5 ms·

The reports that he defended Epstein were false. The reports that he defended adults having sex with children were true. Stories that people used to whisper abo

The reports that he defended Epstein were false. The reports that he defended adults having sex with children were true. Stories that people used to whisper about started to show up in news articles. The straw that broke the camel's back could be the wrong metaphor. Maybe it's more like the dam burst.

acqq 7y ago
As far as I know, he publicly renounced his decades old opinion even before the last witch hunt began. The witch hunt was based on false claim. He never supported Epstein.
- pseudalopex 7y ago
  Stallman defended adults having sex with children in 2013.[1] He didn't say anything else about it until now, as far as I know. [1] https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
  - zajio1am 7y ago
    In this post he just linked The Guardian article that described lack of solid empirical evidence. Also note that it is a difference between an empirical claim and a moral claim. While empirical claim that some action almost always leads to negative outcome to others could be used as an argument for that action being immoral, it is still perfectly valid to attack the supporting empirical claim, while not attacking the moral claim.
    - pseudalopex 7y ago
      The point is that his opinion wasn't decades old.
      - zajio1am 7y ago
        My point is that this Stallman's comment is not 'defending aduls havings sex with children', but statement about empirical facts. There are Stallman's statements defending non-coercive sex with children, but they are older: https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%202003%20() https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...
  - acqq 7y ago
    > He didn't say anything else about it until now, as far as I know. At least there is this one from 14th September, also on his site: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... " Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."
- cygx 7y ago
  As far as I know, he publicly renounced his decades old opinion even before the last witch hunt began. Citation needed. He expressed the same opinion in 2013 that he did in 2006 and 2003: https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2... https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20... https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%202003%20() https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    And withdrew it in 2016...
    - cygx 7y ago
      Good for him - where can I read up on that?
      - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        The same place you linked to.
        cygx 7y ago
        Could you narrow that down? I tried, but there's a lot of material to go through. The stuff I did find was only tangentially related and not indicative of any changes in position, eg https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#16_September_2016_(Charges_against_Oakland_thugs) https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#16_September... https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#12_September_2016_(Prosecutions_based_on_lies) https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#12_September... https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#15_July_2016_(Pregnant_adolescents_can_be_pressured_into_marriage) https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#15_July_2016...
      - dependenttypes 7y ago
virgilp 7y ago
Doesn't matter what metaphor you chose - he was fired for the wrong reasons. To exaggerate: if Trump were found to be helping out a Mexican immigrant, and after the huge scandal with his voter base he'd get impeached - I wouldn't celebrate, at all. Regardless what you think of him, a man needs to pay for his bad deeds, not for the good or neutral ones that just happened in the wrong political climate.
- pseudalopex 7y ago
  He wasn't fired. He resigned under pressure. He cited "a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations", not a single incident.
  - virgilp 7y ago
    That's just semantics, you know that, right?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - lomnakkus 7y ago
      Parent poster explicitly said "under pressure". What more do you want?
      - virgilp 7y ago
        Really? What's the difference between "fired" and "resigned under pressure"? How does it change one bit my original argument? In this instance, RMS was innocent. Doesn't matter if he was guilty in 999999 other instances(1), he was under immense pressure to resign _for this incident_. What happened to the US philosophy of freedom and liberty that inspired an entire world? I feel like it's completely gone now, they easily sacrifice what were formerly sacred principles, for well-intended but completely misguided reasons. > It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever. (1) Which is yet to be proven, btw. We shouldn't take destroying a man's reputation so lightly. But well, what do I know. The mob must enjoy its victories, even when they're really defeats.

acqq 7y ago

As far as I know, he publicly renounced his decades old opinion even before the last witch hunt began. The witch hunt was based on false claim. He never supported Epstein.

pseudalopex 7y ago
Stallman defended adults having sex with children in 2013.[1] He didn't say anything else about it until now, as far as I know. [1] https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
- zajio1am 7y ago
  In this post he just linked The Guardian article that described lack of solid empirical evidence. Also note that it is a difference between an empirical claim and a moral claim. While empirical claim that some action almost always leads to negative outcome to others could be used as an argument for that action being immoral, it is still perfectly valid to attack the supporting empirical claim, while not attacking the moral claim.
  - pseudalopex 7y ago
    The point is that his opinion wasn't decades old.
    - zajio1am 7y ago
      My point is that this Stallman's comment is not 'defending aduls havings sex with children', but statement about empirical facts. There are Stallman's statements defending non-coercive sex with children, but they are older: https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%202003%20() https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...
- acqq 7y ago
  > He didn't say anything else about it until now, as far as I know. At least there is this one from 14th September, also on his site: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... " Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."
cygx 7y ago
As far as I know, he publicly renounced his decades old opinion even before the last witch hunt began. Citation needed. He expressed the same opinion in 2013 that he did in 2006 and 2003: https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2... https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20... https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%202003%20() https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
  And withdrew it in 2016...
  - cygx 7y ago
    Good for him - where can I read up on that?
    - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
      The same place you linked to.
      - cygx 7y ago
        Could you narrow that down? I tried, but there's a lot of material to go through. The stuff I did find was only tangentially related and not indicative of any changes in position, eg https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#16_September_2016_(Charges_against_Oakland_thugs) https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#16_September... https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#12_September_2016_(Prosecutions_based_on_lies) https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#12_September... https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#15_July_2016_(Pregnant_adolescents_can_be_pressured_into_marriage) https://stallman.org/archives/2016-jul-oct.html#15_July_2016...
    - dependenttypes 7y ago

virgilp 7y ago

Doesn't matter what metaphor you chose - he was fired for the wrong reasons. To exaggerate: if Trump were found to be helping out a Mexican immigrant, and after the huge scandal with his voter base he'd get impeached - I wouldn't celebrate, at all. Regardless what you think of him, a man needs to pay for his bad deeds, not for the good or neutral ones that just happened in the wrong political climate.

pseudalopex 7y ago
He wasn't fired. He resigned under pressure. He cited "a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations", not a single incident.
- virgilp 7y ago
  That's just semantics, you know that, right?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - lomnakkus 7y ago
    Parent poster explicitly said "under pressure". What more do you want?
    - virgilp 7y ago
      Really? What's the difference between "fired" and "resigned under pressure"? How does it change one bit my original argument? In this instance, RMS was innocent. Doesn't matter if he was guilty in 999999 other instances(1), he was under immense pressure to resign _for this incident_. What happened to the US philosophy of freedom and liberty that inspired an entire world? I feel like it's completely gone now, they easily sacrifice what were formerly sacred principles, for well-intended but completely misguided reasons. > It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever. (1) Which is yet to be proven, btw. We shouldn't take destroying a man's reputation so lightly. But well, what do I know. The mob must enjoy its victories, even when they're really defeats.