3 ms·

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 wit

by 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 16d ago
      Yes, you are ill-informed. I can write "EA-3167" and "pedophilia" in an article 100 times. Congratulations! You're now associated with pedophilia. That's a classic smear campaign. Unless someone can cite something Stallman specifically said or did which implicates him, I'm passing on this as part of a smear campaign. I will not accept: - An article reporting on an article reporting on a misquote of Stallman - Subtext you read into something he wrote (his flaw is he doesn't get subtext to what he writes) There's infinite communications from him. He has no filter. Go on. Find something. If you can't, accept you're wrong. The alternative is that I'll accept you're being malicious.
      - EA-3167 15d ago
        Ironically one of his fan’s “support pages” is a great source of just that. https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-against-richard-stallman.html#pedophilia https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-agai... > “In 2006, Stallman published a controversial comment about the intention of pedophiles in The Netherlands to form a political party[1]. He wrote, I am skeptical of the claim that voluntary pedophilia harms children. People today don't think that a prepubertal human being—a child—is capable of understanding all the implications of sexual activity (in some cases this may be so even after puberty). So in widespread social opinion, the concept of “voluntary” does not apply. In the same article, Stallman writes, [...] stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. This is not totally improper, it encompasses the immense diversity of beliefs about age of consent and morality across cultures. As for laws, in the United States the criteria for determining age of consent and related issues differ across jurisdictions, some of them have raised the age of consent as recently as 2017 and 2019. Furthermore, the United States seems to have a double standard when it comes to these laws, since marriage of a child with an adult—even much older—is allowed under certain circumstances; we believe that this seriously disregards children's wellbeing in favor of some other “convenience.” Lastly, it may be surprising to some that age of consent in the US is 16 in 34 States” Then the actual “defense of Stallman” bit is that he changed his mind or at least said he did… thirteen years later: Whatever the reasoning that led Stallman to write those statements, the fact is that later he changed his mind: > “14 September 2019 (Sex between an adult and a child is wrong) Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.” Note the date and remember this VERY late “change of heart” coincidentally took place one month after Epstein died and became the current sensation he remains. That’s from an attempt defend him, and ironically the site is full of documentation of the hideous things he says and believes.
        blagie 15d ago
        What you posted is a secondary source, which is exactly what I didn't ask for. Most of that text is not Stallman. For reference, an original source is something like: https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20... The so-called "article" is a one-line comment on a post in what looks like a 2006-era Twitter-style feed. I think one would see a similar amount of crazy from virtually anyone posting this much, without a filter. Read it. Do you believe Stallman is a pedophile on the basis of this comment? I do not. I've seen similar comments in academic texts, in the context of cultures where this happened and was acceptable (e.g. Greek pederasty in ancient Athens). From what I know of Stallman's communication style, I read this comment in a similar, if much less informed, light. He's making an incorrect but academic point, poorly.
ChickeNES 16d ago
As someone on the spectrum/neurodivergent myself, no, it does not excuse his behavior whatsoever (or the lack of action by MIT). Stallman predicting that a technical capability could be abused and then somebody eventually abusing it is not Cassandra syndrome, it's just threat modeling run amuck. It gets old after a while (I should know, I remember classic Slashdot lol). The actual question is whether his proposed cure(s) were worth the cost, and that has very much not been "proven right" (if anything, LLMs/agents are rapidly eroding some of the practical premises his arguments depended on, IMO)
- bigfishrunning 16d ago
  > if anything, LLMs/agents are rapidly eroding some of the practical premises his arguments depended on, IMO As someone who also remembers classic Slashdot, it's staggering how many of the things Stallman was writing about back then came true. Software is centralized and subscription based, and largely not under the consumer's control. I fail to see how LLMs make any of these situations better, care to elaborate?
  - ChickeNES 16d ago
    > Software is centralized and subscription based, and largely not under the consumer's control. Is it really though? I'll grant that you might have a point with iOS/Android and things like banking apps (no problem with the apps existing, it's when there's no web-based alternative is where the real issue lies). But there's more (F)OSS code out in the wild then there's ever been, more (F)OSS alternatives to most major software, Steam runs on Linux, major companies like Google and Nintendo putting licensing notices where you can read them). Not to mention the rise of open source hardware, the whole makersphere, etc. > I fail to see how LLMs make any of these situations better, care to elaborate? By driving the cost of software to zero. I've had great success over the past year or so constructing a whole range of system software, the original "no driver for this printer" complaint Stallman had would be solved with an evening of Claude/Codex/etc usage now (and to prove my point, we just had someone crank out a Linux GPU driver for M4 Apple Silicon using LLMs)
- blagie 16d ago
zrail 16d ago
Disagree. RMS has unapologetically crossed some pretty bright societal lines. Being neurospicy doesn't absolve him of any of that. (also I don't think Tourette's is fair to include in that set but whatever)
- blagie 16d ago
  Someone with coprolalia will clearly cross some pretty bright societal lines too.

by blagie 16d ago

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 16d ago
    Yes, you are ill-informed. I can write "EA-3167" and "pedophilia" in an article 100 times. Congratulations! You're now associated with pedophilia. That's a classic smear campaign. Unless someone can cite something Stallman specifically said or did which implicates him, I'm passing on this as part of a smear campaign. I will not accept: - An article reporting on an article reporting on a misquote of Stallman - Subtext you read into something he wrote (his flaw is he doesn't get subtext to what he writes) There's infinite communications from him. He has no filter. Go on. Find something. If you can't, accept you're wrong. The alternative is that I'll accept you're being malicious.
    - EA-3167 15d ago
      Ironically one of his fan’s “support pages” is a great source of just that. https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-against-richard-stallman.html#pedophilia https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-agai... > “In 2006, Stallman published a controversial comment about the intention of pedophiles in The Netherlands to form a political party[1]. He wrote, I am skeptical of the claim that voluntary pedophilia harms children. People today don't think that a prepubertal human being—a child—is capable of understanding all the implications of sexual activity (in some cases this may be so even after puberty). So in widespread social opinion, the concept of “voluntary” does not apply. In the same article, Stallman writes, [...] stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. This is not totally improper, it encompasses the immense diversity of beliefs about age of consent and morality across cultures. As for laws, in the United States the criteria for determining age of consent and related issues differ across jurisdictions, some of them have raised the age of consent as recently as 2017 and 2019. Furthermore, the United States seems to have a double standard when it comes to these laws, since marriage of a child with an adult—even much older—is allowed under certain circumstances; we believe that this seriously disregards children's wellbeing in favor of some other “convenience.” Lastly, it may be surprising to some that age of consent in the US is 16 in 34 States” Then the actual “defense of Stallman” bit is that he changed his mind or at least said he did… thirteen years later: Whatever the reasoning that led Stallman to write those statements, the fact is that later he changed his mind: > “14 September 2019 (Sex between an adult and a child is wrong) Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.” Note the date and remember this VERY late “change of heart” coincidentally took place one month after Epstein died and became the current sensation he remains. That’s from an attempt defend him, and ironically the site is full of documentation of the hideous things he says and believes.
      - blagie 15d ago
        What you posted is a secondary source, which is exactly what I didn't ask for. Most of that text is not Stallman. For reference, an original source is something like: https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20... The so-called "article" is a one-line comment on a post in what looks like a 2006-era Twitter-style feed. I think one would see a similar amount of crazy from virtually anyone posting this much, without a filter. Read it. Do you believe Stallman is a pedophile on the basis of this comment? I do not. I've seen similar comments in academic texts, in the context of cultures where this happened and was acceptable (e.g. Greek pederasty in ancient Athens). From what I know of Stallman's communication style, I read this comment in a similar, if much less informed, light. He's making an incorrect but academic point, poorly.

ChickeNES 16d ago

As someone on the spectrum/neurodivergent myself, no, it does not excuse his behavior whatsoever (or the lack of action by MIT). Stallman predicting that a technical capability could be abused and then somebody eventually abusing it is not Cassandra syndrome, it's just threat modeling run amuck. It gets old after a while (I should know, I remember classic Slashdot lol). The actual question is whether his proposed cure(s) were worth the cost, and that has very much not been "proven right" (if anything, LLMs/agents are rapidly eroding some of the practical premises his arguments depended on, IMO)

bigfishrunning 16d ago
> if anything, LLMs/agents are rapidly eroding some of the practical premises his arguments depended on, IMO As someone who also remembers classic Slashdot, it's staggering how many of the things Stallman was writing about back then came true. Software is centralized and subscription based, and largely not under the consumer's control. I fail to see how LLMs make any of these situations better, care to elaborate?
- ChickeNES 16d ago
  > Software is centralized and subscription based, and largely not under the consumer's control. Is it really though? I'll grant that you might have a point with iOS/Android and things like banking apps (no problem with the apps existing, it's when there's no web-based alternative is where the real issue lies). But there's more (F)OSS code out in the wild then there's ever been, more (F)OSS alternatives to most major software, Steam runs on Linux, major companies like Google and Nintendo putting licensing notices where you can read them). Not to mention the rise of open source hardware, the whole makersphere, etc. > I fail to see how LLMs make any of these situations better, care to elaborate? By driving the cost of software to zero. I've had great success over the past year or so constructing a whole range of system software, the original "no driver for this printer" complaint Stallman had would be solved with an evening of Claude/Codex/etc usage now (and to prove my point, we just had someone crank out a Linux GPU driver for M4 Apple Silicon using LLMs)
blagie 16d ago

zrail 16d ago

Disagree. RMS has unapologetically crossed some pretty bright societal lines. Being neurospicy doesn't absolve him of any of that. (also I don't think Tourette's is fair to include in that set but whatever)

blagie 16d ago
Someone with coprolalia will clearly cross some pretty bright societal lines too.