6 ms·

A direct quote of RMS from his website[0]: The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitu

A direct quote of RMS from his website[0]: 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. [0]: https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html --- I don't think child pornography should be legal.

skissane 6y ago
A much more recent quote from his website[0]: 14 September 2019 (Sex between an adult and a child is wrong) Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why. [0] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... --- Stallman's former view on this was always wrong. But it is good to hear he has changed his mind, and I think to be fair to him, if one brings up his former views, one should also bring up his more recent disavowal of them.
- krapp 6y ago
  To be fair, that disavowal came after his former behavior and views - which went not only accepted but defended by his peers and followers for years (including on HN following his "cancellation") finally became too much for people around him to bear. No other public figure with a history like his would be given even a shadow of a benefit of the doubt over nothing but a brief blog entry. If he were a politician or a celebrity HN would want to see him hanged with the rest of the degenerate elites. I hope that he has changed his mind, but until there's some evidence that he's changed his behavior, there's no reason to assume he was doing anything but covering his ass (possibly at the behest of someone else) and trying to save his position and status. That's what would be assumed of anyone else, that's what should be assumed of him.
  - skissane 6y ago
    When I was a teenager, back in the 1990s, I idolised RMS. The GNU project and FSF were what I idolised him for, back then I'd never heard his views on these issues. As I grew older, I started to think that the hardline position of the FSF was impractical, at least for my own life. I wouldn't say I idolise him any more. I think his former views were completely wrong, but I try to understand where he was coming from: RMS comes out of a progressive 1970s cultural milieu in which a lot of people were willing to question all aspects of traditional moral values, including age of consent laws. I can think of a number of now-mainstream European politicians, who in the 1970s were willing to associate with (or at least tolerate) "pro-pedophile" advocacy groups, and that way they behaved in the 1970s has come back to bite them – Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey, Patricia Hewitt. Someone like Allen Ginsberg, who was an open member of NAMBLA – and, by at least some accounts, actively abused underage boys – was nonetheless an acceptable figure in polite society – something that would be quite unbelievable in the year 2020. In the 1970s, a lot of what is now the mainstream gay rights movement was willing to associate with organisations like NAMBLA; by the 1980s, the mainstream gay rights movement had fully severed those ties, which was a prerequisite for the cultural and political successes of the LGBT movement of today. In the 70s, the victims of child sexual abuse were largely invisible, they were not being heard in the conversation in the way they are now, and society (including much of the radical left) had not yet begun to take their experiences seriously. What makes RMS a bit different, is that figures like Cohn-Bendit, Harman, Dromey and Hewitt, realised their mistake (or at least cared enough about social acceptability to move with the times.) RMS clung to this view long after it had become seriously socially unacceptable in a way it had not been in his twenties. Why? Well, it is obvious to me that RMS has a lot of autistic traits (as do I myself). I'm not the only person to notice this – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20969320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20969320 – to arrive at and defend socially unpopular positions through application of abstract reasoning, completely divorced from real world human experience, and then to cling to them pigheadedly, is something a lot of people with autistic traits end up doing at some point. So I think his autistic traits are another big part of the picture here that other people may not be seeing. RMS' former views were always wrong: I'm the father of two young kids myself, to me their wrongness is completely obvious. But I can understand how something which is completely obvious to me, even to most people, might not have been obvious to him, and why it might have taken some real world interaction with abuse victims for him to understand it. And, to the best of my knowledge, these wrong views of his were purely theoretical, I've never heard any claims he's actually acted on them, or even had any personal interest in acting on them – unlike someone like Allen Ginsberg. I'm not saying this because I think he should be the leader of the free software movement. I think he has done an enormous amount for that movement, but it probably now would be better served by someone younger and more attuned to contemporary culture. But he's a human being, and I feel the urge to understand him sympathetically, rather than join in a mob out to get him.
- userbinator 6y ago
  I've always thought of Stallman as the canary --- the extremist at the edge. I don't agree with a lot of things about him, but I think it's important that such people exist in order to "delineate the boundaries". Him changing his views towards "acceptability" should be taken as a bad sign, regardless of what those views are.
  - totetsu 6y ago
    fwiw I don't think framing everything in as a sign in the sad story of a society on the way to 'X', is a particularly productive way to think about this kind of story. I could be that this is just a personal story of an individual who is internally consistent, and changed a view based on discussion and new information.
- concordDance 6y ago
  > Stallman's former view on this was always wrong. Norms change and any norm that has been the opposite way for most of history probably won't stick around long term (unless current norms get enshrined in seed AI code or something). Give it a few decades and various forms of pedophilic behaviour (such as non-penetrative consensual (not in the current legal sense) masturbation of children) will go back to being politely ignored. Whether that is a good thing I can't say... I think it's more likely that anal sex will be considered wrong in 50 years than that the above actions will be considered wrong in 50 years.
- garfieldnate 6y ago
  I'm curious if he's also changed his views on polygamy.
Waterfall 6y ago
Why? It's one of the only things that you can get in trouble for without even knowing it was there. You could have taken them yourself or your children, did, it's seen in your house and they assume it's yours, now you can have a big lawsuit. With the quality of cameras and common usage of them I see a huge problem looming. It's used to plant investigations on innocent people. It's turned innocent people into jobless hated people for something they didn't do or simply were accused of. I don't think it is a black and white issue as much of a tool of entrapment. I am not pro possession of it, but the laws are clearly entrapping innocent people. Romeo and Juliet laws exist for underaged people, should a similar law exist if you make it yourself so you don't get labeled a sex offender for making a video of yourself? During his time it was about not legislating everything. Dworkin who was anti pornography debated a conservative judge, who saw no difference of exploitation of children as of women. Here she debates a conservative judge on wanting to make it illegal. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zt8KVB8AunQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zt8KVB8AunQ
- the_jeremy 6y ago
  Sure. I don't think you should be arrested or put on the sex offenders list for taking / possessing a picture of yourself as a minor. I think it's clear from context that this is not what RMS was referring to, and I don't think your strawman argument is helpful.
  - Waterfall 6y ago
    You said child pornography should be illegal, and ignored how it can be planted.
dependenttypes 6y ago
I do not think that whether you think that people should be prosecuted for thought crimes has much to do with him being right on wrong.
_heimdall 6y ago
This might be nitpicking, but did you just say bestiality and necrophilia should be legal because only narrow minded, prejudiced people would be concerned that the animal or corpse can not consent? I consider myself pretty Libertarian, but damn that's not a small government hill I'd die on.
romanoderoma 6y ago
That's not "many things" I can find one thing I disagree with on anybody Btw he wasn't even completely wrong on this one...

skissane 6y ago

A much more recent quote from his website[0]: 14 September 2019 (Sex between an adult and a child is wrong) Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why. [0] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... --- Stallman's former view on this was always wrong. But it is good to hear he has changed his mind, and I think to be fair to him, if one brings up his former views, one should also bring up his more recent disavowal of them.

krapp 6y ago
To be fair, that disavowal came after his former behavior and views - which went not only accepted but defended by his peers and followers for years (including on HN following his "cancellation") finally became too much for people around him to bear. No other public figure with a history like his would be given even a shadow of a benefit of the doubt over nothing but a brief blog entry. If he were a politician or a celebrity HN would want to see him hanged with the rest of the degenerate elites. I hope that he has changed his mind, but until there's some evidence that he's changed his behavior, there's no reason to assume he was doing anything but covering his ass (possibly at the behest of someone else) and trying to save his position and status. That's what would be assumed of anyone else, that's what should be assumed of him.
- skissane 6y ago
  When I was a teenager, back in the 1990s, I idolised RMS. The GNU project and FSF were what I idolised him for, back then I'd never heard his views on these issues. As I grew older, I started to think that the hardline position of the FSF was impractical, at least for my own life. I wouldn't say I idolise him any more. I think his former views were completely wrong, but I try to understand where he was coming from: RMS comes out of a progressive 1970s cultural milieu in which a lot of people were willing to question all aspects of traditional moral values, including age of consent laws. I can think of a number of now-mainstream European politicians, who in the 1970s were willing to associate with (or at least tolerate) "pro-pedophile" advocacy groups, and that way they behaved in the 1970s has come back to bite them – Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey, Patricia Hewitt. Someone like Allen Ginsberg, who was an open member of NAMBLA – and, by at least some accounts, actively abused underage boys – was nonetheless an acceptable figure in polite society – something that would be quite unbelievable in the year 2020. In the 1970s, a lot of what is now the mainstream gay rights movement was willing to associate with organisations like NAMBLA; by the 1980s, the mainstream gay rights movement had fully severed those ties, which was a prerequisite for the cultural and political successes of the LGBT movement of today. In the 70s, the victims of child sexual abuse were largely invisible, they were not being heard in the conversation in the way they are now, and society (including much of the radical left) had not yet begun to take their experiences seriously. What makes RMS a bit different, is that figures like Cohn-Bendit, Harman, Dromey and Hewitt, realised their mistake (or at least cared enough about social acceptability to move with the times.) RMS clung to this view long after it had become seriously socially unacceptable in a way it had not been in his twenties. Why? Well, it is obvious to me that RMS has a lot of autistic traits (as do I myself). I'm not the only person to notice this – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20969320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20969320 – to arrive at and defend socially unpopular positions through application of abstract reasoning, completely divorced from real world human experience, and then to cling to them pigheadedly, is something a lot of people with autistic traits end up doing at some point. So I think his autistic traits are another big part of the picture here that other people may not be seeing. RMS' former views were always wrong: I'm the father of two young kids myself, to me their wrongness is completely obvious. But I can understand how something which is completely obvious to me, even to most people, might not have been obvious to him, and why it might have taken some real world interaction with abuse victims for him to understand it. And, to the best of my knowledge, these wrong views of his were purely theoretical, I've never heard any claims he's actually acted on them, or even had any personal interest in acting on them – unlike someone like Allen Ginsberg. I'm not saying this because I think he should be the leader of the free software movement. I think he has done an enormous amount for that movement, but it probably now would be better served by someone younger and more attuned to contemporary culture. But he's a human being, and I feel the urge to understand him sympathetically, rather than join in a mob out to get him.
userbinator 6y ago
I've always thought of Stallman as the canary --- the extremist at the edge. I don't agree with a lot of things about him, but I think it's important that such people exist in order to "delineate the boundaries". Him changing his views towards "acceptability" should be taken as a bad sign, regardless of what those views are.
- totetsu 6y ago
  fwiw I don't think framing everything in as a sign in the sad story of a society on the way to 'X', is a particularly productive way to think about this kind of story. I could be that this is just a personal story of an individual who is internally consistent, and changed a view based on discussion and new information.
concordDance 6y ago
> Stallman's former view on this was always wrong. Norms change and any norm that has been the opposite way for most of history probably won't stick around long term (unless current norms get enshrined in seed AI code or something). Give it a few decades and various forms of pedophilic behaviour (such as non-penetrative consensual (not in the current legal sense) masturbation of children) will go back to being politely ignored. Whether that is a good thing I can't say... I think it's more likely that anal sex will be considered wrong in 50 years than that the above actions will be considered wrong in 50 years.
garfieldnate 6y ago
I'm curious if he's also changed his views on polygamy.

Waterfall 6y ago

Why? It's one of the only things that you can get in trouble for without even knowing it was there. You could have taken them yourself or your children, did, it's seen in your house and they assume it's yours, now you can have a big lawsuit. With the quality of cameras and common usage of them I see a huge problem looming. It's used to plant investigations on innocent people. It's turned innocent people into jobless hated people for something they didn't do or simply were accused of. I don't think it is a black and white issue as much of a tool of entrapment. I am not pro possession of it, but the laws are clearly entrapping innocent people. Romeo and Juliet laws exist for underaged people, should a similar law exist if you make it yourself so you don't get labeled a sex offender for making a video of yourself? During his time it was about not legislating everything. Dworkin who was anti pornography debated a conservative judge, who saw no difference of exploitation of children as of women. Here she debates a conservative judge on wanting to make it illegal. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zt8KVB8AunQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zt8KVB8AunQ

the_jeremy 6y ago
Sure. I don't think you should be arrested or put on the sex offenders list for taking / possessing a picture of yourself as a minor. I think it's clear from context that this is not what RMS was referring to, and I don't think your strawman argument is helpful.
- Waterfall 6y ago
  You said child pornography should be illegal, and ignored how it can be planted.

dependenttypes 6y ago

I do not think that whether you think that people should be prosecuted for thought crimes has much to do with him being right on wrong.

_heimdall 6y ago

This might be nitpicking, but did you just say bestiality and necrophilia should be legal because only narrow minded, prejudiced people would be concerned that the animal or corpse can not consent? I consider myself pretty Libertarian, but damn that's not a small government hill I'd die on.

romanoderoma 6y ago

That's not "many things" I can find one thing I disagree with on anybody Btw he wasn't even completely wrong on this one...