3 ms·

> Is very controversial, even if he backpedalled (only after it resurfaced and created a lot of controversy). He said he didn’t understand the issue and talkin

> Is very controversial, even if he backpedalled (only after it resurfaced and created a lot of controversy). He said he didn’t understand the issue and talking to abuse survivors helped him understand it better, and that led to him changing his view. To me, that sounds like a person simply updating their views in response to new evidence-new to them even if much older to many others. Labelling it as “back-pedalling” seems to me to be needlessly uncharitable to him It might be hard to understand why it took him so long to realise this-but I think you have to understand he occupies a very different position in society from most people, with the result he is often ignorant of mainstream trends, or feels no motivation to care about them. His former position on this was actually reasonably mainstream on the Left in the 60s/70s, so in itself far from unusual for someone of his vintage, what was unusual was it took him so long to abandon it (or at least learn to shut up about it). But, if you try to understand him, rational explanations for it taking him that long may occur to you I’ve never seen any evidence he has any actual sexual interest in children - just that children are somewhat of an intellectual abstraction to him. Before I became a father, children were somewhat of an intellectual abstraction to me too. I think that is a large part of why the wrongness of his former view was not obvious to him in the way it is to many others

mardifoufs 3y ago
To be clear, I'm not implying that he himself is a pedophile. I also get that he might have changed his mind, but Stallman is also not known to actually change his mind very often. I'm not a mind reader and it's just an impression that I've gotten in the way he apologized. But in any case my point was mostly that he actually made pretty controversial statements at some point, and it's a bit disingenuous to insinuate that the statement in the article was just baseless smearing and that we won't know which statements are against their values.
- skissane 3y ago
  > I also get that he might have changed his mind, but Stallman is also not known to actually change his mind very often. Yes, he rarely changes his mind-but, all evidence I’ve seen is that if he says he’s changed his mind about something, then he indeed has. I don’t see any good reason to doubt him on that-he’s the kind of person who speaks their mind (maybe even one of those people with a “poor filter”), I’ve seen zero evidence he’s someone who tries to hide their true views > But in any case my point was mostly that he actually made pretty controversial statements at some point, and it's a bit disingenuous to insinuate that the statement in the article was just baseless smearing and that we won't know which statements are against their values. Why does it matter what his past statements were if he has made clear he no longer agrees with them? Saying you don’t want to platform a speaker because of their current views on unrelated topics - I feel uncomfortable about it, but in some cases it may be defensible. But saying you don’t want to platform a speaker because of their past views which they’ve since renounced on an unrelated topic - how is that defensible? “Baseless” seems an entirely apt description for it.
- belorn 3y ago
  Stallman is known to be fairly academic and pedantic about how words get defined, and historically all act of sexual assault was defined in term of coercion. There are still people in 2020 that get surprised when people talk about assault which does not involve coercion. Sweden as an example updated their laws in 2018 to change from a coercion based definition to a consent based definition (Stallman post was in 2003). Stallman changed his mind in 2019, by highlighting that harm can exist even without coercion. What I recall before they changed the law, people did occasionally discussed the word definition of coercion when it came to sexual assault. It was one of the major reason why they changed it to a consent based definition. I don't know however if the US academic word had similar discussion, but I wouldn't be surprised.
  - teddyh 3y ago
    > Stallman changed his mind in 2019, by highlighting that harm can exist even without coercion. It was 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184
- hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
  > but Stallman is also not known to actually change his mind very often Stallman is also not known as someone who can be coerced to say he believes something that he doesn't believe in.
- pyuser583 3y ago
  I think part of the controversy is that Stallman is known for being an uncompromising absolutist on open-source. So people assume he has the same attitude towards his terrible ideas. Stallman’s ideas on open source are well thought out, and vigorously defended for decades. His terrible ideas are neither well thought out, nor extensively defended.
  - gonzo 3y ago
    To be pedantic, rms is an uncompromising absolutist on free software, not open source.
    - chriscappuccio 3y ago
      thank you
jasonfarnon 3y ago
"He said he didn’t understand the issue" No he said he was skeptical that pedophilia harms children. The quote wasn't "say, anyone know does this pedophilia thing actually harms children?" He did more than that: He imputes claims of harm to parents not wanting to admit their kids are "maturing". Now his position his quite hard to distinguish from someone who fully supports pedophilia. If they were in his position, I would expect them to go this well-trodden route: Question the harm; accuse opponents of being puritanical; claim it's already happening anyway.
- technothrasher 3y ago
  "No he said he was skeptical that pedophilia harms children." I believe the poster you are replying to was referring to what Stallman said at a later date, recanting his "skepticism" because he "didn't understand the issue" at the time he made that comment.
pie_flavor 3y ago
He doesn't have to be a worse person. He just has to be a worse public figure.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> that sounds like a person simply updating their views in response to new evidence-new to them even if much older to many others It's an awkward journey to have in public. I'll step off the gangway with a personal example: I did not know much about abortion a few years ago. I had misguided assumptions and changed (or more accurately, developed any) views as I learned. It would have been totally inappropriate for me to express scepticism about anything in any direction publicly before having done the research. A better answer is "I don't know."
- specialist 3y ago
  I've done this so many times. Each time is hugely embarrassing, after the realization kicks in. Any more, my starting assumption is that I'm wrong about almost everything. Someone needs to invent a time machine, so that I can go back and slap myself before each foot-in-mouth incident.
seized 3y ago
> To me, that sounds like a person simply updating their views in response to new evidence-new to them even if much older to many others. Labelling it as “back-pedalling” seems to me to be needlessly uncharitable to him > It might be hard to understand why it took him so long to realise this-but I think you have to understand he occupies a very different position in society from most people, with the result he is often ignorant of mainstream trends, or feels no motivation to care about them. That's an absurd take on this. He's not updating his stance on over easy eggs, or beer preference (not as in free, but IPA vs porter), this is about children. And "different place in society" doesn't excuse it either, this isn't knowing the current memes or bands. This is simple fundamental logic, common sense, etc. Before I had kids, it was still completely and utterly obvious that sex with kids is wrong. Yes, there's a grey area around age of consent + one year older or whatever, but that is entirely not applicable to his comments, Epstein, etc. Trying to justify Epstein is just wrong.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- prepend 3y ago
  So if someone has a thought that is wrong, they can never reconsider and correct the thought. Is there no redemption? Obama once said that gay marriage is wrong [0]. I have always thought gay marriage is correct and a fundamental right. Does that mean that Obama can never be redeemed for his earlier incorrect thoughts and beliefs. Is he doomed to be judged forever based on his egregious historical beliefs? What do you think someone needs to do for redemption? [0] “Marriage is between a man and a woman,” on not supporting gay marriage but only civil unions https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/ https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-...

mardifoufs 3y ago

To be clear, I'm not implying that he himself is a pedophile. I also get that he might have changed his mind, but Stallman is also not known to actually change his mind very often. I'm not a mind reader and it's just an impression that I've gotten in the way he apologized. But in any case my point was mostly that he actually made pretty controversial statements at some point, and it's a bit disingenuous to insinuate that the statement in the article was just baseless smearing and that we won't know which statements are against their values.

skissane 3y ago
> I also get that he might have changed his mind, but Stallman is also not known to actually change his mind very often. Yes, he rarely changes his mind-but, all evidence I’ve seen is that if he says he’s changed his mind about something, then he indeed has. I don’t see any good reason to doubt him on that-he’s the kind of person who speaks their mind (maybe even one of those people with a “poor filter”), I’ve seen zero evidence he’s someone who tries to hide their true views > But in any case my point was mostly that he actually made pretty controversial statements at some point, and it's a bit disingenuous to insinuate that the statement in the article was just baseless smearing and that we won't know which statements are against their values. Why does it matter what his past statements were if he has made clear he no longer agrees with them? Saying you don’t want to platform a speaker because of their current views on unrelated topics - I feel uncomfortable about it, but in some cases it may be defensible. But saying you don’t want to platform a speaker because of their past views which they’ve since renounced on an unrelated topic - how is that defensible? “Baseless” seems an entirely apt description for it.
belorn 3y ago
Stallman is known to be fairly academic and pedantic about how words get defined, and historically all act of sexual assault was defined in term of coercion. There are still people in 2020 that get surprised when people talk about assault which does not involve coercion. Sweden as an example updated their laws in 2018 to change from a coercion based definition to a consent based definition (Stallman post was in 2003). Stallman changed his mind in 2019, by highlighting that harm can exist even without coercion. What I recall before they changed the law, people did occasionally discussed the word definition of coercion when it came to sexual assault. It was one of the major reason why they changed it to a consent based definition. I don't know however if the US academic word had similar discussion, but I wouldn't be surprised.
- teddyh 3y ago
  > Stallman changed his mind in 2019, by highlighting that harm can exist even without coercion. It was 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184
hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
> but Stallman is also not known to actually change his mind very often Stallman is also not known as someone who can be coerced to say he believes something that he doesn't believe in.
pyuser583 3y ago
I think part of the controversy is that Stallman is known for being an uncompromising absolutist on open-source. So people assume he has the same attitude towards his terrible ideas. Stallman’s ideas on open source are well thought out, and vigorously defended for decades. His terrible ideas are neither well thought out, nor extensively defended.
- gonzo 3y ago
  To be pedantic, rms is an uncompromising absolutist on free software, not open source.
  - chriscappuccio 3y ago
    thank you

jasonfarnon 3y ago

"He said he didn’t understand the issue" No he said he was skeptical that pedophilia harms children. The quote wasn't "say, anyone know does this pedophilia thing actually harms children?" He did more than that: He imputes claims of harm to parents not wanting to admit their kids are "maturing". Now his position his quite hard to distinguish from someone who fully supports pedophilia. If they were in his position, I would expect them to go this well-trodden route: Question the harm; accuse opponents of being puritanical; claim it's already happening anyway.

technothrasher 3y ago
"No he said he was skeptical that pedophilia harms children." I believe the poster you are replying to was referring to what Stallman said at a later date, recanting his "skepticism" because he "didn't understand the issue" at the time he made that comment.

pie_flavor 3y ago

He doesn't have to be a worse person. He just has to be a worse public figure.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> that sounds like a person simply updating their views in response to new evidence-new to them even if much older to many others It's an awkward journey to have in public. I'll step off the gangway with a personal example: I did not know much about abortion a few years ago. I had misguided assumptions and changed (or more accurately, developed any) views as I learned. It would have been totally inappropriate for me to express scepticism about anything in any direction publicly before having done the research. A better answer is "I don't know."

specialist 3y ago
I've done this so many times. Each time is hugely embarrassing, after the realization kicks in. Any more, my starting assumption is that I'm wrong about almost everything. Someone needs to invent a time machine, so that I can go back and slap myself before each foot-in-mouth incident.

seized 3y ago

> To me, that sounds like a person simply updating their views in response to new evidence-new to them even if much older to many others. Labelling it as “back-pedalling” seems to me to be needlessly uncharitable to him > It might be hard to understand why it took him so long to realise this-but I think you have to understand he occupies a very different position in society from most people, with the result he is often ignorant of mainstream trends, or feels no motivation to care about them. That's an absurd take on this. He's not updating his stance on over easy eggs, or beer preference (not as in free, but IPA vs porter), this is about children. And "different place in society" doesn't excuse it either, this isn't knowing the current memes or bands. This is simple fundamental logic, common sense, etc. Before I had kids, it was still completely and utterly obvious that sex with kids is wrong. Yes, there's a grey area around age of consent + one year older or whatever, but that is entirely not applicable to his comments, Epstein, etc. Trying to justify Epstein is just wrong.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
prepend 3y ago
So if someone has a thought that is wrong, they can never reconsider and correct the thought. Is there no redemption? Obama once said that gay marriage is wrong [0]. I have always thought gay marriage is correct and a fundamental right. Does that mean that Obama can never be redeemed for his earlier incorrect thoughts and beliefs. Is he doomed to be judged forever based on his egregious historical beliefs? What do you think someone needs to do for redemption? [0] “Marriage is between a man and a woman,” on not supporting gay marriage but only civil unions https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/ https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-...