4 ms·

Cue somebody pointing out how recent this is; then followed by a rebuttal pointing out the phrase recent years, and that while the post may be new, the change

Cue somebody pointing out how recent this is; then followed by a rebuttal pointing out the phrase recent years, and that while the post may be new, the change of heart may not be

teddyh 7y ago
In fact, he seems to have changed his mind about that as early as 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=727727586&oldid=727703442 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biograp... (Credit for finding this goes to dependenttypes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184)
- microtherion 7y ago
  "Not endorsing pedophilia since 2016" is not exactly the ringing character endorsement you might consider it to be.
  - teddyh 7y ago
    Ringing character endorsement? It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to correct the seemlingly common misconception that RMS changed his mind only recently after the fact, when in reality he seems to have changed his mind many years ago. Also, should people be condemned for opinions they used to hold, even if they changed them relatively recently? If so, what is the point of anybody changing their mind on any topic, if they’re going to get nailed for any opinion they have ever held? What kind of world would that make, where nobody could be expected to change their mind on anything?
    - katabatic 7y ago
      2016 IS very recently. Three years ago does not count as "many years ago". Richard Stallman is 66 years old. To have only realized that pedophilia is bad at age 63, only when other people had to convince him..welp.
      - teddyh 7y ago
        You seem to be arguing with some other point than the one I was making. Also, you are not responding to what I wrote, and seem to be determined to argue your other point. You are welcome to do so, but please find someone else, who actually holds an opposite viewpoint, to argue with.

Cue somebody pointing out how recent this is; then followed by a rebuttal pointing out the phrase recent years, and that while the post may be new, the change of heart may not be

teddyh 7y ago

In fact, he seems to have changed his mind about that as early as 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=727727586&oldid=727703442 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biograp... (Credit for finding this goes to dependenttypes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184)

microtherion 7y ago
"Not endorsing pedophilia since 2016" is not exactly the ringing character endorsement you might consider it to be.
- teddyh 7y ago
  Ringing character endorsement? It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to correct the seemlingly common misconception that RMS changed his mind only recently after the fact, when in reality he seems to have changed his mind many years ago. Also, should people be condemned for opinions they used to hold, even if they changed them relatively recently? If so, what is the point of anybody changing their mind on any topic, if they’re going to get nailed for any opinion they have ever held? What kind of world would that make, where nobody could be expected to change their mind on anything?
  - katabatic 7y ago
    2016 IS very recently. Three years ago does not count as "many years ago". Richard Stallman is 66 years old. To have only realized that pedophilia is bad at age 63, only when other people had to convince him..welp.
    - teddyh 7y ago
      You seem to be arguing with some other point than the one I was making. Also, you are not responding to what I wrote, and seem to be determined to argue your other point. You are welcome to do so, but please find someone else, who actually holds an opposite viewpoint, to argue with.