10 ms·

Again, maybe it was "hard to interact with him" only if one was unwilling to accept his difference?

by Mediterraneo10 6y ago

JohnHaugeland 6y ago
Please stop. He argued that pedophilia was okay.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dempseye 6y ago
  Where did he say that?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - mjg59 6y ago
    This is probably a reference to https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.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."
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - henearkr 6y ago
      The context is the one of the accusation of Marvin Minsky, in a case involving Epstein. The victim was a 17 yo girl, and "if" the condition of sexual slavery of the victim was not made clear, it could have been misunderstood as a voluntary act, and I would indeed understand that a voluntary sexual act with a 17 yo girl does not systematically lead to harm. What was criticized by RMS was the overly broad generalizations of the harmfulness.
      - mjg59 6y ago
        > The context is the one of the accusation of Marvin Minsky, in a case involving Epstein No, the context is the totality of RMS's behaviour over the years, as was made clear by a parent comment: "A few final statements did bring him down, but he had been chipping at the foundation for years."
        henearkr 6y ago
        Right, the context was earlier (2006). I don't know all of the accumulated missteps he did, so of course I will refrain from concluding. At least, the one about the over-generalization seems legit (with the example of a willing 17 yo).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- moistbar 6y ago
  No, he didn't. He defended a dead person from accusations of pedophilia and had quotes from it taken tremendously out of context.
  - stephenr 6y ago
    Yes, he did, multiple times. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216
    - spurgu 6y ago
      I find it refreshing to see someone willing to talk and think about these taboo kind of subjects. Myself I think it (sexual interaction) boils down to mutual consent, but there's obviously an age where a person cannot grasp the scope of what they're consenting to. And necrophilia fails this definition since consent is impossible (unless written in a will). And now having looked into what he was actually accused of, of trying to imply that a sexual "assault" didn't necessarily happen, it's just strengthening my view that this "wokeness" is getting way out of hand in today's society.
      - stephenr 6y ago
        The law literally is about age of consent. As a society we deem young people too immature to make important decisions for themselves. Nothing about calling him on his ridiculous views is related to "wokeness". One guy saying "hey maybe fucking kids isn't bad" is not in any way related to social injustice - society in general says that fucking kids is bad. Edit: unless you agree with his claims - then I guess you might see it as "social injustice". This is just a weirdo saying weird shit, and then other people (you) trying to latch onto the new version of "don't blame me, back in my day it was OK".
        varajelle 6y ago
        Not only young people but also adult who would want to take some kind of drugs, or who would like to get into, god forbid, homosexual acts. Now, homosexuality has been allowed everywhere in the US for a decade or so. It wouldn't have been if it was not appropriate to talk about it. Richard Stallman was, for my understanding, just daring to ask questions, and debating over a sensitive topic, and he got blamed for it.
- SilverRed 6y ago
  Thats a serious misrepresentation of his words. He once had a page on his site saying that he did not think it was harmful if voluntary (eg, consent between people of similar ages but one being over age) He has since removed the post and stated that its more complex than he initially thought.
  - stonogo 6y ago
    He did not remove the post, it's here: 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 he didn't change his mind for over a decade, until he got in trouble for defending Marvin Minsky. I'm still not convinced his "updated opinion" would have happened without the scrutiny brought by the Epstein case.
    - PurpleFoxy 6y ago
      Looks like he moved it to the archive section and dated it 2006 to show it is a very outdated view. Stallman is a very honest person and won’t try to hide the past. This comment used to be on one of the main info pages of the site.
      - klyrs 6y ago
        That quote has been at that url since 2006 https://web.archive.org/web/20060821211348/https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html https://web.archive.org/web/20060821211348/https://www.stall...
        hda2 6y ago
        Did he redact his statement or not? A simple Yes or No will suffice.
        fooker 6y ago
        Yes or No answers are only relevant when you admit yourself to be incapable of nuanced thought. Alternatively : “Have you stopped beating your wife?” A simple yes or no answer will suffice. :)
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  This is the real problem with the culture today. People willfully, blatantly lying about other people to smear them and trying to convince everyone else to shun them as well.
  - mjg59 6y ago
    I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" as a suggestion that there are circumstances under which paedophilia is OK. Suggesting that someone doing so is willfully, blatantly lying seems like an unsupported claim.
    - phkahler 6y ago
      There is another sentence after the one you quote which takes the edge off it. Dropping that part could be construed as willfully taking his words out of context to makes them sound worse. IMHO taken as a whole I think it says more about his lack of understanding than him endorsing anything. But as you say, that's not blatant lying.
      - davidcbc 6y ago
        > 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. This doesn't take the edge off, it makes it sound worse
        gizmo686 6y ago
        How does it make it sound worse? As I read it, he is saying: Original quote: "I am skeptical about <widely believed thing". Added context: "because <the arguments people present to not actually address the issue in question>" The added context moves him even further away from saying anything about pedophilia itself, and further into saying stuff about other people who are saying something about pedophilia.
- henearkr 6y ago
  [edit: I got the context wrong, see children comments] The commented pedophilia was the allegated one of Marvin Minsky with a 17 yo girl, whose coercion (by Epstein) into sexual acts was maybe (probably, in the words of RMS) not made clear to Minsky (nor the age). I precise, because 17 yo is a quite mature age for sexual activity (and more so for a girl than for a boy, because the sexual maturity of the body happens earlier), and the context of being presented by Epstein may make it not obvious that there was slavery. So, even if I do not condone, I can see where the position of RMS comes from.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The commented pedophilia was the allegated one of Marvin Minsky with a 17 yo girl, No, it was a comment in response to a group of Dutch pedophiles forming a political party with the stated goal of first reducing the age of consent for sex to 12, and eventually eliminating it altogether. What Minsky was accused of is sex with someone post-pubescent but below the age of consent, which isn't an act indicative of pedophilia, so defending pedophilia to defend Minsky would be gratuitous in the same way that defending allowing the Voting Rights Act to expire by saying the practice of slavery in the US wasn't actually harmful to those enslaved would be.
    - henearkr 6y ago
      Oh, thanks for pointing out. You're right, so the Minsky case does not belong to the controversy around RMS positions. I did not know of this Dutch group, and I think their purpose is wrong.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        I think he also specifically defended Minsky, IIRC, onn the grounds that it wasn't clear Minsky had any reason to suspect that it wasn't voluntary and that, given that, did nothing morally wrong (if you think sex with prepubescent children can be voluntary and if so not harmful, obviously it's unsurprising to think the same thing for post-pubescent near-adults); his defense of Minsky is still controversial (people don't generally think that the age of consent is a bad idea, especially when there is a also a wide gulf in ages between parties), but not as extreme as his separate defense of pedophilic sex generally.
- ogurechny 6y ago
  Please stop. You are using the modern “inexcusable” accusation that only serves as a tool to shut others' mouths and bend them to submission to authority (“Communist”, “Jew”, or “enemy of the people”). See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
Grimm1 6y ago
Just because you accept someone's differences doesn't change that they may, to you, be difficult to interact with. It's saying this is potentially more difficult but because they're a human being deserving of treatment just like you want to be treated, you try to overcome the difficulty. Co-existing with people is difficult in the best of circumstances, pretending like our differences don't exist won't make that any easier. I also don't really know all that much about Richard Stallman I just don't like the idea that if you accept someone for themselves all the difficulties of social cohesion magically disappear because it's untrue.
YorickPeterse 6y ago
This is just the same excuse as the age old "Boys will be boys" excuse. Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep and general unpleasant person to work with, without there eventually being repercussions.
- serf 6y ago
  not really. 'boys will be boys' doesn't assert that 'boys' get away with whatever they want because they are neuro-divergent, it asserts that gender allows for additional privilege. >Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep For the sake of argument : what if that person has neurological quirks which disallow 'non-creep' , to use your parlance, behavior? To take the example even further , it's illegal with fine attached to say curse words on certain beaches in the United States. Is it reasonable to fine an individual with Tourette Syndrome when they scream expletives on such a beach?
  - patmcc 6y ago
    Take it to the extreme - murder is illegal; if you kill someone because you're a bad bad person, we jail you. If you kill someone because you're "insane"...we still remove you from society, but you just get treatment instead of punishment. We still consider the act of killing someone unacceptable. If swearing at the beach is unacceptable, full stop, then it's unacceptable for a person with or without TS. (Personally, that sounds like a dumb law, but what do I know)
    - linspace 6y ago
      I think there is a clear distinction. People have a right to live above insane persons freedom. TS people have a right to freedom above people's inconvenience to hear curse words. Law balances these kind of things all the time, that's why we don't slave people when they own money anymore, to put one of many examples.
    - sellyme 6y ago
      Weirdly I think taking it to the extreme made your point somewhat worse. Something like theft versus kleptomania is just a punishment versus treatment scenario, but I would definitely perceive someone who commits an unprovoked murder to inherently require psychological treatment, even if they don't meet the requirements of an insanity defence. But I do agree with the idea that letting someone off the hook for all consequences on account of a mental illness isn't viable. That makes things a lot harder for neurodivergent individuals, but that's why we should have extensive support programs and provide resources to help them cope with the expectations of general society. It's a tricky problem, because to meaningfully distinguish between someone who is mentally incapable of following a law and someone who is capable of doing so but systematically elects not to, you are functionally deciding which humans do and do not have free will on an individual basis. I think most people would believe that either all humans have free will, or no humans have free will, not somewhere in between, so this is a scenario that is uncomfortable to pretty much everyone.

Again, maybe it was "hard to interact with him" only if one was unwilling to accept his difference?

JohnHaugeland 6y ago

Please stop. He argued that pedophilia was okay.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dempseye 6y ago
Where did he say that?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mjg59 6y ago
  This is probably a reference to https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.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."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - henearkr 6y ago
    The context is the one of the accusation of Marvin Minsky, in a case involving Epstein. The victim was a 17 yo girl, and "if" the condition of sexual slavery of the victim was not made clear, it could have been misunderstood as a voluntary act, and I would indeed understand that a voluntary sexual act with a 17 yo girl does not systematically lead to harm. What was criticized by RMS was the overly broad generalizations of the harmfulness.
    - mjg59 6y ago
      > The context is the one of the accusation of Marvin Minsky, in a case involving Epstein No, the context is the totality of RMS's behaviour over the years, as was made clear by a parent comment: "A few final statements did bring him down, but he had been chipping at the foundation for years."
      - henearkr 6y ago
        Right, the context was earlier (2006). I don't know all of the accumulated missteps he did, so of course I will refrain from concluding. At least, the one about the over-generalization seems legit (with the example of a willing 17 yo).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
moistbar 6y ago
No, he didn't. He defended a dead person from accusations of pedophilia and had quotes from it taken tremendously out of context.
- stephenr 6y ago
  Yes, he did, multiple times. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20994216
  - spurgu 6y ago
    I find it refreshing to see someone willing to talk and think about these taboo kind of subjects. Myself I think it (sexual interaction) boils down to mutual consent, but there's obviously an age where a person cannot grasp the scope of what they're consenting to. And necrophilia fails this definition since consent is impossible (unless written in a will). And now having looked into what he was actually accused of, of trying to imply that a sexual "assault" didn't necessarily happen, it's just strengthening my view that this "wokeness" is getting way out of hand in today's society.
    - stephenr 6y ago
      The law literally is about age of consent. As a society we deem young people too immature to make important decisions for themselves. Nothing about calling him on his ridiculous views is related to "wokeness". One guy saying "hey maybe fucking kids isn't bad" is not in any way related to social injustice - society in general says that fucking kids is bad. Edit: unless you agree with his claims - then I guess you might see it as "social injustice". This is just a weirdo saying weird shit, and then other people (you) trying to latch onto the new version of "don't blame me, back in my day it was OK".
      - varajelle 6y ago
        Not only young people but also adult who would want to take some kind of drugs, or who would like to get into, god forbid, homosexual acts. Now, homosexuality has been allowed everywhere in the US for a decade or so. It wouldn't have been if it was not appropriate to talk about it. Richard Stallman was, for my understanding, just daring to ask questions, and debating over a sensitive topic, and he got blamed for it.
SilverRed 6y ago
Thats a serious misrepresentation of his words. He once had a page on his site saying that he did not think it was harmful if voluntary (eg, consent between people of similar ages but one being over age) He has since removed the post and stated that its more complex than he initially thought.
- stonogo 6y ago
  He did not remove the post, it's here: 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 he didn't change his mind for over a decade, until he got in trouble for defending Marvin Minsky. I'm still not convinced his "updated opinion" would have happened without the scrutiny brought by the Epstein case.
  - PurpleFoxy 6y ago
    Looks like he moved it to the archive section and dated it 2006 to show it is a very outdated view. Stallman is a very honest person and won’t try to hide the past. This comment used to be on one of the main info pages of the site.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      That quote has been at that url since 2006 https://web.archive.org/web/20060821211348/https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html https://web.archive.org/web/20060821211348/https://www.stall...
      - hda2 6y ago
        Did he redact his statement or not? A simple Yes or No will suffice.
        fooker 6y ago
        Yes or No answers are only relevant when you admit yourself to be incapable of nuanced thought. Alternatively : “Have you stopped beating your wife?” A simple yes or no answer will suffice. :)
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
This is the real problem with the culture today. People willfully, blatantly lying about other people to smear them and trying to convince everyone else to shun them as well.
- mjg59 6y ago
  I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" as a suggestion that there are circumstances under which paedophilia is OK. Suggesting that someone doing so is willfully, blatantly lying seems like an unsupported claim.
  - phkahler 6y ago
    There is another sentence after the one you quote which takes the edge off it. Dropping that part could be construed as willfully taking his words out of context to makes them sound worse. IMHO taken as a whole I think it says more about his lack of understanding than him endorsing anything. But as you say, that's not blatant lying.
    - davidcbc 6y ago
      > 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. This doesn't take the edge off, it makes it sound worse
      - gizmo686 6y ago
        How does it make it sound worse? As I read it, he is saying: Original quote: "I am skeptical about <widely believed thing". Added context: "because <the arguments people present to not actually address the issue in question>" The added context moves him even further away from saying anything about pedophilia itself, and further into saying stuff about other people who are saying something about pedophilia.
henearkr 6y ago
[edit: I got the context wrong, see children comments] The commented pedophilia was the allegated one of Marvin Minsky with a 17 yo girl, whose coercion (by Epstein) into sexual acts was maybe (probably, in the words of RMS) not made clear to Minsky (nor the age). I precise, because 17 yo is a quite mature age for sexual activity (and more so for a girl than for a boy, because the sexual maturity of the body happens earlier), and the context of being presented by Epstein may make it not obvious that there was slavery. So, even if I do not condone, I can see where the position of RMS comes from.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The commented pedophilia was the allegated one of Marvin Minsky with a 17 yo girl, No, it was a comment in response to a group of Dutch pedophiles forming a political party with the stated goal of first reducing the age of consent for sex to 12, and eventually eliminating it altogether. What Minsky was accused of is sex with someone post-pubescent but below the age of consent, which isn't an act indicative of pedophilia, so defending pedophilia to defend Minsky would be gratuitous in the same way that defending allowing the Voting Rights Act to expire by saying the practice of slavery in the US wasn't actually harmful to those enslaved would be.
  - henearkr 6y ago
    Oh, thanks for pointing out. You're right, so the Minsky case does not belong to the controversy around RMS positions. I did not know of this Dutch group, and I think their purpose is wrong.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      I think he also specifically defended Minsky, IIRC, onn the grounds that it wasn't clear Minsky had any reason to suspect that it wasn't voluntary and that, given that, did nothing morally wrong (if you think sex with prepubescent children can be voluntary and if so not harmful, obviously it's unsurprising to think the same thing for post-pubescent near-adults); his defense of Minsky is still controversial (people don't generally think that the age of consent is a bad idea, especially when there is a also a wide gulf in ages between parties), but not as extreme as his separate defense of pedophilic sex generally.
ogurechny 6y ago
Please stop. You are using the modern “inexcusable” accusation that only serves as a tool to shut others' mouths and bend them to submission to authority (“Communist”, “Jew”, or “enemy of the people”). See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

Grimm1 6y ago

Just because you accept someone's differences doesn't change that they may, to you, be difficult to interact with. It's saying this is potentially more difficult but because they're a human being deserving of treatment just like you want to be treated, you try to overcome the difficulty. Co-existing with people is difficult in the best of circumstances, pretending like our differences don't exist won't make that any easier. I also don't really know all that much about Richard Stallman I just don't like the idea that if you accept someone for themselves all the difficulties of social cohesion magically disappear because it's untrue.

YorickPeterse 6y ago

This is just the same excuse as the age old "Boys will be boys" excuse. Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep and general unpleasant person to work with, without there eventually being repercussions.

serf 6y ago
not really. 'boys will be boys' doesn't assert that 'boys' get away with whatever they want because they are neuro-divergent, it asserts that gender allows for additional privilege. >Just because somebody is different doesn't mean they can be a creep For the sake of argument : what if that person has neurological quirks which disallow 'non-creep' , to use your parlance, behavior? To take the example even further , it's illegal with fine attached to say curse words on certain beaches in the United States. Is it reasonable to fine an individual with Tourette Syndrome when they scream expletives on such a beach?
- patmcc 6y ago
  Take it to the extreme - murder is illegal; if you kill someone because you're a bad bad person, we jail you. If you kill someone because you're "insane"...we still remove you from society, but you just get treatment instead of punishment. We still consider the act of killing someone unacceptable. If swearing at the beach is unacceptable, full stop, then it's unacceptable for a person with or without TS. (Personally, that sounds like a dumb law, but what do I know)
  - linspace 6y ago
    I think there is a clear distinction. People have a right to live above insane persons freedom. TS people have a right to freedom above people's inconvenience to hear curse words. Law balances these kind of things all the time, that's why we don't slave people when they own money anymore, to put one of many examples.
  - sellyme 6y ago
    Weirdly I think taking it to the extreme made your point somewhat worse. Something like theft versus kleptomania is just a punishment versus treatment scenario, but I would definitely perceive someone who commits an unprovoked murder to inherently require psychological treatment, even if they don't meet the requirements of an insanity defence. But I do agree with the idea that letting someone off the hook for all consequences on account of a mental illness isn't viable. That makes things a lot harder for neurodivergent individuals, but that's why we should have extensive support programs and provide resources to help them cope with the expectations of general society. It's a tricky problem, because to meaningfully distinguish between someone who is mentally incapable of following a law and someone who is capable of doing so but systematically elects not to, you are functionally deciding which humans do and do not have free will on an individual basis. I think most people would believe that either all humans have free will, or no humans have free will, not somewhere in between, so this is a scenario that is uncomfortable to pretty much everyone.