6 ms·

So I went to their "Debunking False Accusations" page, then clicked through and read the email ("Email #2"), then returned to the page. It feels like they set u

So I went to their "Debunking False Accusations" page, then clicked through and read the email ("Email #2"), then returned to the page. It feels like they set up a bunch of straw-men which they then went on to debunk. They don't actually defend the content of "Email #2" but instead claimed that people said untrue things about it and then said those were "lies." But without citing the untrue claims they're debunking, they're just punching air, while leaving the actual inflammatory content of "Email #2" largely uncontested. Their Claim #4 debunking is essentially just saying "this is accurate, but he changed his mind at some point after this all blow up" (in Sept 2019). Keep in mind that Claim #4 is "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntary pedophilia harms children" from 2006 until it was recanted 10+ years later. Honestly contrition and growth are better avenues for Stallman rather than this type of "attack the critics" stuff, in particular when they're as weak of defenses and nameless critics as shown here. This is one of those things that someone should have written, read back, slept on, and then hit the delete key because they realized it defeats itself.

torthrowaway999 6y ago
>But without citing the untrue claims they're debunking I can link you a few, such as the titles of 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... and https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient... >after this all blow up He changed his mind on or before 2016, before this all blew up 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... Is it wrong to be skeptical of stuff? We aren't all born with the innate knowledge that "voluntarily pedophilia harms children", it is not something that I personally agree with but surely you also at some point thought of something that the wider society would consider as disgusting, his blog just served as a place to put some random raw unprocessed thoughts that he had on news stories.
creata 6y ago
Yes, it is good form to link to the claims you are debunking, but these claims are not strawmen. If you want an example of people making untrue claims about "Email #2", here's one very popular Medium post doing just that: > ... and then says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be "entirely willing". https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... The dead comment next to mine has more examples. That said, the line > 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. is incredibly disgusting, no matter how you look at it.
- atq2119 6y ago
  I happen to suspect that RMS is wrong on the pedophilia point, but if all you can say about it is that you find it disgusting, alarm bells should be going off in your head that there may be something here which You Can't Say (in the http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html sense). This all reminds me of the sexuality portrayed among children in Brave New World, or the supposed homosexuality of Ancient Greece. What I suspect is happening here is that even voluntary pedophilia is harmful for children relative to our current society, but who knows what the case would be in a very differently structured society. Sexuality by definition is largely about how we relate with other people, so what is our isn't harmful in sexual development almost certainly depends at least in part on the society we live in. Which means that forces that want to conserve the relevant aspects of our society have an incentive to censor RMS on any thoughts along those lines.
  - atq2119 6y ago
    It occurs to me (but I can no longer edit) that I wrote the above comment while only thinking about children after puberty. The Epstein connection of the larger story primed me into that frame, and the comment would have looked differently if I'd also considered sex with, say, 6 year olds. I still don't think "disgusting" is the right category for RMS's "thinking out loud on the internet", but the remark was definitely dangerously naive of the developmental stages of children. It's also sobering to see how easy it is for myself to write something that can be interpreted to sound much more nefarious than what was really in my head when I wrote it.
d_tr 6y ago
Also, he is apparently transphobic because of an article he wrote on pronouns. At least admit that this is ridiculous. The misogyny and ableism claims are similarly stupid, but who cares?
- myhf 6y ago
  It's truly astonishing how something as innocuous as writing bigoted articles can get someone labeled as a bigot. emoji face with rolling eyes
  - d_tr 6y ago
    People that consider the pronouns article transphobic are barking up the wrong tree, and should have a chat with themselves or seek professional help. Transphobia is transphobia and BS is BS. Maybe Red Hat's management cares more about unfairly treated groups of people than RMS does though, makes sense....
  - ttt0 6y ago
    bigot (noun) - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices How does it apply to the article below? https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html To me, if anything, it applies to you.
nl 6y ago
And much of the “defence” seems to be based on the idea that Stallman needs his word interpreted specially because of something else he said years earlier or because he was emotional. It’s a lot of words that are likely to sound convincing to those who already believe he didn’t do anything wrong, but to most people seem to be just a list of excuses.
bmn__ 6y ago
> Claim #4 is "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntary pedophilia harms children" from 2006 until it was recanted 10+ years later. Correction of omission: he changed his mind 2016 or earlier.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

torthrowaway999 6y ago

>But without citing the untrue claims they're debunking I can link you a few, such as the titles of 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... and https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient... >after this all blow up He changed his mind on or before 2016, before this all blew up 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... Is it wrong to be skeptical of stuff? We aren't all born with the innate knowledge that "voluntarily pedophilia harms children", it is not something that I personally agree with but surely you also at some point thought of something that the wider society would consider as disgusting, his blog just served as a place to put some random raw unprocessed thoughts that he had on news stories.

creata 6y ago

Yes, it is good form to link to the claims you are debunking, but these claims are not strawmen. If you want an example of people making untrue claims about "Email #2", here's one very popular Medium post doing just that: > ... and then says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be "entirely willing". https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... The dead comment next to mine has more examples. That said, the line > 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. is incredibly disgusting, no matter how you look at it.

atq2119 6y ago
I happen to suspect that RMS is wrong on the pedophilia point, but if all you can say about it is that you find it disgusting, alarm bells should be going off in your head that there may be something here which You Can't Say (in the http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html sense). This all reminds me of the sexuality portrayed among children in Brave New World, or the supposed homosexuality of Ancient Greece. What I suspect is happening here is that even voluntary pedophilia is harmful for children relative to our current society, but who knows what the case would be in a very differently structured society. Sexuality by definition is largely about how we relate with other people, so what is our isn't harmful in sexual development almost certainly depends at least in part on the society we live in. Which means that forces that want to conserve the relevant aspects of our society have an incentive to censor RMS on any thoughts along those lines.
- atq2119 6y ago
  It occurs to me (but I can no longer edit) that I wrote the above comment while only thinking about children after puberty. The Epstein connection of the larger story primed me into that frame, and the comment would have looked differently if I'd also considered sex with, say, 6 year olds. I still don't think "disgusting" is the right category for RMS's "thinking out loud on the internet", but the remark was definitely dangerously naive of the developmental stages of children. It's also sobering to see how easy it is for myself to write something that can be interpreted to sound much more nefarious than what was really in my head when I wrote it.

d_tr 6y ago

Also, he is apparently transphobic because of an article he wrote on pronouns. At least admit that this is ridiculous. The misogyny and ableism claims are similarly stupid, but who cares?

myhf 6y ago
It's truly astonishing how something as innocuous as writing bigoted articles can get someone labeled as a bigot. emoji face with rolling eyes
- d_tr 6y ago
  People that consider the pronouns article transphobic are barking up the wrong tree, and should have a chat with themselves or seek professional help. Transphobia is transphobia and BS is BS. Maybe Red Hat's management cares more about unfairly treated groups of people than RMS does though, makes sense....
- ttt0 6y ago
  bigot (noun) - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices How does it apply to the article below? https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html To me, if anything, it applies to you.

nl 6y ago

And much of the “defence” seems to be based on the idea that Stallman needs his word interpreted specially because of something else he said years earlier or because he was emotional. It’s a lot of words that are likely to sound convincing to those who already believe he didn’t do anything wrong, but to most people seem to be just a list of excuses.

bmn__ 6y ago

> Claim #4 is "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntary pedophilia harms children" from 2006 until it was recanted 10+ years later. Correction of omission: he changed his mind 2016 or earlier.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]