6 ms·

Every time "these type of people" are dismissed as lunatics, as extremist and alarmist, time comes back to prove they were right. I frankly dismissed the idea

by xlayn 16d ago

Every time "these type of people" are dismissed as lunatics, as extremist and alarmist, time comes back to prove they were right. I frankly dismissed the idea of "a group of extremely powerful and rich pedos" under a pizza store... and yes there were none under any pizza store.

ekjhgkejhgk 16d ago
Stallman and "rich pedos" aren't even close in terms of lunacy. I never thought that Stallman's rants were far fetched at all.
sroerick 16d ago
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pioneer-quits-mit-over-his-comments-on-epstein-sex-trafficking-cas https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pione...
- F3nd0 16d ago
  How is the link relevant to the topic at hand?
  - ChickeNES 16d ago
    How is RMS's connection/response to Epstein not relevant?
    - F3nd0 16d ago
      The topic seems to be warnings and predictions coming true even if they seem far-fetched at first. The linked article doesn’t talk about any warnings or predictions. It only recounts (in a way) how RMS, while discussing the topic of Epstein’s abuse, said some things which many people found offensive, leading to his resignation. I guess it is marginally relevant; it just seems odd to drop a marginally relevant link unaccompanied by further comment. Usually people seem to mention what brought it to mind, or which part they found particularly interesting.
  - blagie 16d ago
    I think it's a good, analogous, contemporary example of how RMS tends to be misunderstood. In this context, his comments tend to be: a) Correct, if you read them precisely (which is how RMS writes -- precisely) b) Horrible, if you read them with the subtext implied in mainstream culture (which is how people read what RMS writes) That combination results in "with the terrorists" in 2001, "with Epstein" in 2026, and a lot of similar things in between. Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong. All the people thrown under the bus by MIT were either the people who acted ethically and came forward or, like Minsky, were dead. All the people who did unethical things didn't come forward, and are in the Epstein files. Not all the MIT folks in the Epstein files did unethical things, but many presumably did.... The MIT transparency report is worth reading in the light of the release. MIT had most of that information about its faculty at the time.
    - beedeebeedee 16d ago
      > Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong. Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. I think no matter how you look at it (even if she was technically above the age of consent in the jurisdiction of Epstein's island), it is still wrong and he absolutely should have known that. I am a big fan of Stallman's work and his views considering computer science and its role in society, but his views are not precise or correct in this matter.
      - worik 16d ago
        > but his views are not precise or correct in this matter. The views he expressed re sexual assault were abhorrent I have huge respect for RMS. Being this wrong once shows the bad way (we) men of a certain age were raised. The idea that sexual assault must involve violence or the threat of violence is old, out of date, and at one point RMS held it along with society at large Times change, and as we get older we need to change with them.
        F3nd0 16d ago
        In this instance, Stallman was arguing semantics. His long-term criticism [1] is that ‘sexual assault’ is being used to cover a wide range of wrongful actions, where a more nuanced terminology to distinguish between them would be more appropriate. That in itself doesn’t imply he finds any of those actions acceptable, only that he’d like them to have more specific names. He might not have picked a good time and place to share his terminological views, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them per se. [1] https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assault https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assault
zrail 16d ago
From the accounts I've read, RMS is a deeply unpleasant and problematic person. Doesn't mean he's wrong.
- F3nd0 16d ago
  Being wrong, being malicious, being harmful, and being unpleasant are all mostly separate, but get mixed up occasionally.
- blagie 16d ago
  He's deeply problematic in the same way as someone with autism, Tourette syndrome, echolalia, or OCD are problematic. He's not neurotypical. Once you deal with it, he stops being problematic. And the striking thing is Cassandra syndrome: Virtually everything he has said: a) Proves right, decades later b) Sounds crazy to most people, at the time
  - EA-3167 16d ago
    Don’t throw other people under the bus to justify what a wretched person he is. Being autistic doesn’t make you defend pedophilia or any of the other unpleasantness he’s implicated in.
    - teddyh 16d ago
      > defend pedophilia or any of the other unpleasantness he’s implicated in. Oh, well, time to link stuff again, I guess: • <https://stallmansupport.org/ https://stallmansupport.org/> • <https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/>
      - EA-3167 16d ago
        Thanks, but I’m not I’ll-informed, I just disagree with you.
        blagie 15d ago
hydrogen7800 16d ago
Eventually some of them will be right. Choosing which to heed without hindsight is the problem. Though in this case, Stallman was not a lone kook at the time.
Avshalom 16d ago
[flagged]
- ParentiSoundSys 16d ago
  > everything you know about Epstein and his circle was already public knowledge after his first conviction 20 years ago Complete nonsense, a lot of Epstein's deep ties to Silicon Valley and academia weren't even developed until after his conviction, and weren't reported to the public until much later. The more lurid takes on Epstein and his network/influence popularized by the QAnon psyop certainly did a lot to encourage everyone to look the other way, but the facts themselves were reported by a handful of responsible and even-keeled gumshoes in fringe/alt media until Julie Brown came along.
thrance 16d ago
You were correct to dismiss pizza gate, as it was completely unfounded and pure right wing fantasy about satanist democrats eating babies in a basement. Now that we have an actual conspiracy involving the elites of the world in a child sex trafficking ring, the people previously pushing the pizza gate narrative are nowhere to be found. They can't accept that their guy was Epstein's best friend for decades and the second most cited name in the files (after Epstein himself). Haven't seen a single republican distance themselves from Trump because of his deep ties with Epstein.
VCFundedGenYer 15d ago
Stallman is very problematic, a terrible person, and is the wrong one to deliver this message. It may be a correct message, but him delivering it makes it DOA.

by xlayn 16d ago

ekjhgkejhgk 16d ago

Stallman and "rich pedos" aren't even close in terms of lunacy. I never thought that Stallman's rants were far fetched at all.

sroerick 16d ago

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pioneer-quits-mit-over-his-comments-on-epstein-sex-trafficking-cas https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pione...

F3nd0 16d ago
How is the link relevant to the topic at hand?
- ChickeNES 16d ago
  How is RMS's connection/response to Epstein not relevant?
  - F3nd0 16d ago
    The topic seems to be warnings and predictions coming true even if they seem far-fetched at first. The linked article doesn’t talk about any warnings or predictions. It only recounts (in a way) how RMS, while discussing the topic of Epstein’s abuse, said some things which many people found offensive, leading to his resignation. I guess it is marginally relevant; it just seems odd to drop a marginally relevant link unaccompanied by further comment. Usually people seem to mention what brought it to mind, or which part they found particularly interesting.
- blagie 16d ago
  I think it's a good, analogous, contemporary example of how RMS tends to be misunderstood. In this context, his comments tend to be: a) Correct, if you read them precisely (which is how RMS writes -- precisely) b) Horrible, if you read them with the subtext implied in mainstream culture (which is how people read what RMS writes) That combination results in "with the terrorists" in 2001, "with Epstein" in 2026, and a lot of similar things in between. Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong. All the people thrown under the bus by MIT were either the people who acted ethically and came forward or, like Minsky, were dead. All the people who did unethical things didn't come forward, and are in the Epstein files. Not all the MIT folks in the Epstein files did unethical things, but many presumably did.... The MIT transparency report is worth reading in the light of the release. MIT had most of that information about its faculty at the time.
  - beedeebeedee 16d ago
    > Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong. Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. I think no matter how you look at it (even if she was technically above the age of consent in the jurisdiction of Epstein's island), it is still wrong and he absolutely should have known that. I am a big fan of Stallman's work and his views considering computer science and its role in society, but his views are not precise or correct in this matter.
    - worik 16d ago
      > but his views are not precise or correct in this matter. The views he expressed re sexual assault were abhorrent I have huge respect for RMS. Being this wrong once shows the bad way (we) men of a certain age were raised. The idea that sexual assault must involve violence or the threat of violence is old, out of date, and at one point RMS held it along with society at large Times change, and as we get older we need to change with them.
      - F3nd0 16d ago
        In this instance, Stallman was arguing semantics. His long-term criticism [1] is that ‘sexual assault’ is being used to cover a wide range of wrongful actions, where a more nuanced terminology to distinguish between them would be more appropriate. That in itself doesn’t imply he finds any of those actions acceptable, only that he’d like them to have more specific names. He might not have picked a good time and place to share his terminological views, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them per se. [1] https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assault https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assault

zrail 16d ago

From the accounts I've read, RMS is a deeply unpleasant and problematic person. Doesn't mean he's wrong.

F3nd0 16d ago
Being wrong, being malicious, being harmful, and being unpleasant are all mostly separate, but get mixed up occasionally.
blagie 16d ago
He's deeply problematic in the same way as someone with autism, Tourette syndrome, echolalia, or OCD are problematic. He's not neurotypical. Once you deal with it, he stops being problematic. And the striking thing is Cassandra syndrome: Virtually everything he has said: a) Proves right, decades later b) Sounds crazy to most people, at the time
- EA-3167 16d ago
  Don’t throw other people under the bus to justify what a wretched person he is. Being autistic doesn’t make you defend pedophilia or any of the other unpleasantness he’s implicated in.
  - teddyh 16d ago
    > defend pedophilia or any of the other unpleasantness he’s implicated in. Oh, well, time to link stuff again, I guess: • <https://stallmansupport.org/ https://stallmansupport.org/> • <https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/>
    - EA-3167 16d ago
      Thanks, but I’m not I’ll-informed, I just disagree with you.
      - blagie 15d ago

hydrogen7800 16d ago

Eventually some of them will be right. Choosing which to heed without hindsight is the problem. Though in this case, Stallman was not a lone kook at the time.

Avshalom 16d ago

[flagged]

ParentiSoundSys 16d ago
> everything you know about Epstein and his circle was already public knowledge after his first conviction 20 years ago Complete nonsense, a lot of Epstein's deep ties to Silicon Valley and academia weren't even developed until after his conviction, and weren't reported to the public until much later. The more lurid takes on Epstein and his network/influence popularized by the QAnon psyop certainly did a lot to encourage everyone to look the other way, but the facts themselves were reported by a handful of responsible and even-keeled gumshoes in fringe/alt media until Julie Brown came along.

thrance 16d ago

You were correct to dismiss pizza gate, as it was completely unfounded and pure right wing fantasy about satanist democrats eating babies in a basement. Now that we have an actual conspiracy involving the elites of the world in a child sex trafficking ring, the people previously pushing the pizza gate narrative are nowhere to be found. They can't accept that their guy was Epstein's best friend for decades and the second most cited name in the files (after Epstein himself). Haven't seen a single republican distance themselves from Trump because of his deep ties with Epstein.

VCFundedGenYer 15d ago

Stallman is very problematic, a terrible person, and is the wrong one to deliver this message. It may be a correct message, but him delivering it makes it DOA.