6 ms·

If you are the leader for an organisation focused on advocacy (i.e. raising awareness and communicating), then your words become de facto the words of the organ

If you are the leader for an organisation focused on advocacy (i.e. raising awareness and communicating), then your words become de facto the words of the organisation, even with comments not related to your organisations purpose. If your leader appears to advocate pedophilia, then your organisation no longer becomes "that organisation that advocates for free software", but "that organisation run by a pedophile apologist".

robocat 7y ago
> If your leader appears to advocate pedophilia He doesn't advocate pedophilia. Nothing has changed for years. Are you advocating it? He has just been completely misrepresented by some popular media as supporting statutory rape, and you are fueling the fire. It is pure bullshit - the journalists that write (or publications that publish) headlines that completely reverse meaning should be held accountable for their lies. It is libel: make it appear Richard said she was willing when he definitely said she was coerced (within the exact same paragraph as the "quote"). Seems she was 18 too - any organisation publishing clearly slanderous headings designed for sensation and payment for eyeballs should be punished.
- CJefferson 7y ago
  The pedophilia advocating is much earlier. From his website (the last sentence is his opinion) Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. [Reference updated on 2018-04-25 because the old link was broken.] I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children
  - simag 7y ago
    I disagree with Stallman's skepticism (I do think it harms children and I don't think children can make that choice). But that one liner does not make him a pedophilia advocate. That makes him someone who is wrong on that topic.
    - urbanjunkie 7y ago
      No no, it absolutely does make him a paedophilia advocate. Stop fucking defending him.
    - oblio 7y ago
      If you're wrong about something, are famous and put that wrong thing on your site, you are advocating for that wrong thing. Because people believing in that wrong thing will point to you as a figure of authority. Not fair, but life's not fair.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      He didn't know what he was talking about, but felt it was okay to use his public platform to say it anyway. That's not scepticism. It's laziness. We have reams of evidence to show that paedophilia is harmful to children, and a 5 minute web search would have returned some of it.
      - Avamander 7y ago
        And he did retract that more than a decade old statement.
        seax 7y ago
        Why did it take him takes to come the the conclusion that sexually abusing children is wrong? And why are you defending that?
        Avamander 7y ago
        Because who remembers everything they've said? I do what?
        greedo 7y ago
        It took him a decade to retract that statement, said retraction conveniently occurring when this shitstorm about Epstein is reaching a crescendo. Retractions and apologies with such timing appear awfully convenient and insincere.
  - concordDance 7y ago
    RSM is in good company: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy What he says makes sense to me, I can think of no reason/mechanism why voluntary and loving pedophilic relationships would be innately harmful to children other than the surrounding societal reactions making them victims. If you do know of such a mechanism (or a study showing harm of non-coersive pedo stuff that manages to separate out societal victimhood labelling) please link me to it, because I've been looking for that for a while.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - quickthrower2 7y ago
      Wtf?
      - concordDance 7y ago
        As a rule, explanations are more helpful than exclamations.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  The point is it doesn't really matter what he advocates. He's using his position of power (given to him to promote Free Software) to push his controversial political opinions instead. It doesn't matter if those opinions are right or wrong. What matters is they are controversial and that he's using his platform to express those opinions. If he said this anonymously or in private it would've been fine. The problem is him using his platform for stuff that it's not meant to be used for. So now they're taking away his platform. Seems fair to me.
  - thinkingemote 7y ago
    The point is that it doesn't really matter what anyone actually says or thinks. If they are in the public sphere and holds power they will be got at for some hurt. Truth doesn't count if the thing hurts someone. Intent doesn't count if harm was caused. This is a view that many here would seem absurd but which many here would also agree with. Does this still seem fair? Is truth and intent not that important when it comes to tricky issues?
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Just picking away at the 'what matters is that they are controversial' statement - that isn't in Stallman's control and it relies on 'everyone knowing' something and evidently without people ever being able to discuss it or test out ideas once they have reached a certain level of respectability. Stallman wasn't trying to make this an international topic of discussion. Important people are going to be wrong about things and calling for resignations is not a sustainable solution if it isn't directly in their line of expertise. Everyone bar nobody has formed an opinion on an important topic that is completely wrong at some point in their life. To correct their opinion, they will need to talk to somebody who will explain why it is wrong. This wasn't Stallman trying to use his position on the FSF to spread his opinions, he was using his position at MIT to try and defend a colleague to other academics. And what you are describing is an unreasonable standard to hold anyone to if a topic isn't supposed to be their central area of expertise. It does matter what he advocates and it does matter whether his opinions are technically correct and incorrect. The 5-days-comment-to-resignation mob are doing damage here; and setting up terrifying dynamics. They aren't going to stop at Stallman.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  Richard Stallman about defending pedophilia: "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." RMS on June 28th, 2003 https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html -------------------------- "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. " RMS on June 5th, 2006) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party -------------------------- " 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. " RMS on Jan 4th, 2013) https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia
- sjg007 7y ago
  You can sue for slander and defamation of character.

robocat 7y ago

> If your leader appears to advocate pedophilia He doesn't advocate pedophilia. Nothing has changed for years. Are you advocating it? He has just been completely misrepresented by some popular media as supporting statutory rape, and you are fueling the fire. It is pure bullshit - the journalists that write (or publications that publish) headlines that completely reverse meaning should be held accountable for their lies. It is libel: make it appear Richard said she was willing when he definitely said she was coerced (within the exact same paragraph as the "quote"). Seems she was 18 too - any organisation publishing clearly slanderous headings designed for sensation and payment for eyeballs should be punished.

CJefferson 7y ago
The pedophilia advocating is much earlier. From his website (the last sentence is his opinion) Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. [Reference updated on 2018-04-25 because the old link was broken.] I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children
- simag 7y ago
  I disagree with Stallman's skepticism (I do think it harms children and I don't think children can make that choice). But that one liner does not make him a pedophilia advocate. That makes him someone who is wrong on that topic.
  - urbanjunkie 7y ago
    No no, it absolutely does make him a paedophilia advocate. Stop fucking defending him.
  - oblio 7y ago
    If you're wrong about something, are famous and put that wrong thing on your site, you are advocating for that wrong thing. Because people believing in that wrong thing will point to you as a figure of authority. Not fair, but life's not fair.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    He didn't know what he was talking about, but felt it was okay to use his public platform to say it anyway. That's not scepticism. It's laziness. We have reams of evidence to show that paedophilia is harmful to children, and a 5 minute web search would have returned some of it.
    - Avamander 7y ago
      And he did retract that more than a decade old statement.
      - seax 7y ago
        Why did it take him takes to come the the conclusion that sexually abusing children is wrong? And why are you defending that?
        Avamander 7y ago
        Because who remembers everything they've said? I do what?
      - greedo 7y ago
        It took him a decade to retract that statement, said retraction conveniently occurring when this shitstorm about Epstein is reaching a crescendo. Retractions and apologies with such timing appear awfully convenient and insincere.
- concordDance 7y ago
  RSM is in good company: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy What he says makes sense to me, I can think of no reason/mechanism why voluntary and loving pedophilic relationships would be innately harmful to children other than the surrounding societal reactions making them victims. If you do know of such a mechanism (or a study showing harm of non-coersive pedo stuff that manages to separate out societal victimhood labelling) please link me to it, because I've been looking for that for a while.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - quickthrower2 7y ago
    Wtf?
    - concordDance 7y ago
      As a rule, explanations are more helpful than exclamations.
Miner49er 7y ago
The point is it doesn't really matter what he advocates. He's using his position of power (given to him to promote Free Software) to push his controversial political opinions instead. It doesn't matter if those opinions are right or wrong. What matters is they are controversial and that he's using his platform to express those opinions. If he said this anonymously or in private it would've been fine. The problem is him using his platform for stuff that it's not meant to be used for. So now they're taking away his platform. Seems fair to me.
- thinkingemote 7y ago
  The point is that it doesn't really matter what anyone actually says or thinks. If they are in the public sphere and holds power they will be got at for some hurt. Truth doesn't count if the thing hurts someone. Intent doesn't count if harm was caused. This is a view that many here would seem absurd but which many here would also agree with. Does this still seem fair? Is truth and intent not that important when it comes to tricky issues?
- roenxi 7y ago
  Just picking away at the 'what matters is that they are controversial' statement - that isn't in Stallman's control and it relies on 'everyone knowing' something and evidently without people ever being able to discuss it or test out ideas once they have reached a certain level of respectability. Stallman wasn't trying to make this an international topic of discussion. Important people are going to be wrong about things and calling for resignations is not a sustainable solution if it isn't directly in their line of expertise. Everyone bar nobody has formed an opinion on an important topic that is completely wrong at some point in their life. To correct their opinion, they will need to talk to somebody who will explain why it is wrong. This wasn't Stallman trying to use his position on the FSF to spread his opinions, he was using his position at MIT to try and defend a colleague to other academics. And what you are describing is an unreasonable standard to hold anyone to if a topic isn't supposed to be their central area of expertise. It does matter what he advocates and it does matter whether his opinions are technically correct and incorrect. The 5-days-comment-to-resignation mob are doing damage here; and setting up terrifying dynamics. They aren't going to stop at Stallman.
crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Richard Stallman about defending pedophilia: "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." RMS on June 28th, 2003 https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html -------------------------- "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. " RMS on June 5th, 2006) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party -------------------------- " 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. " RMS on Jan 4th, 2013) https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia
sjg007 7y ago
You can sue for slander and defamation of character.