4 ms·

Stallman is the least hypocritical person I've ever seen. So, that's not happening unless he changes his mind about something he said. Even if he changes his m

Stallman is the least hypocritical person I've ever seen. So, that's not happening unless he changes his mind about something he said. Even if he changes his mind about some subjective things, he will keep saying other things that are objectively true but people don't want to accept.

tptacek 7y ago
Just because Stallman isn't a hypocrite doesn't mean things he says are "objectively true". Stallman advocated for the legalization of ("consensual") pedophilia, in those exact terms; that isn't a weird extrapolation of something he said, but rather words he put on his own website.
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  I didn't say that everything he says is objectively true. Some things he says are objectively true. Advocating for the legalization of "consensual pedophilia" (whatever that means) is not an objective truth, it's an opinion.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    That is literally the thing he says that other people don't want to accept; it's the example you yourself referred to. Besides advocating for pedophilia, the problem people have with Stallman is his behavior, not what he says. If you're talking about his problematic words, then what you're talking about is in fact his repeated defense of pedophilia.
    - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
      I never referred to that example. Stallman has said many "problematic" things apart from defending "consensual pedophilia".
      - tptacek 7y ago
        I don't think you meant to refer to it; I think you just don't know enough about Stallman or his critics to understand the position you backed yourself into. I assure you, the people calling for Stallman's ouster aren't doing it because of what he thinks of proprietary software, or his support for Bernie Sanders.
        lone_haxx0r 7y ago
        For example. Selam G., the author of the article that sparked the controversy said: """" [...] …and then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. Let’s also note that he called a group of child sex trafficking victims a ‘harem’, a terrible word choice. [>] We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. [...] """" The only opinion stated here by Stallman is that "it's the most plausible scenario", but it's an objective truth that it's a possible scenario (even if not the most plausible) for the underage girl to be coerced into presenting herself as willing, given the public knowledge of the situation. Then, Selam gets angry because he stated that possibility. Note that she doesn't disagree with it being the most plausible scenario, she disagrees with it being a possibility at all (an objective truth, because coercion is a thing), and then she twists Stallman's words (presenting oneself as [something] vs being [something]).
        tptacek 7y ago
        This is a direct quote from Stallman, on his own website: 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. I don't have an opinion about the recent reporting of Stallman's comments on Epstein, other than to note that they are, in effect, about pedophilia. I don't have to; Stallman has done us all the favor of being outspoken about his belief that pedophilia should be legal. I think a lot of advocates for Stallman don't know this about his history, and think they can hang their entire argument on the Epstein pedophilia drama. If that's all that had happened, Stallman defending Minsky, he might be fine. But it's not. If you want to talk about Stallman saying things that others don't agree with, be mindful of what it is he's saying. You probably don't actually want to be defending it.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    > I didn't say that everything he says is objectively true. He doesn't care.
- oiq 7y ago
  He is "correct" in a way. It is the inevitable logical extension of current society's view on sexual relationship (consent based). This is just a repeat of what happened in 70s with a bunch of intellectuals: Foucault, Derrida, Althusser, et al argued that age of consent should be abolished too [1]. Seems like the most rational men always come to same conclusion. Society slowly unravel that consent is such a fragile concept, and they have to resort to some finite number (age) to strengthen that stance. But, as the most rational amongst us found out, those numbers are indefensible too. A better and more defensible stance is the one Catholic's have (Humanae Vitae). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > It is the inevitable logical extension of current society's view on sexual relationship (consent based). No, it's not; a consent based view does not logically imply that children are capable of consent; in fact, the view that intoxication, mental disability, and other factors can make adults incapable of consent at least strongly supports an approach where children (to, perhaps, an age above the common ages of consent) ought to be viewed as at least presumptively, and possibly conclusively, unable to consent to sex; the dominant legal position is consistent in outline, though there may be room to debate the particular details. > A better and more defensible stance is the one Catholic's have (Humanae Vitae). Humanae Vitae didn't even reflect the most defensible stance within the Catholic intelligentsia, which is why the Pope had to dump the position adopted by the Second Vatican Council workgroup on the topic to issue it, and why the document is widely disregarded by the faithful and even large segments of the clergy and even heirarchy (see, e.g., the Declaration of Königstein).
    - oiq 7y ago
      As you realized, you have to add bunch of qualifiers to make consent works: age-of-consent, condition-of-consent, etc. The defense then shifted into defending those qualifiers. From system design perspective, it operates on lower level rule-based design. This is weaker. I understand there's debate internally about Humanae Vitae, and it's good. But at least it gets the core design stronger by operating on higher level goal/paradigm constraint (the purpose of procreation)
- lettergram 7y ago
  Out of curiosity, do you have a link? I read: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... And from a cursory search I didn't see him exactly advocating.
gridlockd 7y ago
> Even if he changes his mind about some subjective things, he will keep saying other things that are objectively true but people don't want to accept. Saying something can be objectively true, entirely non-hypocritical and completely idiotic, all at the same time. http://gunshowcomic.com/comics/20140509.png http://gunshowcomic.com/comics/20140509.png

tptacek 7y ago

Just because Stallman isn't a hypocrite doesn't mean things he says are "objectively true". Stallman advocated for the legalization of ("consensual") pedophilia, in those exact terms; that isn't a weird extrapolation of something he said, but rather words he put on his own website.

lone_haxx0r 7y ago
I didn't say that everything he says is objectively true. Some things he says are objectively true. Advocating for the legalization of "consensual pedophilia" (whatever that means) is not an objective truth, it's an opinion.
- tptacek 7y ago
  That is literally the thing he says that other people don't want to accept; it's the example you yourself referred to. Besides advocating for pedophilia, the problem people have with Stallman is his behavior, not what he says. If you're talking about his problematic words, then what you're talking about is in fact his repeated defense of pedophilia.
  - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
    I never referred to that example. Stallman has said many "problematic" things apart from defending "consensual pedophilia".
    - tptacek 7y ago
      I don't think you meant to refer to it; I think you just don't know enough about Stallman or his critics to understand the position you backed yourself into. I assure you, the people calling for Stallman's ouster aren't doing it because of what he thinks of proprietary software, or his support for Bernie Sanders.
      - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
        For example. Selam G., the author of the article that sparked the controversy said: """" [...] …and then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. Let’s also note that he called a group of child sex trafficking victims a ‘harem’, a terrible word choice. [>] We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. [...] """" The only opinion stated here by Stallman is that "it's the most plausible scenario", but it's an objective truth that it's a possible scenario (even if not the most plausible) for the underage girl to be coerced into presenting herself as willing, given the public knowledge of the situation. Then, Selam gets angry because he stated that possibility. Note that she doesn't disagree with it being the most plausible scenario, she disagrees with it being a possibility at all (an objective truth, because coercion is a thing), and then she twists Stallman's words (presenting oneself as [something] vs being [something]).
        tptacek 7y ago
        This is a direct quote from Stallman, on his own website: 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. I don't have an opinion about the recent reporting of Stallman's comments on Epstein, other than to note that they are, in effect, about pedophilia. I don't have to; Stallman has done us all the favor of being outspoken about his belief that pedophilia should be legal. I think a lot of advocates for Stallman don't know this about his history, and think they can hang their entire argument on the Epstein pedophilia drama. If that's all that had happened, Stallman defending Minsky, he might be fine. But it's not. If you want to talk about Stallman saying things that others don't agree with, be mindful of what it is he's saying. You probably don't actually want to be defending it.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  > I didn't say that everything he says is objectively true. He doesn't care.
oiq 7y ago
He is "correct" in a way. It is the inevitable logical extension of current society's view on sexual relationship (consent based). This is just a repeat of what happened in 70s with a bunch of intellectuals: Foucault, Derrida, Althusser, et al argued that age of consent should be abolished too [1]. Seems like the most rational men always come to same conclusion. Society slowly unravel that consent is such a fragile concept, and they have to resort to some finite number (age) to strengthen that stance. But, as the most rational amongst us found out, those numbers are indefensible too. A better and more defensible stance is the one Catholic's have (Humanae Vitae). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > It is the inevitable logical extension of current society's view on sexual relationship (consent based). No, it's not; a consent based view does not logically imply that children are capable of consent; in fact, the view that intoxication, mental disability, and other factors can make adults incapable of consent at least strongly supports an approach where children (to, perhaps, an age above the common ages of consent) ought to be viewed as at least presumptively, and possibly conclusively, unable to consent to sex; the dominant legal position is consistent in outline, though there may be room to debate the particular details. > A better and more defensible stance is the one Catholic's have (Humanae Vitae). Humanae Vitae didn't even reflect the most defensible stance within the Catholic intelligentsia, which is why the Pope had to dump the position adopted by the Second Vatican Council workgroup on the topic to issue it, and why the document is widely disregarded by the faithful and even large segments of the clergy and even heirarchy (see, e.g., the Declaration of Königstein).
  - oiq 7y ago
    As you realized, you have to add bunch of qualifiers to make consent works: age-of-consent, condition-of-consent, etc. The defense then shifted into defending those qualifiers. From system design perspective, it operates on lower level rule-based design. This is weaker. I understand there's debate internally about Humanae Vitae, and it's good. But at least it gets the core design stronger by operating on higher level goal/paradigm constraint (the purpose of procreation)
lettergram 7y ago
Out of curiosity, do you have a link? I read: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... And from a cursory search I didn't see him exactly advocating.

gridlockd 7y ago

> Even if he changes his mind about some subjective things, he will keep saying other things that are objectively true but people don't want to accept. Saying something can be objectively true, entirely non-hypocritical and completely idiotic, all at the same time. http://gunshowcomic.com/comics/20140509.png http://gunshowcomic.com/comics/20140509.png