Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

[flagged]


It's possible for a person to be an absolute stupid asshole about one topic (children's well being) but right about other things (software).

Should have just stayed in his lane. I admired this dude but those words are, kinda, punchable offense. TF with "voluntary" in there?!?


> I admired this dude but those words are, kinda, punchable offense.

I think that's pretty spot on. Saying stuff like that means that there shouldn't be celebration of the person or reverence towards them.

You can support the FSF views on free software and any good those do in the world, but it's not possible to ignore all of the other stuff a person has said.

One can guess whether he's not neurotypical to such a degree that he doesn't take a humane enough perspective (arguing about topics that perhaps shouldn't be argued about), but that doesn't really change anything.

When you want to talk about free software, probably talk about FSF not RMS.


"it's not possible to ignore all of the other stuff a person has said"

I don't know, for me it's not only possible but very easy, not only regarding pedophilia but also his various political opinions I don't agree with.


Let's also keep in mind that he has changed his mind on this topic.


"<some stupid shit you later changed your mind about>"

-- you, probably

Also, if you're not sceptical about it, you should be able to explain to someone like Stallman (as someone apparently later did) why it's still bad for children. If you can't then you're just as "stupid", the only difference is you happen to conform to the current accepted belief on this particular matter.


[flagged]


Opinions like this give rise to fascism. You can not talk about how we want to protect children and where the boundaries are because some lunatics immediately accuse anybody of harming THE CHILDREN.

If someone is romantically into kids this is not socially accepted in most cultures, but someone merely being attracted without following up with actions does not harm any kids.


It means he thinks kids can "want it" and if a kid "wants it" it's ok. It's unfortunately a common view among some, most apparent with Sartre and that "philosopher" crew. It's disgusting of course.

Helpful context https://www.change.org/p/a-demand-that-sartre-de-beauvoir-s-...


Having terrible opinions in one area doesn’t discount what you do in another.

I’d say Stallman has overall had a positive impact on the technology landscape even though he clearly has messed up views when it comes to “sexual ethics”


Can't beleive Epstein debacle ruined even rms. That guy's tentacles were everywhere.


RMS was trying to defend Marvin Minsky, but because RMS is on the spectrum he did it in a way that didn't do anything for his long-term friend but made things horrible for himself.

Marvin Minsky and Noam Chomsky were both involved with Epstein.


Plenty of people are on the spectrum and able to talk about this stuff well. Please don't smear the rest of us with RMS's nonsense.


It didn't ruin RMS at all. He was momentarily cancelled then welcomed back to the FSF. He was blogging passionately about his pro-pedophilia views for years. His supporters literally couldn't have cared less, and rather swore a blood oath of vengeance against the people who called him out.

I'm actually struggling to think of anyone who has suffered negative consequences over Epstein, besides Epstein himself. Even Ghislane is being treated like royalty in prison. Trump seems untouchable. Prince Andrew lost a purely decorative title and was banished to a slightly smaller mansion.


He's blogged for years, writing a number of short 1 or 2 sentence notes daily, on a very wide range of topics, taking positions on each of them from a lefty and analytical point of view, generally covering various political/environmental/economic/legal topics.

And, for what it's worth, he recanted the statement he made that was posted above.


>taking positions on each of them from a lefty and analytical point of view, generally covering various political/environmental/economic/legal topics.

He didn't take a lofty and analytical view on sex with children. Read his other posts, he was upset that there were societal norms and laws against it. He cared about this.

>And, for what it's worth, he recanted the statement he made that was posted above.

As far as I'm aware only once, almost as an afterthought, in a brief statement when the Minsky stuff was blowing up, likely under duress from someone at MIT desperate for him to put out the fire his at best awkward comments on Minsky set alight. He's probably put more effort into ordering a meal than he did recanting his views on pedophilia. Which again he held for years, in public view, without consequence.

So he didn't even need to go that far because none of it even touched him.


I suppose you are not arguing in favor of pedophilia but just pointing out that RMs was actually a pretty big advocate?


Of course I'm not arguing in favor of pedophilia JFC.

Yes I'm pointing out that RMS was, judging from his own words, an advocate. He advocated for adults to have sexual relationships with children. It's gross. It's gross that he's still the face of free software.


Well there's Virginia Giuffre and whether she was murdered or the story of suicide is true (I personally doubt it) - either way, she suffered.


rms defined epstin "a serial rapist"… if you call this siding with someone you might have to consider the idea of being wrong.


As well as the hundreds of other unnamed underage victims who were coerced into sexual favors for Epstein personally.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: