He didn’t change his mind. He only “changed his mind” to try to keep his job, and it didn’t work.
He was only sorry once he got a lot of flak for his pro child rape opinions.
Put it this way - if Andrew Tate all of a sudden said that sexism is wrong and he’s sorry for his actions, only once YouTube started removing his videos, would you believe it to be genuine? Or just him trying to maintain his position? It certainly seems like a convenient time to have a change of heart, no?
And he didn’t “quit” he was ousted. He “resigned” in the same way Liz Truss did, for example.
Sorry, I have no time for people who want to see children get raped.
So him changing his mind was fake, him leaving his own foundation was fake, is there anything that could prove you wrong then?
He was only sorry once he got a lot of flak for his pro child rape opinions.
No, he got in trouble, because he was misquoted by the media when he talked about Minsky. If he is such a liar, why didn’t he apologize for that, since that was actually what the drama was about? He could have said that he was wrong and that he no longer believed that. But for some weird reason he didn’t.
Put it this way - if Andrew Tate all of a sudden said that sexism is wrong and he’s sorry for his actions, only once YouTube started removing his videos, would you believe it to be genuine? Or just him trying to maintain his position?
So mentioning pedophilia 3 times over 10 years (2003-2013) makes it comparable to Andrew Tate?
It certainly seems like a convenient time to have a change of heart, no?
Let’s see. He mentions it for the last time in 2013. Then people dig up his old posts in 2019 and he responds. He had only 6 years to change his mind, very suspicious. Btw, do you know how people knew about those posts? They were on his public website. It was not a secret.
Sorry, I have no time for people who want to see children get raped.
You’re just salty, because we are going to destroy your precious little proprietary software and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
And their whole argument is based on believing that changing an opinion which wasn’t really thought that hard about at the time, and rarely stated, is implausible. But everyone holds at least some opinions which they have not done too much research on, and do not think about much. Why would this one be thought about frequently? The answer is it wouldn’t have been.
Of course, when such an opinion is scrutinised you suddenly have to dig into it and scrutinise it yourself, and this is where Stallman changed it. It’s not some mad conspiracy to save his (volunteer) job, it’s basic stuff.
I’d disengage if I were you. Eventually, they’ll get angry at you, then they’ll try to claim that you support his old, misinformed opinion (even if you explicitly condemn it).
As you’ve seen they’ll also try to claim that Stallman himself wants to do these things, when that has never been so much as hinted at. They make things up. They have no real argument.
Exactly. There have been things that I had believed for most of my life that were false. If we punish people for being wrong, then nobody will ever change their mind. The cost of doing so will be just too big.
Richard also doesn’t care if some subject seems disgusting or if his ideas seem radical to most people. He will talk about the ethics anyway, without any emotions attached. That’s what philosophers do.
They have to make it look like some conspiracy, a “cult”, etc., since they have nothing else that they could use. There are always people attracted by that sort of thinking and for them it will be enough. In 2019 we saw multiple Free Software projects joining a hate campaign against Stallman based on a blog post that misquoted him and another blog post with fake rumours. The second one was linked by the Software Freedom Conservancy (https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-speak-for-us) and it contained stories like these:
I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”
I think all of those people are either blinded by hatred or have some other motive (in this case it’s hard for me to believe they are all this stupid and can’t recognise obvious trolling). Maybe some of them want proprietary software to exist and Richard’s ideas are too radical for them. But the only way they can fight him or the FSF is with lies.
It took me a while to realise this, but 2 of the quotes that this person has posted were not full quotes. I will post them here in case you are curious.
The one from 2003:
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.
Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people’s interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.
For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent’s will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).
There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue.
The one from 2006 was a full quote, but that post contains a note now:
[Many years after posting this note, I had conversations with people who had been sexually abused as children and had suffered harmful effects. These conversations eventually convinced me that the practice is harmful and adults should not do it.]
He didn’t change his mind. He only “changed his mind” to try to keep his job, and it didn’t work.
He was only sorry once he got a lot of flak for his pro child rape opinions.
Put it this way - if Andrew Tate all of a sudden said that sexism is wrong and he’s sorry for his actions, only once YouTube started removing his videos, would you believe it to be genuine? Or just him trying to maintain his position? It certainly seems like a convenient time to have a change of heart, no?
And he didn’t “quit” he was ousted. He “resigned” in the same way Liz Truss did, for example.
Sorry, I have no time for people who want to see children get raped.
So him changing his mind was fake, him leaving his own foundation was fake, is there anything that could prove you wrong then?
No, he got in trouble, because he was misquoted by the media when he talked about Minsky. If he is such a liar, why didn’t he apologize for that, since that was actually what the drama was about? He could have said that he was wrong and that he no longer believed that. But for some weird reason he didn’t.
So mentioning pedophilia 3 times over 10 years (2003-2013) makes it comparable to Andrew Tate?
Let’s see. He mentions it for the last time in 2013. Then people dig up his old posts in 2019 and he responds. He had only 6 years to change his mind, very suspicious. Btw, do you know how people knew about those posts? They were on his public website. It was not a secret.
You’re just salty, because we are going to destroy your precious little proprietary software and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
They’re obsessed.
And their whole argument is based on believing that changing an opinion which wasn’t really thought that hard about at the time, and rarely stated, is implausible. But everyone holds at least some opinions which they have not done too much research on, and do not think about much. Why would this one be thought about frequently? The answer is it wouldn’t have been.
Of course, when such an opinion is scrutinised you suddenly have to dig into it and scrutinise it yourself, and this is where Stallman changed it. It’s not some mad conspiracy to save his (volunteer) job, it’s basic stuff.
I’d disengage if I were you. Eventually, they’ll get angry at you, then they’ll try to claim that you support his old, misinformed opinion (even if you explicitly condemn it).
As you’ve seen they’ll also try to claim that Stallman himself wants to do these things, when that has never been so much as hinted at. They make things up. They have no real argument.
Exactly. There have been things that I had believed for most of my life that were false. If we punish people for being wrong, then nobody will ever change their mind. The cost of doing so will be just too big.
Richard also doesn’t care if some subject seems disgusting or if his ideas seem radical to most people. He will talk about the ethics anyway, without any emotions attached. That’s what philosophers do.
They have to make it look like some conspiracy, a “cult”, etc., since they have nothing else that they could use. There are always people attracted by that sort of thinking and for them it will be enough. In 2019 we saw multiple Free Software projects joining a hate campaign against Stallman based on a blog post that misquoted him and another blog post with fake rumours. The second one was linked by the Software Freedom Conservancy (https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-speak-for-us) and it contained stories like these:
I think all of those people are either blinded by hatred or have some other motive (in this case it’s hard for me to believe they are all this stupid and can’t recognise obvious trolling). Maybe some of them want proprietary software to exist and Richard’s ideas are too radical for them. But the only way they can fight him or the FSF is with lies.
It took me a while to realise this, but 2 of the quotes that this person has posted were not full quotes. I will post them here in case you are curious.
The one from 2003:
Source: https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
The one from 2013:
Source: https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia)
The one from 2006 was a full quote, but that post contains a note now:
Source: https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party)