Comment by bijant
3 months ago
He was making a valid philosophical point in order to defend the legacy of his late best friend and mentor who did not get a chance to defend himself and got caught up in the Epstein drama. It's human and understandable and the political equivalent of offing yourself. Stallman never much cared for other peoples opinions or (office) politics. While the secrecy surrounding the Epstein files makes it impossible to know what (if anything) Minsky knew about Epsteins conduct or whether he participated in any of the criminal acts surrounding Epstein there have never been any allegations against Stallman and personally I do not think he has any actual interest in sexual reproduction and would not waste his time interacting with people that do not actively work in GNU / Free Software.
Reading through those quotes, I get the impression that Stallman doesn't understand why underaged people can't give consent to people considered adults by the legal system. It falls in line with his other misunderstandings or lack of awareness on social issues.
He's right that young people have agency and can make informed decisions about themselves, but fails to recognize the social pressures that means that young people often aren't in a position to say no, or even understand that they can can say no. There are financial, social, and even legal power imbalances between minors and non-minors that make it impossible to assert that certain interactions are consentual, even if they aren't of a sexual nature. It's these power imbalances that are the issue, not whether or not a young person has enough factually to understand what they are consenting to. Interactions like this are abuses of the power that adults have over children, and that's a big part of what makes them so disturbing.
This can also apply to persons above the legal age.
If you think that’s just about defending a friend, than I think you haven’t read enough of the quotes on that page.
>personally I do not think he has any actual interest in sexual reproduction and would not waste his time interacting with people that do not actively work in GNU / Free Software
I'm getting my one lick in because I know litigating this will be futile, people will defend RMS to the bitter end regardless of what he says or does, and I'll probably just be flagged for my trouble.
RMS blogged many times over many years about his beliefs that child pornography and pedophilia should be legal and socially acceptable. He also has a history of creepy behavior around women. He clearly is not asexual.
If RMS wasn't a part of Epstein's shit, it's only because he wasn't sociable enough to fit in with that crowd, not because he wouldn't be into it.
You're wrong about me, I'll defend RMS far beyond the bitter end and I frankly don't see what's wrong with that. About a billion people defend the fact that their prophet Mohammed had sexual intercourse with a 9 year old child. Mohammed did little to advance Freedom or Software and didn't even develop Emacs. So as long as there are people left defending an actual child predator I see no reason not to defend someone exploring theoretical theoretical arguments in favor of what you call pedophilia. I might stop defending him if he was literally Hitler but only because that would contradict everything he stands for and believes in. He believes in radical Freedom and non-coercion and does what is humanly possible to live those values. He also obviously is not neurotypical. I have seen too many brilliant autistic friends be excluded from groups and communities because their behavior towards the other sex was labeled "creepy" or "weird". Living in a patriarchal society sadly means that women tend to feel unsafe around men that do not conform to certain (sometimes utterly ridiculous) rules governing social behavior because they have experienced "crazy" men acting aggressively towards them finding their "unpredictable" behavior dangerous even when there is no rational indication that it poses any threat to them. You obviously fail to account for the possibility that people that advocate certain principles (like Stallman did in those texts that you claim to be his advocacy for the legalization of child pr0n or whatever it is you mean with pedophilia (which is a medical condition and just as "legal" as schizophrenia) probably statutory rape ?! Do so because they believe in these principles and not because they have a personal stake in the specific issues. I will not deny that this is often the case and we saw this in the "freedom of speech vs censorship" debate where on all sides of the political spectrum only the censorship of their own group was called out. RMS is old enough and has been a public figure for long enough that you cannot -in good faith - make that claim with regards to him though. If there had been claims of inappropriate sexual behavior, #metoo events, or rape you (and others) would also have brought them up. Aaron Swartz, RMS, Linus Torvalds and Steve Jobs are no saints, but they changed things and they pushed the human race forward.