4 ms·

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

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

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