5 ms·

> Whatever you think of the accuracy of the accusations against him, the general perception of him is clearly negative Which is why we should support him even

> Whatever you think of the accuracy of the accusations against him, the general perception of him is clearly negative Which is why we should support him even more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22299156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22299156

shadowgovt 2y ago
What is the goal: to promote free software or to stand for people's rights to have sexual relations with fourteen-year-olds? If the former, having the movement spearheaded by someone who has pretty controversial views on the latter isn't really doing the movement any good. If FSF clings stubbornly to a thought-leader who people can't take seriously, they're canceling themselves. I've seen the accusation leveraged in this topic that this anonymous piece could be FUD by Microsoft or a similar big-name software giant. I'd actually suggest the opposite: if I wanted to throw sand in the gears of free software, keeping Stallman in the leadership chair so that his opponents can point to him and say "You really want to listen to the guy who wants to sleep with your teenage daughter?" is the way I'd discredit the movement.
- fsflover 2y ago
  > or to stand for people's rights to have sexual relations with fourteen-year-olds? Who are you talking about? This is completely misleading and not what Stallman was saying.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    """ The law [UK sexual offences bill] would also prohibit encouraging a (so-called) child to take part in sexual activity. I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.) It is unnatural for humans to abstain from sex past puberty, and while I wouldn't try to pressure anyone to participate, I certainly encourage everyone to do so. """ There are more charitable interpretations, but "Stallman wants to sleep with your teenage daughter" is the less-charitable one that political opponents can continue to levy against the entire movement because the FSF won't let him go.
    - fsflover 2y ago
      It doesn't mean that discussing it must result in a cancellation of a person though. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41848998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41848998
    - immibis 2y ago
      Without knowing more context, I interpret the quote to mean that 14-year-olds should be open to having sex with their peers (other 14-year-olds, give or take one year). Which seems like a position that is not bad enough to punish. It's a very weird thing for him to say, given that everyone knows him for being the president of the Free Software Foundation and not the Sexual Openness Foundation. He should stop commenting on this topic and focus on Free Software instead.
  - deepl_derber 2y ago
    It is absolutely what he was saying.

shadowgovt 2y ago

What is the goal: to promote free software or to stand for people's rights to have sexual relations with fourteen-year-olds? If the former, having the movement spearheaded by someone who has pretty controversial views on the latter isn't really doing the movement any good. If FSF clings stubbornly to a thought-leader who people can't take seriously, they're canceling themselves. I've seen the accusation leveraged in this topic that this anonymous piece could be FUD by Microsoft or a similar big-name software giant. I'd actually suggest the opposite: if I wanted to throw sand in the gears of free software, keeping Stallman in the leadership chair so that his opponents can point to him and say "You really want to listen to the guy who wants to sleep with your teenage daughter?" is the way I'd discredit the movement.

fsflover 2y ago
> or to stand for people's rights to have sexual relations with fourteen-year-olds? Who are you talking about? This is completely misleading and not what Stallman was saying.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  """ The law [UK sexual offences bill] would also prohibit encouraging a (so-called) child to take part in sexual activity. I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.) It is unnatural for humans to abstain from sex past puberty, and while I wouldn't try to pressure anyone to participate, I certainly encourage everyone to do so. """ There are more charitable interpretations, but "Stallman wants to sleep with your teenage daughter" is the less-charitable one that political opponents can continue to levy against the entire movement because the FSF won't let him go.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    It doesn't mean that discussing it must result in a cancellation of a person though. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41848998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41848998
  - immibis 2y ago
    Without knowing more context, I interpret the quote to mean that 14-year-olds should be open to having sex with their peers (other 14-year-olds, give or take one year). Which seems like a position that is not bad enough to punish. It's a very weird thing for him to say, given that everyone knows him for being the president of the Free Software Foundation and not the Sexual Openness Foundation. He should stop commenting on this topic and focus on Free Software instead.
- deepl_derber 2y ago
  It is absolutely what he was saying.