Good job.
Your comment reminds me of the people who come out in defense of the Catholic Church whenever someone claims they were sexually abused by a Priest.
> Your comment reminds me of the people who come out in defense of the Catholic Church whenever someone claims they were sexually abused by a Priest.
Isn't this ironic?
You're using the same language of the weapon's builder to try to accuse me of defending child molesters.
Why are people like you constantly at war with the world?
It's not my fault if she is a nobody (she really is) that builds weapons for the US military (she really does) and if she distorted RMS emails to make it look he was defending a rapist (he wasn't). It's not even my fault if RMS never molested anybody (he really didn't), never raped anybody (he really didn't), never hurt anybody (he really didn't) and never committed a crime (he really didn't).
Looks like I'm defending the reputation of a good man after all.
I'm really sorry you have a problem with reality, I swear.
What would you think if someone leaked this post[1] you wrote with the title "TOXIC WHITE PRIVILEGED MAN SAYS KIDS ARE TERRORISTS"?
Drawing parallels between the way you attack the character of someone rather than the merits of their argument is accusing you of defending child molesters? Are you implying Stallman himself is a child molester? I'm thoroughly confused.
It was my understanding that Stallman was imploring people to use a more accurate term in describing his friend's actions because he felt the other term invoked harsher connotations. How does that make him a child molester?
> It's not my fault if she is a nobody (she really is) that builds weapons for the US military (she really does)
What does any of that have to do with what she said? You're not arguing the merits of what she said but rather that we shouldn't listen to her because of her notoriety and career choice.
> What does any of that have to do with what she said?
Person with questionable morals [1] making moral judgement claims suggests that the whole thing was manufactured. I wouldn't even exclude a possibility that she received some money to publish the things that she did.
[1] as her career choice clearly shows she has no problem with wars, which are known to cause death, including death of children, actual rape of young girls, organ harvesting and pretty much anything awful you can think of in this world wars have
We're equating that to war monger?
You were hired to develop things that will eventually be used to kill people. That's the end goal of the job. Whether you make anything usable or not is somewhat beside the point, the intention is still there.
war mongers become war mongers one drone at the time.
You are indeed.
> Drawing parallels between the way you attack the character
I didn't attack the character, I only portayed the character for who she is.
No judgment attached, just the crude reality: she builds weapons for US military and uses a very aggressive and dehumanizing vocabulary.
I would never use "remove" when referring to another human being, alive or dead.
> It was my understanding that Stallman was imploring people to use a more accurate term in describing his friend's actions because he felt the other term invoked harsher connotations
He was concerned that the term "sexual assault" would be disputable by critics.
because legally and in layman's terms has a completely different connotations (people associate assault with physical violence, the law doesn't)
> What does any of that have to do with what she said?
I think it's interesting that a person who would like to "remove" other people ends up building weapons instead of schools for refugee kids.
Certainly seems to me to be far preferable to working for Facebook or Google or something like that.
Whether she is a nobody or not, it should not come as a surprise that for 99.(9)% of humanity, all of us here, as well as RMS are just as much nobodies.
Not having committed a crime is your bar for "a good man"? Working for you must be pretty chill. Yeah, people can be unfit for their job even without having committed crimes (caught and found guilty, to be more precise). Especially in leadership roles.
Usually, yes.
> people can be unfit for their job even without having committed crimes
But this is not the case.
> caught and found guilty, to be more precise
We're all innocent until proven guilty.
It applies to me, to you and to everybody else.
> Especially in leadership roles.
Take this as an unwanted advice: a leader is someone who would never fuck you in the arse to save theirs.
Stallman would never fuck you in the arse.
Proof is he's been fucked by those wanting to silence him, but has no bad feelings against who did it.
This is being fit for leadership roles in my book.
You're attacking her in much the say way the media is attacking Stallman when they attribute his appearance and proclivity for eating shit off his foot as clear evidence he's a pedophile.
I'm not attacking her, but I understand why you think that.
Where do you think you might find sexism, misogynism, unsafety, threatening situations, in the US department of defence working with military personnel or in the office of RMS at MIT?
I think the odds are all in favour of the military, but this girl is happy to build drones for the military, while supporting the idea that RMS is a toxic man that need to be removed immediately.
Isn't that amusing?
If I didn't already know, I would have wanted to know about it!
And not even badly documented, let alone well documented.