6 ms·

Umm.... absolutely not. These quotes (directly from his site) beg to differ: > “I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arg

Umm.... absolutely not. These quotes (directly from his site) beg to differ: > “I am sceptical 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.” > “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 realise 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 isn't being "vilified," he's facing proper judgment for the stupid, ignorant, and disgusting things he's said.

deogeo 7y ago
He made some questionable comments, but the media did also lie - documented here: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
topmonk 7y ago
>> Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him > Umm.... absolutely not. These quotes (directly from his site) beg to differ: Do you know him? Aren't you vilifying him? Having an unpopular opinion isn't grounds for "proper judgement" of being constantly harassed by a mob every time his name is brought up.
- davidw 7y ago
  It's a pretty good reason for him to step down as a public figure though.
  - SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
    Maybe... but isn't this idea worth questioning? There are loads of scenarios where we simply say, as a society, your discomfort with someone doesn't matter on balance, and you must deal with it. Such is the case with all the hot-button "isms" today. Stigma's wrt. mental disorders haven't really gotten the same kind of love from the social justice movements, that other areas have.
- menotyou43 7y ago
  My qualm is with the term "vilified." It implies that he is being done undue harm - he's getting what he should be getting. He should not be in a leadership position.
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  I don't think merely believing or giving credence to the people who know him, combined with observation, means that his vilification comes not at the hands of those who know him. It only followed from it. You may look for fault in those primary sources, but why separately attack the rest of the world for their opinions on the matter? Also, for what it's worth, I think defending something somebody said by calling it an "unpopular opinion" is a really easy trope to fall into that makes your tone seem dismissive to the opposing viewpoint (the "popular" viewpoint).
- diminoten 7y ago
  I don't need to know someone to be repulsed by what they've said, why the hell is that now the bar?
- zamalek 7y ago
  We need to check ourselves on our personal heroes here. People are saying the same things about a specific American politician: "he's a good man, why are you attacking him?" If I were a philanthropist spending billions of dollars saving lives, would I get a free pass to kill a person a week? Of course not. His opinion is not unpopular. It is morally reprehensible. Yes, some countries and states allow childhood intercourse, in much the same way that slavery was tolerated in many places around the world even after it was almost universally condemned. Some minority voices are important (see: woman's suffrage, gay rights). Typically, these opinions are novel, they are new, they are revolutionary. Opinions such as the rights of pedophiles, or homosexual persecution are in contrast to hard-won battles that exist in the past. Regressive opinions are not plight, they are an appeal to return to the plight of others. He is not supporting a fringe socially progressive movement. He is supporting something that we know is wrong. Pedophilia is an atypical anomaly. It is a debilitating disability. Those people need help desperately, not a pass to continue hurting children. Edit: it also turns out that there are personal accounts of him being outwardly shitty to women. He needs a friend to course correct him, not praise or worship him.
- mlevental 7y ago
  >Having an unpopular opinion isn't grounds for "proper judgement" why? i don't understand this. if he's entitled to his unpopular opinions why in the world isn't everyone else held to the same standard? i'm entitled to my unpopular opinion (at least on hn) that he's a socially inept idiot who shouldn't be in a public facing position. will i be spared downvotes and a slew of responses harassing me? i doubt it (it's already happened twice). this has literally always been in the court of public opinion because guess what? he's not an engineer and we're not assessing the quality of his work here - we're assessing his ability to be a public persona.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 7y ago
  I don't personally know Charles Manson, but I think he is definitely deserving of vilification. Now, that doesn't mean that RMS (or anyone else) absolutely certainly deserves being vilified by people who don't know them, but the entire premise is false: knowing someone (personally, I assume is the implication?) is not a necessary condition for condemning their behavior.
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    It’s funny because this is exactly the type of argument that RMS would probably make.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      I hadn't thought of that when writing it, but yeah, he probably might. No one is claiming all his arguments are bad, or that all his arguments are framed poorly, or that all his arguments ignore how they could offend or hurt people. But some of them, arguably, do.
confidantlake 7y ago
Hasn't he since changed his mind about those things and apologized for it? If someone believes something bad, gets educated, and changes their point of view, isn't that a good thing?
- revscat 7y ago
  It is, but that doesn’t mean you should want them representing you.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mjevans 7y ago
You're missing the nuance of the language as selected. "I am skeptical" clearly prefaces a desire to be made aware of actual scientific evidence, to have the citations (references to the evidence) provided. Further, you, and others who keep beating this dead horse, do not realize that it is part of a larger, ongoing, discussion in which (IIRC from prior HN threads), RMS had that skepticism resolved with knowledge by those who actually discussed the point, rather than bashing someone for asking "is this actually true; where is the evidence?" The scientific method involves asking if assumptions are true. I can sympathize with the theory that a substantial quantity of __additional__ damage is caused by the reactions of others after such unfortunate experiences. RMS was making a supposition that might be studied. The phrasing is, as the article mentioned, rather without consideration for how others might receive such a statement.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- d0gsg0w00f 7y ago
  The facts are that these days you just can't discuss some topics "logically" in a public setting. There are forbidden topics that only have one acceptable position. For example, it's not acceptable for anyone to discuss why blackface is offensive and clowns/mimes are not.
  - nepeckman 7y ago
    The blackface discussion isn't taboo, it's just been discussed to death and there's only one reasonable position. Google minstrel shows. The history of blackface is one of mocking black people. There is no way to "logically" argue that it isn't offensive because there are no facts to back up that claim.
    - tkel 7y ago
      Yeah, and often it comes from a place of skepticism, not from a place of trying to understand. And also from a place of laziness, where the skeptic expects the marginalized person to explain why the behavior or speech is harmful, and explain it in a way that is acceptable to the skeptic. All the while the understanding is a short Google search away.
falcolas 7y ago
When were those posted? That they (and other similar comments) suddenly appearing out of nowhere makes me question their veracity. They represent a broader point of view - a set of values - that are quite distinct from the views that have been presented before.
- fao_ 7y ago
  > That they (and other similar comments) suddenly appearing out of nowhere makes me question their veracity. They've been on his site for over decade, certainly longer than I've been a programmer (>8 years)
- stordoff 7y ago
  Stallman.org: > 05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party) > 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. 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. https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20Jun... > 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. http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_20... / https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2... (Note the site is currently being _very_ slow to load, so the second one is quoted from the most recent Internet Archive)
- stuart78 7y ago
  You can find these comments by simply searching his website. [0] contains one of those quoted by OP, from 2013. Along the way you'll find plenty more. [0] https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/archives/2012-nov-feb.html&term=pedophilia&type=norm&case=0 https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/archives/201...
matz1 7y ago
Looks like healthy scepticism to me, which I consider a good thing.
- stuart78 7y ago
  One of those comments was in response to an article about Jimmy Savile[0]. Savile is estimated to have raped 589 children, including some as young as 8. I am "healthily skeptical" about the moral compass of people who use serial child rapists as a springboard to questions about consent on the part of minors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan...
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    It mentions him but it is not about him https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-...
Mikhail_Edoshin 7y ago
So people are not free to say things other people may find stupid or ignorant? What if I thought that your comment was stupid and ignorant and had some power over your job position? Should I use this power then?
- danso 7y ago
  Bosses and stakeholders often hold their employees accountable for stupid and ignorant remarks. What is your argument here?
steveeq1 7y ago
But the judgment was not appropriate punishment for what he said. He said something you disagree with, so what? You should judge people more by their actions than any particular belief they have.

deogeo 7y ago

He made some questionable comments, but the media did also lie - documented here: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/

topmonk 7y ago

>> Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him > Umm.... absolutely not. These quotes (directly from his site) beg to differ: Do you know him? Aren't you vilifying him? Having an unpopular opinion isn't grounds for "proper judgement" of being constantly harassed by a mob every time his name is brought up.

davidw 7y ago
It's a pretty good reason for him to step down as a public figure though.
- SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
  Maybe... but isn't this idea worth questioning? There are loads of scenarios where we simply say, as a society, your discomfort with someone doesn't matter on balance, and you must deal with it. Such is the case with all the hot-button "isms" today. Stigma's wrt. mental disorders haven't really gotten the same kind of love from the social justice movements, that other areas have.
menotyou43 7y ago
My qualm is with the term "vilified." It implies that he is being done undue harm - he's getting what he should be getting. He should not be in a leadership position.
happytoexplain 7y ago
I don't think merely believing or giving credence to the people who know him, combined with observation, means that his vilification comes not at the hands of those who know him. It only followed from it. You may look for fault in those primary sources, but why separately attack the rest of the world for their opinions on the matter? Also, for what it's worth, I think defending something somebody said by calling it an "unpopular opinion" is a really easy trope to fall into that makes your tone seem dismissive to the opposing viewpoint (the "popular" viewpoint).
diminoten 7y ago
I don't need to know someone to be repulsed by what they've said, why the hell is that now the bar?
zamalek 7y ago
We need to check ourselves on our personal heroes here. People are saying the same things about a specific American politician: "he's a good man, why are you attacking him?" If I were a philanthropist spending billions of dollars saving lives, would I get a free pass to kill a person a week? Of course not. His opinion is not unpopular. It is morally reprehensible. Yes, some countries and states allow childhood intercourse, in much the same way that slavery was tolerated in many places around the world even after it was almost universally condemned. Some minority voices are important (see: woman's suffrage, gay rights). Typically, these opinions are novel, they are new, they are revolutionary. Opinions such as the rights of pedophiles, or homosexual persecution are in contrast to hard-won battles that exist in the past. Regressive opinions are not plight, they are an appeal to return to the plight of others. He is not supporting a fringe socially progressive movement. He is supporting something that we know is wrong. Pedophilia is an atypical anomaly. It is a debilitating disability. Those people need help desperately, not a pass to continue hurting children. Edit: it also turns out that there are personal accounts of him being outwardly shitty to women. He needs a friend to course correct him, not praise or worship him.
mlevental 7y ago
>Having an unpopular opinion isn't grounds for "proper judgement" why? i don't understand this. if he's entitled to his unpopular opinions why in the world isn't everyone else held to the same standard? i'm entitled to my unpopular opinion (at least on hn) that he's a socially inept idiot who shouldn't be in a public facing position. will i be spared downvotes and a slew of responses harassing me? i doubt it (it's already happened twice). this has literally always been in the court of public opinion because guess what? he's not an engineer and we're not assessing the quality of his work here - we're assessing his ability to be a public persona.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 7y ago
I don't personally know Charles Manson, but I think he is definitely deserving of vilification. Now, that doesn't mean that RMS (or anyone else) absolutely certainly deserves being vilified by people who don't know them, but the entire premise is false: knowing someone (personally, I assume is the implication?) is not a necessary condition for condemning their behavior.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  It’s funny because this is exactly the type of argument that RMS would probably make.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    I hadn't thought of that when writing it, but yeah, he probably might. No one is claiming all his arguments are bad, or that all his arguments are framed poorly, or that all his arguments ignore how they could offend or hurt people. But some of them, arguably, do.

confidantlake 7y ago

Hasn't he since changed his mind about those things and apologized for it? If someone believes something bad, gets educated, and changes their point of view, isn't that a good thing?

revscat 7y ago
It is, but that doesn’t mean you should want them representing you.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mjevans 7y ago

You're missing the nuance of the language as selected. "I am skeptical" clearly prefaces a desire to be made aware of actual scientific evidence, to have the citations (references to the evidence) provided. Further, you, and others who keep beating this dead horse, do not realize that it is part of a larger, ongoing, discussion in which (IIRC from prior HN threads), RMS had that skepticism resolved with knowledge by those who actually discussed the point, rather than bashing someone for asking "is this actually true; where is the evidence?" The scientific method involves asking if assumptions are true. I can sympathize with the theory that a substantial quantity of __additional__ damage is caused by the reactions of others after such unfortunate experiences. RMS was making a supposition that might be studied. The phrasing is, as the article mentioned, rather without consideration for how others might receive such a statement.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
d0gsg0w00f 7y ago
The facts are that these days you just can't discuss some topics "logically" in a public setting. There are forbidden topics that only have one acceptable position. For example, it's not acceptable for anyone to discuss why blackface is offensive and clowns/mimes are not.
- nepeckman 7y ago
  The blackface discussion isn't taboo, it's just been discussed to death and there's only one reasonable position. Google minstrel shows. The history of blackface is one of mocking black people. There is no way to "logically" argue that it isn't offensive because there are no facts to back up that claim.
  - tkel 7y ago
    Yeah, and often it comes from a place of skepticism, not from a place of trying to understand. And also from a place of laziness, where the skeptic expects the marginalized person to explain why the behavior or speech is harmful, and explain it in a way that is acceptable to the skeptic. All the while the understanding is a short Google search away.

falcolas 7y ago

When were those posted? That they (and other similar comments) suddenly appearing out of nowhere makes me question their veracity. They represent a broader point of view - a set of values - that are quite distinct from the views that have been presented before.

fao_ 7y ago
> That they (and other similar comments) suddenly appearing out of nowhere makes me question their veracity. They've been on his site for over decade, certainly longer than I've been a programmer (>8 years)
stordoff 7y ago
Stallman.org: > 05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party) > 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. 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. https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20Jun... > 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. http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_20... / https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2... (Note the site is currently being _very_ slow to load, so the second one is quoted from the most recent Internet Archive)
stuart78 7y ago
You can find these comments by simply searching his website. [0] contains one of those quoted by OP, from 2013. Along the way you'll find plenty more. [0] https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/archives/2012-nov-feb.html&term=pedophilia&type=norm&case=0 https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/archives/201...

matz1 7y ago

Looks like healthy scepticism to me, which I consider a good thing.

stuart78 7y ago
One of those comments was in response to an article about Jimmy Savile[0]. Savile is estimated to have raped 589 children, including some as young as 8. I am "healthily skeptical" about the moral compass of people who use serial child rapists as a springboard to questions about consent on the part of minors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan...
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  It mentions him but it is not about him https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-...

Mikhail_Edoshin 7y ago

So people are not free to say things other people may find stupid or ignorant? What if I thought that your comment was stupid and ignorant and had some power over your job position? Should I use this power then?

danso 7y ago
Bosses and stakeholders often hold their employees accountable for stupid and ignorant remarks. What is your argument here?

steveeq1 7y ago

But the judgment was not appropriate punishment for what he said. He said something you disagree with, so what? You should judge people more by their actions than any particular belief they have.