5 ms·

> Well, when RMS wants to say things implying that maybe > pedophilia isn't always bad and perhaps it gets a bad > rap because some parents aren't OK with

> Well, when RMS wants to say things implying that maybe > pedophilia isn't always bad and perhaps it gets a bad > rap because some parents aren't OK with their kids > growing up, he needs to be exceedingly careful how he > phrases every word of it because he's commenting on an > extremely charged subject. I hear your initial thought here, that talking about sensitive topics requires a sensitive hand, and RMS may lack one. And that's a valid point. For some topics. RMS has a history of defending or being actively supportive of pedophilia. This isn't just a matter of RMS being incapable of speaking about a sensitive topic with grace. If I start raising questions about how smart non-white folks really are and supposing that perhaps only white folks can be in leadership positions, multiple times in multiple venues -- well, folks are going to think I'm a white supremacist. And the harm I'll have done to the non-white folks in my community will have already been done. And no amount of (pp.) "carefully phrasing every word because it's an extremely charged subject" is going to change that.

kstrauser 6y ago
That's fair. I haven't gone down the rabbit hole of reading everything he's said on the subject, and that was mainly in response to https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... . And I do get (and agree with) your analogy, too. For full disclosure, I think you can make a reasonable case for at least some of what he said in the link I just posted. For instance, an 18 year old having sex with their 17 year old partner doesn't automatically make it non-consensual, and lots of states have so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws that agree. That's where the call for caution and careful phrasing come in: does he intend to mean it's OK for an 18 year old and a 17 year old to date (which I'd agree with), or for a 40 year old and a 15 year old (which I'd vehemently not agree with)? If what he meant was the former, I wish he would have clearly stated so and avoided the whole issue. If it really is the latter, then there's no way I'd attempt to defend that or be willing to consider the nuance (and more than I'd be willing to consider your analogy).
- cogman10 6y ago
  I'd probably state it this way. It's one thing if someone makes an offhand comment like "Oh yeah, Hitler wanted to be an artist!" You'd be like "Ok, interesting tidbit but whatever". It'd be a whole 'nother thing if one multiple different occasions you start talking about positive hilter attributes. I think it's reasonable for people to be pretty uncomfortable with the number of times and frequency that RMS seems to want to talk about underage sex. That certainly does not make him a pedophile. It is, however, pretty off putting. All this makes me feel very much like the Hans Reiser case. I was internet active at the time and remember all of his fans swear up and down about how innocent he was and how much he was a victim of the corrupt judicial system. Then that fateful day happened when Reiser was convicted and basically said "Ok, if you'll give me a lighter sentence I'll show you where the body is". Stallman did a lot of good for the opensource community, which makes him a hero to many. I think, however, it's unhealthy to try and justify his statements on pedophilia. It's ok to talk about the nuance of the laws (Certainly there are major issues with the way CP laws work. It's a bit crazy that teens are getting convicted of it over normal teen behavior). Stallman has been really icky here. He talks not about age difference but instead how "voluntary" the acts are. Trying to read in "Romeo and Juliet" scenarios when he himself doesn't even mention that is trying to paint a more rosy picture of what stallman wrote. All of this, frankly, can also be cleared up by clarifications from Stallman (which he's not published). He could say pretty much exactly what you've said here "When I was talking about X, this is what I meant". He's not done that and I think that's really telling. Maybe someone told him to STFU, but then again, he's not really been silent on his positions on sex throughout the years, so why start now?
  - kstrauser 6y ago
    Ugh, I remember the Reiser case pretty well, and perhaps that's a good cautionary analogy. And ultimately, you're right: if everyone misinterpreted him, it's on him to come out and explain what he really meant. It wasn't my intent to play devil's advocate here, and my original point was just that I think he can be a poor communicator on difficult topics.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
gypsyharlot 6y ago
Could you show us an instance of RMS being "actively supportive of pedophilia"? This is a claim that will both ruin a man's career, life and reputation, so you better have some decent sources.
- cogman10 6y ago
  https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...
  - gypsyharlot 6y ago
    Did you actually read those links? The very first paragraph on the falkvinge-page: "This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it." So they're arguing for a change in laws such that child molesters could more easily be prosecuted? And here you are accusing a man of actively supporting pedophilia based on some gossip from someone who also didn't read what he was actually saying?
    - cogman10 6y ago
      > 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. We are talking about what stallman has written. The above is what he wrote. The distinction he's drawing between "voluntarily pedophilia" and "involuntarily pedophilia" is one that I don't believe exists. Particularly because "grooming" is a common tactics of pedophilies.
- 6y ago
dicytea 6y ago
Just to quickly clear it up since this is brought up very often, RMS has changed his views on pedophilia[1] [1] 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...

kstrauser 6y ago

That's fair. I haven't gone down the rabbit hole of reading everything he's said on the subject, and that was mainly in response to https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... . And I do get (and agree with) your analogy, too. For full disclosure, I think you can make a reasonable case for at least some of what he said in the link I just posted. For instance, an 18 year old having sex with their 17 year old partner doesn't automatically make it non-consensual, and lots of states have so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws that agree. That's where the call for caution and careful phrasing come in: does he intend to mean it's OK for an 18 year old and a 17 year old to date (which I'd agree with), or for a 40 year old and a 15 year old (which I'd vehemently not agree with)? If what he meant was the former, I wish he would have clearly stated so and avoided the whole issue. If it really is the latter, then there's no way I'd attempt to defend that or be willing to consider the nuance (and more than I'd be willing to consider your analogy).

cogman10 6y ago
I'd probably state it this way. It's one thing if someone makes an offhand comment like "Oh yeah, Hitler wanted to be an artist!" You'd be like "Ok, interesting tidbit but whatever". It'd be a whole 'nother thing if one multiple different occasions you start talking about positive hilter attributes. I think it's reasonable for people to be pretty uncomfortable with the number of times and frequency that RMS seems to want to talk about underage sex. That certainly does not make him a pedophile. It is, however, pretty off putting. All this makes me feel very much like the Hans Reiser case. I was internet active at the time and remember all of his fans swear up and down about how innocent he was and how much he was a victim of the corrupt judicial system. Then that fateful day happened when Reiser was convicted and basically said "Ok, if you'll give me a lighter sentence I'll show you where the body is". Stallman did a lot of good for the opensource community, which makes him a hero to many. I think, however, it's unhealthy to try and justify his statements on pedophilia. It's ok to talk about the nuance of the laws (Certainly there are major issues with the way CP laws work. It's a bit crazy that teens are getting convicted of it over normal teen behavior). Stallman has been really icky here. He talks not about age difference but instead how "voluntary" the acts are. Trying to read in "Romeo and Juliet" scenarios when he himself doesn't even mention that is trying to paint a more rosy picture of what stallman wrote. All of this, frankly, can also be cleared up by clarifications from Stallman (which he's not published). He could say pretty much exactly what you've said here "When I was talking about X, this is what I meant". He's not done that and I think that's really telling. Maybe someone told him to STFU, but then again, he's not really been silent on his positions on sex throughout the years, so why start now?
- kstrauser 6y ago
  Ugh, I remember the Reiser case pretty well, and perhaps that's a good cautionary analogy. And ultimately, you're right: if everyone misinterpreted him, it's on him to come out and explain what he really meant. It wasn't my intent to play devil's advocate here, and my original point was just that I think he can be a poor communicator on difficult topics.
pseudalopex 6y ago

gypsyharlot 6y ago

Could you show us an instance of RMS being "actively supportive of pedophilia"? This is a claim that will both ruin a man's career, life and reputation, so you better have some decent sources.

cogman10 6y ago
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...
- gypsyharlot 6y ago
  Did you actually read those links? The very first paragraph on the falkvinge-page: "This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it." So they're arguing for a change in laws such that child molesters could more easily be prosecuted? And here you are accusing a man of actively supporting pedophilia based on some gossip from someone who also didn't read what he was actually saying?
  - cogman10 6y ago
    > 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. We are talking about what stallman has written. The above is what he wrote. The distinction he's drawing between "voluntarily pedophilia" and "involuntarily pedophilia" is one that I don't believe exists. Particularly because "grooming" is a common tactics of pedophilies.
6y ago

dicytea 6y ago

Just to quickly clear it up since this is brought up very often, RMS has changed his views on pedophilia[1] [1] 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...