6 ms·

No one is saying tear down everything he had ever done. All that's been said is that someone with a history of being aggressive, supporting of paedophilia, unab

No one is saying tear down everything he had ever done. All that's been said is that someone with a history of being aggressive, supporting of paedophilia, unable to determine appropriate times to debate, and lacking social graces wasn't the best person to lead an organization. RMS has had a long history of getting a pass for his actions because of his skill and passion, he was excused for behaviors that would get most people fired. Humans tend to act like this, a long buildup of frustration followed by quick action once a boiling point is reached. Look at most civil wars for instance. I think RMS made the right decision by stepping back and not letting the outrage fall onto the organizations he's part of. As is abundantly clear from the comments here, RMS will never lack for support regardless of what he does, so I don't think anyone needs to be concerned about him landing on his feet, he's going to be absolutely fine.

leereeves 7y ago
> All that's been said is that someone with a history of being aggressive, supporting of paedophilia, unable to determine appropriate times to debate, and lacking social graces wasn't the best person to lead an organization. That doesn't sound like what happened at all. More like he dared to challenge a witchhunt against someone with a tenuous connection to Epstein, and the witchhunt turned on him.
- _coveredInBees 7y ago
  Have you actually read all the statements he posted publicly on his site? Because your comment glosses over almost everything he said, and how he said it, to make it seem as though he were some completely innocent, blameless party caught up in a shitstorm because he dared to voice a countering opinion.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    You can't ignore the timing. If he wasn't fired/forced to resign because of his comments about Minsky, why did it happen just after those comments?
    - dmurdoch 7y ago
      Because those comments brought him to the attention of people who were not as familiar with his work. They then saw many comments about pedophilia and his behaviour towards women in the industry. His comments about Minksy aren't enough to warrant the backlash. But his LONG history of poor behaviour absolutely is. He brought the spotlight ON HIMSELF by commenting on such a high profile case. That spotlight then listed all his flaws. Those flaws got him where he is today.
      - leereeves 7y ago
        That's not what I saw. Instead I saw (and still see) people (in this very thread even) saying he "came out to defend the pedophiles". Media stories discussing his remarks about Minsky, with headlines vaguely connecting him to Epstein. The famous Selam G. hit piece mostly about (and misreading) his comments about Minksy. His past remarks and behavior are at most a footnote in these stories. That said, I agree it's clear he made a lot of enemies with his past behavior and that certainly didn't help him at a time like this when he needs allies willing to stand against the mob and speak on his behalf.
- sodosopa 7y ago
  It wasn’t a witchhunt. The pedophiles were outed insulted they were discovered after bating people with money for years. Then folks like Stallman came out to defend the pedophiles. People are disgusted by this defense so they want others like him removed from their organizations. Remove the roaches instead of demolishing the building.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    Is there any evidence Minsky was a pedophile? What I heard is that Minsky once attended an Epstein party where an underage woman came on to him (at Epstein's behest) and he refused. And Stallman's comments were about that, not defending Epstein. But now you say "Stallman came out to defend the pedophiles", so you must have some evidence I haven't heard.
    - merlincorey 7y ago
      > But now you say "Stallman came out to defend the pedophiles", so you must have some evidence I haven't heard. I believe people are referencing his long history of notes[0] supporting pedophelia such as this: > 04 January 2013 (Pedophilia) > 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. [0] https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html
      - leereeves 7y ago
        You shouldn't post that without also posting this: > 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. 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...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- bdcravens 7y ago
  RMS has long been a controversial person, with a very abrasive personality. I think even had he been an angel he would have received the same result in today's cancel culture, but there's a lot of people who have looking to turn on him and just needed an excuse. Most people won't come to a bully's defense.
soulofmischief 7y ago
Supporting pedophilia? How in the ever loving Christ did you come to that conclusion?
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  You should really look it up. He posted multiple prior blog posts on his website about it. There's a link someone provided further down in the chain. It surprised me as well when I learned of it, but he injected himself into that debate willingly and deliberately.

leereeves 7y ago

> All that's been said is that someone with a history of being aggressive, supporting of paedophilia, unable to determine appropriate times to debate, and lacking social graces wasn't the best person to lead an organization. That doesn't sound like what happened at all. More like he dared to challenge a witchhunt against someone with a tenuous connection to Epstein, and the witchhunt turned on him.

_coveredInBees 7y ago
Have you actually read all the statements he posted publicly on his site? Because your comment glosses over almost everything he said, and how he said it, to make it seem as though he were some completely innocent, blameless party caught up in a shitstorm because he dared to voice a countering opinion.
- leereeves 7y ago
  You can't ignore the timing. If he wasn't fired/forced to resign because of his comments about Minsky, why did it happen just after those comments?
  - dmurdoch 7y ago
    Because those comments brought him to the attention of people who were not as familiar with his work. They then saw many comments about pedophilia and his behaviour towards women in the industry. His comments about Minksy aren't enough to warrant the backlash. But his LONG history of poor behaviour absolutely is. He brought the spotlight ON HIMSELF by commenting on such a high profile case. That spotlight then listed all his flaws. Those flaws got him where he is today.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      That's not what I saw. Instead I saw (and still see) people (in this very thread even) saying he "came out to defend the pedophiles". Media stories discussing his remarks about Minsky, with headlines vaguely connecting him to Epstein. The famous Selam G. hit piece mostly about (and misreading) his comments about Minksy. His past remarks and behavior are at most a footnote in these stories. That said, I agree it's clear he made a lot of enemies with his past behavior and that certainly didn't help him at a time like this when he needs allies willing to stand against the mob and speak on his behalf.
sodosopa 7y ago
It wasn’t a witchhunt. The pedophiles were outed insulted they were discovered after bating people with money for years. Then folks like Stallman came out to defend the pedophiles. People are disgusted by this defense so they want others like him removed from their organizations. Remove the roaches instead of demolishing the building.
- leereeves 7y ago
  Is there any evidence Minsky was a pedophile? What I heard is that Minsky once attended an Epstein party where an underage woman came on to him (at Epstein's behest) and he refused. And Stallman's comments were about that, not defending Epstein. But now you say "Stallman came out to defend the pedophiles", so you must have some evidence I haven't heard.
  - merlincorey 7y ago
    > But now you say "Stallman came out to defend the pedophiles", so you must have some evidence I haven't heard. I believe people are referencing his long history of notes[0] supporting pedophelia such as this: > 04 January 2013 (Pedophilia) > 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. [0] https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html
    - leereeves 7y ago
      You shouldn't post that without also posting this: > 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. 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...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bdcravens 7y ago
RMS has long been a controversial person, with a very abrasive personality. I think even had he been an angel he would have received the same result in today's cancel culture, but there's a lot of people who have looking to turn on him and just needed an excuse. Most people won't come to a bully's defense.

soulofmischief 7y ago

Supporting pedophilia? How in the ever loving Christ did you come to that conclusion?

cannonedhamster 7y ago
You should really look it up. He posted multiple prior blog posts on his website about it. There's a link someone provided further down in the chain. It surprised me as well when I learned of it, but he injected himself into that debate willingly and deliberately.