5 ms·

> His actions just make him unqualified to be a leader. So you're saying that the only people qualified to be "a leader" are the ones who subscribe to your par

by lagadu 7y ago

> His actions just make him unqualified to be a leader. So you're saying that the only people qualified to be "a leader" are the ones who subscribe to your particular flavour of groupthink and no other? Nice thought policing there.

CPLX 7y ago
Yes, I believe publicly advocating for certain things can severely break cultural norms and make it impossible for you to effectively hold a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting. Are you arguing that no social norms violation should ever result in being fired? You can go to work and scream at people at the top of your lungs? Tell the receptionist you’re glad she had a miscarriage? Use the sink as a urinal? Assuming we agree that at least one or two things may get you fired from your job, it’s then possible to follow up with some observations: 1) Saying it’s ok for adults to fuck minors is definitely on that list 2) I’m ok with that
- ndury 7y ago
  Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to say 'People who have a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting are not entitled to have a certain opinion or preference that does not fall within the lines our "society" has drawn out to be normal?' AFAIK there are plenty of high positioned people in important positions whom have a special preference to something. Whether it be a kink or a total different view/approach on certain topics. Does that mean we're going to hunt down every one in a high position because they think outside of the box? Because they have a preference to something society seems not normal? Does that mean we'll need to hunt down every thought leader/high positioned CEO/CFO/COO/board member with public appearance that enjoys the occassional whipping? This topic is pretty disturbing to me personally. Qualified, intelligent people are criticized/publicly shamed for having thoughts/opinions/preferences which have absolutely nothing to do with their occupation. It feels to me as if we're, as a society, doing anything we can to remove people who think/feel differently from what they're actually good at/dedicated their life to. My thoughts/opinions might not stroke with what people here have written, if what has been reported is true the behavior is not OK but does that mean the man needs to be removed from a position he dedicated his life to?
  - CPLX 7y ago
    I mean the guy can think whatever the fuck he wants. He can even tell his friends. He can use nipple clamps and be consentingly spanked with kitchen implements. Nobody gives a shit about any of that stuff. But if you publicly say stuff like this: "I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17." "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] 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." Then other people might not want to make the highly discretionary decision to let you, specifically, run their organization.
    - ng12 7y ago
      There are many countries in the world where the age of consent is 14. It was so in Canada, our physical and cultural neighbor, until 2008. Why is it so wildly unacceptable opinion to question an arbitrary line of US law?
    - lazylizard 7y ago
      But he was the leader of the free software foundation. Free as in speech.
    - gus_massa 7y ago
      What about other topics like alcohol? Can I think that the 21 years old limit is weird?
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to say 'People who have a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting are not entitled to have a certain opinion or preference that does not fall within the lines our "society" has drawn out to be normal?' No, it means that if you think raping children is okay you don't get to say that as part of your work, unless your work is for a pro-child-abuse organisation. If you're a spokesperson for any other organisation they may want to distance themselves from your comments supporting child sexual abuse.
- Chris2048 7y ago
  > no social norms violation There is a difference between disagreement with a norm (or, in this case, a hypothetical argument that doesn't advocate either way), and a violation. When did Stallman advocate against "fuck[ing] minors"?
GarrickDrgn 7y ago
Yes, we are saying that only people who subscribe to the "don't rape children" flavour of groupthink should be respected in public discourse.
- michannne 7y ago
  Gaslighting. Stallman never advocated for raping minors.
  - CPLX 7y ago
    He's made multiple comments spread over many years that make it clear he disagrees with the core concept of statutory rape, by repeatedly invoking "consent" or "willingness" and similar. The whole point of the concept is that there's no such thing as willingness or consent with minors, that the very nature of the act having taken place constitutes rape. A statement like "there is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children" means he's saying adults raping children is OK. He literally wrote that on his blog. It's still there.[0] I mean, what do you think is going to happen when you do stuff like that? He definitely has a legal right to do it, and on that I'd defend him to the death. But he doesn't have a legal right to work at MIT or anywhere else that's not comfortable with a leader who says stuff like this. [0] https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Within recent memory, the age of legal marriage has been as low as 14 in certain US states. New York State raised the minimum from 14 to 18 in 2017: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-ends-child-marriage-raising-age-of-consent-from-14-to-18/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-ends-child-marriage-ra... The same article notes that two states, North Carolina and Alaska have a specified minimum age of 14, and 27 states lack any specific minimum age. I'm not arguing that the low (or no) minimum age laws are right. I am pointing out that standards, and laws, within the US, and within the past few years, have included marriage, and presumably sexual relations, among minors. That has been changing, but it's a change that's well within the lifetimes of many adults. Richard Stallman, aged 66, has lived through a period of pretty profound change around many of these norms. Again, not to excuse behaviour, but possibly to explain a possible basis for it. Strong cultural shifts, should you have the pleasure of living through some yourself, are remarkable to witness and experience.
rusk 7y ago
> particular flavour of groupthink LOL - just because of the particular kind of "groupthink" you're talking about here.
arkh 7y ago
> Nice thought policing there. I'd call it gatekeeping. I hear woke people are against this kind of behavior.
- scruple 7y ago
  It's important to remember that woke people are not a monolith.

by lagadu 7y ago

CPLX 7y ago

Yes, I believe publicly advocating for certain things can severely break cultural norms and make it impossible for you to effectively hold a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting. Are you arguing that no social norms violation should ever result in being fired? You can go to work and scream at people at the top of your lungs? Tell the receptionist you’re glad she had a miscarriage? Use the sink as a urinal? Assuming we agree that at least one or two things may get you fired from your job, it’s then possible to follow up with some observations: 1) Saying it’s ok for adults to fuck minors is definitely on that list 2) I’m ok with that

ndury 7y ago
Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to say 'People who have a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting are not entitled to have a certain opinion or preference that does not fall within the lines our "society" has drawn out to be normal?' AFAIK there are plenty of high positioned people in important positions whom have a special preference to something. Whether it be a kink or a total different view/approach on certain topics. Does that mean we're going to hunt down every one in a high position because they think outside of the box? Because they have a preference to something society seems not normal? Does that mean we'll need to hunt down every thought leader/high positioned CEO/CFO/COO/board member with public appearance that enjoys the occassional whipping? This topic is pretty disturbing to me personally. Qualified, intelligent people are criticized/publicly shamed for having thoughts/opinions/preferences which have absolutely nothing to do with their occupation. It feels to me as if we're, as a society, doing anything we can to remove people who think/feel differently from what they're actually good at/dedicated their life to. My thoughts/opinions might not stroke with what people here have written, if what has been reported is true the behavior is not OK but does that mean the man needs to be removed from a position he dedicated his life to?
- CPLX 7y ago
  I mean the guy can think whatever the fuck he wants. He can even tell his friends. He can use nipple clamps and be consentingly spanked with kitchen implements. Nobody gives a shit about any of that stuff. But if you publicly say stuff like this: "I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17." "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] 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." Then other people might not want to make the highly discretionary decision to let you, specifically, run their organization.
  - ng12 7y ago
    There are many countries in the world where the age of consent is 14. It was so in Canada, our physical and cultural neighbor, until 2008. Why is it so wildly unacceptable opinion to question an arbitrary line of US law?
  - lazylizard 7y ago
    But he was the leader of the free software foundation. Free as in speech.
  - gus_massa 7y ago
    What about other topics like alcohol? Can I think that the 21 years old limit is weird?
- DanBC 7y ago
  > Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to say 'People who have a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting are not entitled to have a certain opinion or preference that does not fall within the lines our "society" has drawn out to be normal?' No, it means that if you think raping children is okay you don't get to say that as part of your work, unless your work is for a pro-child-abuse organisation. If you're a spokesperson for any other organisation they may want to distance themselves from your comments supporting child sexual abuse.
Chris2048 7y ago
> no social norms violation There is a difference between disagreement with a norm (or, in this case, a hypothetical argument that doesn't advocate either way), and a violation. When did Stallman advocate against "fuck[ing] minors"?

GarrickDrgn 7y ago

Yes, we are saying that only people who subscribe to the "don't rape children" flavour of groupthink should be respected in public discourse.

michannne 7y ago
Gaslighting. Stallman never advocated for raping minors.
- CPLX 7y ago
  He's made multiple comments spread over many years that make it clear he disagrees with the core concept of statutory rape, by repeatedly invoking "consent" or "willingness" and similar. The whole point of the concept is that there's no such thing as willingness or consent with minors, that the very nature of the act having taken place constitutes rape. A statement like "there is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children" means he's saying adults raping children is OK. He literally wrote that on his blog. It's still there.[0] I mean, what do you think is going to happen when you do stuff like that? He definitely has a legal right to do it, and on that I'd defend him to the death. But he doesn't have a legal right to work at MIT or anywhere else that's not comfortable with a leader who says stuff like this. [0] https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Within recent memory, the age of legal marriage has been as low as 14 in certain US states. New York State raised the minimum from 14 to 18 in 2017: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-ends-child-marriage-raising-age-of-consent-from-14-to-18/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-ends-child-marriage-ra... The same article notes that two states, North Carolina and Alaska have a specified minimum age of 14, and 27 states lack any specific minimum age. I'm not arguing that the low (or no) minimum age laws are right. I am pointing out that standards, and laws, within the US, and within the past few years, have included marriage, and presumably sexual relations, among minors. That has been changing, but it's a change that's well within the lifetimes of many adults. Richard Stallman, aged 66, has lived through a period of pretty profound change around many of these norms. Again, not to excuse behaviour, but possibly to explain a possible basis for it. Strong cultural shifts, should you have the pleasure of living through some yourself, are remarkable to witness and experience.

rusk 7y ago

> particular flavour of groupthink LOL - just because of the particular kind of "groupthink" you're talking about here.

arkh 7y ago

> Nice thought policing there. I'd call it gatekeeping. I hear woke people are against this kind of behavior.

scruple 7y ago
It's important to remember that woke people are not a monolith.