I actually just emailed RMS about this and I’m genuinely curious what he says. If anyone else is interested, I’ll ask if he’s fine with me sharing some of the response.
“The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”
RMS on June 28th, 2003
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "
RMS on June 5th, 2006
"There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
None of those say it is good. I disagree with him, he also disagrees with him and apologized for saying that. But that is very different from saying its good. I don’t think alcohol is good, I also don’t think it should be illegal.
He said it’s a shame that paedophilia is outlawed and that it was narrow-mindedness that made it so.
He said it’s untrue that having sex with children harms them.
And yeah, he later apologised and said he doesn’t believe it anymore… 2 days after his job became on the line.
Ask yourself this:
A man has been publicly championing raping children for decades. Publicly. He firmly believes he should have the right to fuck children.
News media hears about this, and now his job seems untenable.
All of a sudden, the man claimed changed his mind, that he’s completely reversed his opinion (that he held for decades and publicly shouted to the world). In just 2 days, he’s gone from thinking it’s a tragedy that you can’t fuck children, to thinking fucking a child is bad.
Do you believe him? Or do you think he’s just saying anything he can to try to keep his job?
I don’t think alcohol is good, I also don’t think it should be illegal.
There’s a big difference between “it’s unfortunate that adults can’t fuck children, it really should be legalised. People against fucking toddlers are just bigots” and “well I don’t like alcohol, but I think it should be legal”
How you just equated raping a child and drinking a glass of wine is beyond me. Wow.
First of all, none of those things are saying its good.
Ask yourself this:
A man has been publicly championing raping children for decades. Publicly. He firmly believes he should have the right to fuck children.
I think you need to be more realistic about who he and others are and try to understand why they have the beliefs they do, a lot of them are differences in personal and social awareness/ability. An analogy(I know you struggle with these, sorry its just the way I communicate and explain my thoughts), but would you look at someone with dyslexia and use them struggling with reading as an excuse to completely invalidated their opinions and views on everything else?
Stallman has deeply ideological beliefs, one of them being radical freedom of choice. He looked at pedophilia through that, because that’s what his conception of the world(and therefore ability to perceive it) allows. To be totally blunt I think its an “autistic” struggling with understanding the feelings of others(that many on here and Reddit also have) that lead to him focusing on his ideological perspective. I think he “put himself in the shoes” of kids, and thought, “I want to be able to engage in consensual relationships” he didn’t consider that not everyone is him, or how he would feel in circumstances different from ones he’s experienced. This combined with his ideological conviction made him fail to understand how kids lack an ability to consent.
If he really apologized to keep his job, I don’t know. But he has and continues to say deeply controversial things that cost him opportunities. He also still leads Gnu and FSF. I think its possible he just was upset about the situation, talked to someone he trusts about why people are responding this way, and they explained it in a way he could understand and he changed his mind.
How you just equated raping a child and drinking a glass of wine is beyond me. Wow.
I did not equate them. But also don’t underestimate the damage alcohol has had on the world. Child rape is bad, I have never denied that.
He literally says it’s bad that child rape is illegal, then goes on about how if you’re against it you’re a bigot. In what world is that not him saying it’s good?
Saying you believe his is autistic is a disgusting defence. Being autistic doesn’t excuse believing it’s a good thing to have sex with children. Autistic people don’t believe that.
I did not equate them. But also don’t underestimate the damage alcohol has had on the world.
Yes you did equate them.
Having a glass of wine and pinning down your toddler and fucking him are NOT the same. Jesus Christ.
Child rape is bad, I have never denied that.
And Stallman doesn’t think the same. He thinks it’s good.
And yeah. You think it’s as bad as sipping a pint of ale…
He literally says it’s bad that child rape is illegal, then goes on about how if you’re against it you’re a bigot. In what world is that not him saying it’s good?
Because they’re different things? Again this is why I said the analogy. Saying prohibition of alcohol is bad is different from saying alcohol is good. That’s not equating alcohol and pedos, its an analogy on how saying something is good is different from saying it shouldn’t be illegal.
Saying you believe his is autistic is a disgusting defence. Being autistic doesn’t excuse believing it’s a good thing to have sex with children.
Its an explanation of why I think he might have had an opinion I think is disgusting. The defense is that he admitted he was wrong and apologized. Having a wrong belief isn’t a crime, he didn’t rape any kids, so he doesn’t have anything to be “punished” for. And being wrong in the past about ethics is completely different from beliefs on free software- and you know that. You’re just using it as an ad hominem.
Autistic people don’t believe that.
What? There are plenty of autistic people that have a wide variety of beliefs
Yes you did equate them.
Having a glass of wine and pinning down your toddler and fucking him are NOT the same. Jesus Christ.
No I didn’t, stop lying about me. Analogy is not equating, I have no clue why this has to be explained.
And Stallman doesn’t think the same. He thinks it’s good.
He did not say its good, and he does now think the same as he said.
And yeah. You think it’s as bad as sipping a pint of ale…
I am tempted to think you’re trolling seeing as you’re ignoring what I actually wrote and instead just going for cheap attacks. Please stop engaging in bad faith.
My opinion on this whole topic: I don’t like the decision, a Free Software project should only prevent people from contributing in very rare occasions (e.g. having actively tried to sabotage the project). I don’t think this was the case, because I presume that the Linux Foundation was forced by the U.S. government to kick the maintainers out. The should’ve also communicated more clearly to prevent the confusion. (Russian trolls will cry out no matter how they phrased that.)
Edit: Depending on their power as a maintainer, they might be hired by intelligence and forced to just wave a backdoor through. With the Russian government waging a hybrid war against the U.S. and Europe, this poses a real problem.
Another Edit: @Allero@lemmy.today mentioned that apart from Russia, the U.S., Israel and China also have a very well funded intelligence service. So banning Russian maintainers because of a potential backdoor when there are American maintainers (which could be agents) as well? I don’t think it makes sense, but unfortunately the Linux Foundation won’t be able to resist the “complience requirements”.
I actually just emailed RMS about this and I’m genuinely curious what he says. If anyone else is interested, I’ll ask if he’s fine with me sharing some of the response.
Just what we need. The opinions of someone who thinks having sex with children is a good thing.
He never said that. I agree he was more skeptical than I’d like, but he eventually was informed and apologized.
You are mistaken:
RMS on June 28th, 2003
RMS on June 5th, 2006
RMS on Jan 4th, 2013
None of those say it is good. I disagree with him, he also disagrees with him and apologized for saying that. But that is very different from saying its good. I don’t think alcohol is good, I also don’t think it should be illegal.
Huh?
He said it’s a shame that paedophilia is outlawed and that it was narrow-mindedness that made it so.
He said it’s untrue that having sex with children harms them.
And yeah, he later apologised and said he doesn’t believe it anymore… 2 days after his job became on the line.
Ask yourself this:
A man has been publicly championing raping children for decades. Publicly. He firmly believes he should have the right to fuck children.
News media hears about this, and now his job seems untenable.
All of a sudden, the man claimed changed his mind, that he’s completely reversed his opinion (that he held for decades and publicly shouted to the world). In just 2 days, he’s gone from thinking it’s a tragedy that you can’t fuck children, to thinking fucking a child is bad.
Do you believe him? Or do you think he’s just saying anything he can to try to keep his job?
There’s a big difference between “it’s unfortunate that adults can’t fuck children, it really should be legalised. People against fucking toddlers are just bigots” and “well I don’t like alcohol, but I think it should be legal”
How you just equated raping a child and drinking a glass of wine is beyond me. Wow.
First of all, none of those things are saying its good.
I think you need to be more realistic about who he and others are and try to understand why they have the beliefs they do, a lot of them are differences in personal and social awareness/ability. An analogy(I know you struggle with these, sorry its just the way I communicate and explain my thoughts), but would you look at someone with dyslexia and use them struggling with reading as an excuse to completely invalidated their opinions and views on everything else?
Stallman has deeply ideological beliefs, one of them being radical freedom of choice. He looked at pedophilia through that, because that’s what his conception of the world(and therefore ability to perceive it) allows. To be totally blunt I think its an “autistic” struggling with understanding the feelings of others(that many on here and Reddit also have) that lead to him focusing on his ideological perspective. I think he “put himself in the shoes” of kids, and thought, “I want to be able to engage in consensual relationships” he didn’t consider that not everyone is him, or how he would feel in circumstances different from ones he’s experienced. This combined with his ideological conviction made him fail to understand how kids lack an ability to consent.
If he really apologized to keep his job, I don’t know. But he has and continues to say deeply controversial things that cost him opportunities. He also still leads Gnu and FSF. I think its possible he just was upset about the situation, talked to someone he trusts about why people are responding this way, and they explained it in a way he could understand and he changed his mind.
I did not equate them. But also don’t underestimate the damage alcohol has had on the world. Child rape is bad, I have never denied that.
He literally says it’s bad that child rape is illegal, then goes on about how if you’re against it you’re a bigot. In what world is that not him saying it’s good?
Saying you believe his is autistic is a disgusting defence. Being autistic doesn’t excuse believing it’s a good thing to have sex with children. Autistic people don’t believe that.
Yes you did equate them.
Having a glass of wine and pinning down your toddler and fucking him are NOT the same. Jesus Christ.
And Stallman doesn’t think the same. He thinks it’s good.
And yeah. You think it’s as bad as sipping a pint of ale…
Because they’re different things? Again this is why I said the analogy. Saying prohibition of alcohol is bad is different from saying alcohol is good. That’s not equating alcohol and pedos, its an analogy on how saying something is good is different from saying it shouldn’t be illegal.
Its an explanation of why I think he might have had an opinion I think is disgusting. The defense is that he admitted he was wrong and apologized. Having a wrong belief isn’t a crime, he didn’t rape any kids, so he doesn’t have anything to be “punished” for. And being wrong in the past about ethics is completely different from beliefs on free software- and you know that. You’re just using it as an ad hominem.
What? There are plenty of autistic people that have a wide variety of beliefs
No I didn’t, stop lying about me. Analogy is not equating, I have no clue why this has to be explained.
He did not say its good, and he does now think the same as he said.
I am tempted to think you’re trolling seeing as you’re ignoring what I actually wrote and instead just going for cheap attacks. Please stop engaging in bad faith.
Oh yes, an update would be really interesting! (Even though I agree with @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works in all points.)
My opinion on this whole topic: I don’t like the decision, a Free Software project should only prevent people from contributing in very rare occasions (e.g. having actively tried to sabotage the project). I don’t think this was the case, because I presume that the Linux Foundation was forced by the U.S. government to kick the maintainers out. The should’ve also communicated more clearly to prevent the confusion. (Russian trolls will cry out no matter how they phrased that.)
Edit: Depending on their power as a maintainer, they might be hired by intelligence and forced to just wave a backdoor through. With the Russian government waging a hybrid war against the U.S. and Europe, this poses a real problem.
Another Edit: @Allero@lemmy.today mentioned that apart from Russia, the U.S., Israel and China also have a very well funded intelligence service. So banning Russian maintainers because of a potential backdoor when there are American maintainers (which could be agents) as well? I don’t think it makes sense, but unfortunately the Linux Foundation won’t be able to resist the “complience requirements”.