3 ms·

> The media then lied about RMS defending a pedophile. Source? I saw an article by John Gruber[0] that retracted some specific allegations about him, saying th

by brirec 7y ago

> The media then lied about RMS defending a pedophile. Source? I saw an article by John Gruber[0] that retracted some specific allegations about him, saying that for these specific allegations RMS was being conflated with ESR, another known sexual predator who has some fame in the early world of FOSS.I saw nothing lying about him being a pedophile. That came a leaked email to the MIT CSAIL mailing list (which had been confirmed by multiple sources) and from his personal blog, on a widely circulated article. I'd link to the specific one (edit: [2]), but when searching Google for the query 'child pornography site:stallman.org'[1] there are far too many instances of him commenting on child pornography in the news and such — it's a topic he has spoken at lengths about, and advocating for it is not something new for him. The article by John Gruber retracts a specific sexual assault allegation. I don't think that he should be tried or burned at the stake for something that he hasn't done, and I don't personally know any other specific allegations of sexual assault on his behalf either. But to say that the media saying RMS defending a pedophile is a lie is silly. The man's a known pedophile sympathizer, and clearly based on the dates published he doesn't intend to retract any of his own articles proving such any time soon. Also, to be clear, the Vice article that you are thinking of[3] that said he defended a pedophile has an excerpt straight from the CSAIL mailing list that's been confirmed by multiple others. Seriously, click that [1] link and try to say he's not a pedophile sympathizer… [0]: https://daringfireball.net/2019/10/correction_regarding_an_erroneous_allegation https://daringfireball.net/2019/10/correction_regarding_an_e... [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=child+pornography+site%3Astallman.org https://www.google.com/search?q=child+pornography+site%3Asta... [2]: https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html > 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. [3]: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci... Edit: added [2] and [3]. It's not just Emacs that makes RMS a bad person.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Source? https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci... https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r... Versus what he actually said. The original e-mails are easily available, they've even been quoted in Salem G.'s blog post. > for these specific allegations RMS was being conflated with ESR, another known sexual predator who has some fame in the early world of FOSS I hope your phrasing here is accidental, because it could be read as alleging that RMS is a "known sexual predator". I'm pretty sure some people will read it that way and run with it. > I saw nothing lying about him being a pedophile. Me neither. Him defending a pedophile (Epstein) was a lie news outlets run with. Him believing at some point in the past pedophilia may be harmless when both sides are willing is true, because he wrote exactly that years ago (recently retracted, whether because of actual change of mind or damage control is besides the point). > The man's a known pedophile sympathizer, and clearly based on the dates published he doesn't intend to retract any of his own articles proving such any time soon. Now that is, from what I can tell, factually incorrect. He only wrote in the past that he think the popular opinion on pedophilia is wrong due to issues of bias. EDIT: You actually quoted the exact statement. Re-read it carefully. > Seriously, click that [1] link and try to say he's not a pedophile sympathizer… I clicked that and browsed the results and all I saw in the first couple was: 1) that he believes accusing an underage person who shot nude photos of herself, with no indication of abuse or coercion, of "self-abuse", is bullshit, and 2) that he believes "child pornography" is routinely used as an excuse to justify deploying technologies for Internet censorship, which then can and are being extended to cover more and more material - this being an issue of freedom Both views are very far from being "pedophile sympathizer"; in particular 2) is what I think is a view shared by most HNers too. I'm going to assume you're quick to jump to conclusions, but be wary that stuff like this can be misconstrued to further spread falsehoods. EDIT: > Also, to be clear, the Vice article that you are thinking of[3] that said he defended a pedophile has an excerpt straight from the CSAIL mailing list that's been confirmed by multiple others. Yes. Vice article misquotes RMS both in the headline and in the article proper, and I'm having a hard time browsing their broken PDF widget so I'll refer you to the original post that started the whole mess: https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec2... C-f "willing" to find the actual words Stallman used. EDIT: And where in previous comment I said it started with a blogger that decided to slander RMS, I meant Salem G. and the post I linked to above, not Mr Gruber, who only conveniently managed to pour gasoline into the fire by confusing ESR with RMS.

by brirec 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> Source? https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci... https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r... Versus what he actually said. The original e-mails are easily available, they've even been quoted in Salem G.'s blog post. > for these specific allegations RMS was being conflated with ESR, another known sexual predator who has some fame in the early world of FOSS I hope your phrasing here is accidental, because it could be read as alleging that RMS is a "known sexual predator". I'm pretty sure some people will read it that way and run with it. > I saw nothing lying about him being a pedophile. Me neither. Him defending a pedophile (Epstein) was a lie news outlets run with. Him believing at some point in the past pedophilia may be harmless when both sides are willing is true, because he wrote exactly that years ago (recently retracted, whether because of actual change of mind or damage control is besides the point). > The man's a known pedophile sympathizer, and clearly based on the dates published he doesn't intend to retract any of his own articles proving such any time soon. Now that is, from what I can tell, factually incorrect. He only wrote in the past that he think the popular opinion on pedophilia is wrong due to issues of bias. EDIT: You actually quoted the exact statement. Re-read it carefully. > Seriously, click that [1] link and try to say he's not a pedophile sympathizer… I clicked that and browsed the results and all I saw in the first couple was: 1) that he believes accusing an underage person who shot nude photos of herself, with no indication of abuse or coercion, of "self-abuse", is bullshit, and 2) that he believes "child pornography" is routinely used as an excuse to justify deploying technologies for Internet censorship, which then can and are being extended to cover more and more material - this being an issue of freedom Both views are very far from being "pedophile sympathizer"; in particular 2) is what I think is a view shared by most HNers too. I'm going to assume you're quick to jump to conclusions, but be wary that stuff like this can be misconstrued to further spread falsehoods. EDIT: > Also, to be clear, the Vice article that you are thinking of[3] that said he defended a pedophile has an excerpt straight from the CSAIL mailing list that's been confirmed by multiple others. Yes. Vice article misquotes RMS both in the headline and in the article proper, and I'm having a hard time browsing their broken PDF widget so I'll refer you to the original post that started the whole mess: https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec2... C-f "willing" to find the actual words Stallman used. EDIT: And where in previous comment I said it started with a blogger that decided to slander RMS, I meant Salem G. and the post I linked to above, not Mr Gruber, who only conveniently managed to pour gasoline into the fire by confusing ESR with RMS.