What's the context? All I have heard of RMS is people worshipping the ground he walks on. As far as I know, he craps gold and pisses rainbows.
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
152 points (100.0% liked)
196
16490 readers
2818 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He spends a lot of time discussing why pedophilia isn't rape.
Of a woman having sex with a minor, he said “I wish an attractive woman had ‘abused’ me that way when I was 14.” He directly addressed child pornography by saying that “making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos.” He defended pedophilia, in general, in saying that “there is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.”
Oh no. Oh no.
I've also seen this in comments:
Yeah his public comments are just the tip of the iceberg. He's been a creep for decades at MIT and wherever he went.
He has a phobia of plants so women at MIT have been using plants defensively: decorating their offices with lots of foliage, wearing plants etc, to avoid getting propositioned or groped by him. Seriously, defensive plants, it's that ridiculous.
After people told him that flat-out propositioning every women within earshot is not acceptable, he started handing out "pleasure cards" (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEWlJXRWsAASHJw?format=jpg&name=small). Ewww.
It's a travesty that he remained at MIT/FSF this long given dozens of credible cases of abuse.
Edit: Replaced inaccessible X link with web.archive.org snapshot link.
UH OH
These cards have to be a joke right?!?!?
The person who described Stallman as "the personification of the Free Software Movement" in reference to this bullshit made my blood boil
Big uffff
I'm not sure, but he has some very... bad views on pedophile.
Like.. dude, why are you discussing this so much?
. . . Oh no.
Holy shit why did this man spend so much time defending these despicable positions?
…together with the dishonest law that labels sex with adolescents as “rape” even if they are willing, we cannot tell from this article…
These are dangerous and disgusting views.
I mean from my pov it's just a bad take or a lot.of bad takes
At a certain point, once you consistently take something, you own that something.
Kinda suspect
He got some heat in 2019 after an untastful statement he made regarding the Epstein case. A massive backlash happend, followed by him leaving many of his positions, esp. at MIT and at the FSF. Eventually he made some public excuses and got re-integrated to the FSF board, to the displeasure of some.
Oh no
To elaborate after I Googled to find more information about this:
Stallman had cast doubt upon the reports that AI pioneer Marvin Minsky had sexually assaulted one of Epstein’s victims. In an email chain sent to the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) mailing list that was published by Motherboard, Stallman said that “the most plausible scenario” was that Epstein’s victim “presented herself to [Marvin Minsky] as entirely willing.”
Stallman also described the distinction between a 17 or 18 year old victim as a “minor” detail, and suggested that it was an “injustice” to refer to it as a “sexual assault.”
and a different article:
Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a victim of Epstein at age 17, testified in a May 2016 deposition that "she was directed to have sex with Minsky when he visited Epstein's compound in the US Virgin Islands,"
Stallman objected to the text of the event announcement, saying that it "does an injustice to Marvin Minsky" by saying that Minsky was "accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims."
"The word 'assaulting' presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself did say no such thing. Only that they had sex," Stallman wrote.
Stallman added that "the most plausible scenario is she presented herself to [Minsky] as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to conceal that from most of his associates."
After one person wrote that "Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it rape in the Virgin Islands," Stallman responded, "I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17."
"We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex—by Epstein," Stallman also wrote. "She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that."
"Headlines say that I defended Epstein," Stallman wrote. "Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a 'serial rapist', and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him—and other inaccurate claims—and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said. I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding."
Stallman, who in 2006 wrote, "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children," also wrote in September 2019 that he had changed his mind about sex between adults and children.
"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," Stallman wrote. "Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per [sic] 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."
I found a PDF of that email chain, first entry on page 18: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.pdf (the ordering of emails is basically backwards, i.e. oldest entries at the end).