hand: software.
- mikeash 7y ago
  The FSF is foremost about community, and only incidentally about software. He is, to put it absurdly nicely, not the sort of people person who should be leading such an organization.
  - flukus 7y ago
    > The FSF is foremost about community, and only incidentally about software I fear that this has become true, but the only reason anybody gives a damn about the FSF and the only reason this is even newsworthy is because of the software and licenses produced by the FSF. If you take the software away the FSF is nothing, so I don't understand how you can claim it's primarily a community.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Why do those licenses matter? Because of the community they created. Nobody would care about the GPL if it was only used for the FSF’s software.
      - flukus 7y ago
        > Because of the community they created Why does the community they created matter? Because they produce more software.
        mikeash 7y ago
        Right, the foundation produces community, and the community produces software. RMS’s role is almost entirely about leading that community, not producing that software.
aazaa 7y ago
Forget about the content of the statements for a moment. Imagine a person expresses skepticism of an idea you consider "settled." Do you: 1. demand the person be let go from his/her current position 2. provide evidence that counters the skepticism If the correct response is (1), then you yourself are at risk of a Stallman exit. Every one of us holds at least one point of skepticism that one or more groups will be deeply offended by. The liberal idea, under assault form all shades of the political spectrum, depends on (2) being the correct response.
- lvh 7y ago
  This may be an appealing idea in the abstract, but there are people who sincerely hold the view others are subhuman and deserve to be raped and killed, and there are people who believe it’s fine to have sex with kids. Society can absolutely decide not every point of view is worth debating.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > Society can absolutely decide not every point of view is worth debating. We could have decided that three hundred years ago too, in which case the divine right of kings would still be a thing. EDIT: A lot of people seem to think that the divine right of kings would not have been a thing worth strongly defending back in the early 1700s - and certainly far more than they would have defended the rights of people in the west indies or far east to not be "raped and killed". Do you have any argument to back this up? Would bumping things to five hundred years change that? If banning discussion of things outside the overton window wouldn't have had results you'd like then, why would it do so now? There might be reasons! But I haven't heard people bringing them up.
  - thrwayxyz 7y ago
    And for centuries society decided that 1 was the correct view and anyone who disagrees with it was to be shunned or worse.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    If there is a belief that is backed up by evidence (and in this case there is) then the first response should always be to provide that evidence. Just because someone sincerely believes that others are subhuman doesn't mean the conversation ends immediately. We could try providing evidence and clarifying whether they are dead-centre wrong or just dealing with a technical detail before turning to exclusionary tactics. I mean, seriously. If the choices are (1) end the conversation, try and get someone to resign and (2) try and convince someone to take a different view through conversation over a few days then (2) is far superior. We have a lot of people working in, eg, law and the upper echelons of business who are fantastic contributors to the general good despite having extremely questionable moral stances.

bemeurer 7y ago

For what it's worth he retracted that statement. https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_Septe...

benatkin 7y ago
He does it using his alternative to singular they: "Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically." Doesn't really seem sincere when he's grinding another axe at the same time. https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html Another variant of his invented nomenclature besides per is perse which I'd rather not be called. It sounds like a child of purse and hearse.
- smhost 7y ago
  you must not be very familiar with rms if you think he's not being sincere for "grinding another axe at the same time". stallman has been grinding all of his axes, at all times, without exception. this is the only time to my knowledge that stallman has ever gone back on one of his fundamental positions.
MobileVet 7y ago
...two days ago after numerous articles came out highlighting his gross views. Damage control at best, hard to give it much weight given the circumstances.
- roenxi 7y ago
  I've argued couple of people into doing things my way; the typical pattern is that they disagree vehemently in conversation for a few hours and then a few days later start doing what I asked them to do. On rare occasions it takes a few months. And I've occasionally been on the receiving end of that treatment. Minds don't change in seconds, particularly around what language to use to describe an issue; it usually takes a few days of thinking. It might be damage control, but realistically this whole blow up is absurd for a few emails on an academic mailing list. Academic mailing lists are supposed to be the best place in the world to encounter views that will change people's minds.

lone_haxx0r 7y ago

No one is asking you to support his statement. No one agrees with someone else on every issue. I don't agree with him either. The important thing is to agree on the issue at hand: software.

mikeash 7y ago
The FSF is foremost about community, and only incidentally about software. He is, to put it absurdly nicely, not the sort of people person who should be leading such an organization.
- flukus 7y ago
  > The FSF is foremost about community, and only incidentally about software I fear that this has become true, but the only reason anybody gives a damn about the FSF and the only reason this is even newsworthy is because of the software and licenses produced by the FSF. If you take the software away the FSF is nothing, so I don't understand how you can claim it's primarily a community.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Why do those licenses matter? Because of the community they created. Nobody would care about the GPL if it was only used for the FSF’s software.
    - flukus 7y ago
      > Because of the community they created Why does the community they created matter? Because they produce more software.
      - mikeash 7y ago
        Right, the foundation produces community, and the community produces software. RMS’s role is almost entirely about leading that community, not producing that software.

aazaa 7y ago

Forget about the content of the statements for a moment. Imagine a person expresses skepticism of an idea you consider "settled." Do you: 1. demand the person be let go from his/her current position 2. provide evidence that counters the skepticism If the correct response is (1), then you yourself are at risk of a Stallman exit. Every one of us holds at least one point of skepticism that one or more groups will be deeply offended by. The liberal idea, under assault form all shades of the political spectrum, depends on (2) being the correct response.

lvh 7y ago
This may be an appealing idea in the abstract, but there are people who sincerely hold the view others are subhuman and deserve to be raped and killed, and there are people who believe it’s fine to have sex with kids. Society can absolutely decide not every point of view is worth debating.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > Society can absolutely decide not every point of view is worth debating. We could have decided that three hundred years ago too, in which case the divine right of kings would still be a thing. EDIT: A lot of people seem to think that the divine right of kings would not have been a thing worth strongly defending back in the early 1700s - and certainly far more than they would have defended the rights of people in the west indies or far east to not be "raped and killed". Do you have any argument to back this up? Would bumping things to five hundred years change that? If banning discussion of things outside the overton window wouldn't have had results you'd like then, why would it do so now? There might be reasons! But I haven't heard people bringing them up.
- thrwayxyz 7y ago
  And for centuries society decided that 1 was the correct view and anyone who disagrees with it was to be shunned or worse.
- roenxi 7y ago
  If there is a belief that is backed up by evidence (and in this case there is) then the first response should always be to provide that evidence. Just because someone sincerely believes that others are subhuman doesn't mean the conversation ends immediately. We could try providing evidence and clarifying whether they are dead-centre wrong or just dealing with a technical detail before turning to exclusionary tactics. I mean, seriously. If the choices are (1) end the conversation, try and get someone to resign and (2) try and convince someone to take a different view through conversation over a few days then (2) is far superior. We have a lot of people working in, eg, law and the upper echelons of business who are fantastic contributors to the general good despite having extremely questionable moral stances.