Hacker News Reader

Incredibly well put. Hats off to you sir. I don't think it's simply the unwillingness to think things though that make people attack him though. I think that halfway through writing their heated response, people realize their mistake. However, in today's climate, a lot of people are frothing at the mouth in anticipation of finally having found "a nazi", "a pedo" etc. So much that they see them everywhere.

I don’t think it’s fair to chalk it up to “unwillingness to think things through”, though, and that’s my point. RMS doesn’t seem to me to fully appreciate the emotional landlines in some of the subjects he discusses. When you’re talking about software licensing there’s some wiggle room, but when the subject at hand is pedophilia, successful communication requires a degree of tact and nuance that I’ve not often seen him use.

If you say something that 1% of the audience completely misunderstands, so be it. There’s always going to be some contrarians; haters gotta hate. But if the majority of the people have a different interpretation than you meant, then maybe the problem is in how you said it.

landmines?

Yes. Some subjects are very tricky to discuss. I have an example earlier: you wouldn’t want to come across as a Hitler fan. You can discuss these things in public, but have to be exceedingly cautious to avoid people misunderstanding your position.

I get that, I just meant that your text has a typo/autocorrect "landlines". (Apologies for my earlier laconic comment.)

Oh! Yeah, I didn’t even notice that. Yay autocorrect!

Moreover, no one, I mean /no one/ in this world is 100% perfect. I respect RMS as I respect Nelson Mandela or Gandhi. Think of anyone else from the past.

RMS has done so much for the computing world. And I firmly believe that he isn't a pedophile. And he doesn't even support pedophilia. Just that he has uttered something, doesn't make him a criminal.

RMS probably has an autism spectrum disorder.

That seems very likely to me, and would explain this seeming blind spot in his otherwise brilliant career.

Yes, and it's painful to see him being harassed for it by Wingo and others.

Alright, I'm not a doctor, and I certainly not Stallman's doctor. I think it's likely that he has Asperger's based solely on comparing his actions and words with those of my friends who've been diagnosed with Aspergers', but I don't actually know that he does.

With that out of the way, I haven't heard of anyone harassing him for having Asperger's. However, I think it's possible that he has it and that it has led him to saying things in untactful ways, and it's those things he's said that irk people. I can empathize with people who wouldn't want someone who says those things to represent an organization that they work with, regardless of what caused the person to say them.

> I haven't heard of anyone harassing him for having Asperger's

I may have worded this badly (not a native speaker, it takes a lot of time for me to find the right words and formulate my thoughts in English), but what I meant is that they are using Stallman's peculiarities (which are likely ASD-related) against him to destroy his character. See the message I linked earlier where Wingo refers to multiple posts on stallman.org suggesting his very biased interpretation of their meanings and of Stallman's behavior.

And it could be painful for RMS: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-10/msg004...

> I can empathize with people who wouldn't want someone who says those things to represent an organization that they work with, regardless of what caused the person to say them.

But GNU is Stallman's project (and it is not an organization), he started it. They could just leave and continue working on Guix independently. Some projects join GNU, some leave, no one is forced to work under Stallman's leadership. But it appears to me that Guix maintainers feel so attached to the GNU identity, that they want to hijack it instead.

I agree with you, but I'd wager there was an alternative way to get rid of Stallman that would be both kinder and less harmful to GNU and FSF causes.

Yeah, that too seems likely. I'm not going to weigh in much on that because I wasn't there and don't have an in-depth understand over everything that happened, but it does seem like there might've been a better way to handle that.

That said, the parent comment made it sound like it was unreasonable to take RMS's comments as meaning he was pro-pedophilia. And while I think I understand what he was trying to say, I can completely understand how reasonable people could interpret his words in a very bad way. That's the part I was really replying to, not how his dismissal was handled.

Anyone that's been close to the FSF knows that RMS has been burning good will for a very long time.

  > Well, when RMS wants to say things implying that maybe 
  > pedophilia isn't always bad and perhaps it gets a bad 
  > rap because some parents aren't OK with their kids 
  > growing up, he needs to be exceedingly careful how he 
  > phrases every word of it because he's commenting on an 
  > extremely charged subject.

I hear your initial thought here, that talking about sensitive topics requires a sensitive hand, and RMS may lack one. And that's a valid point.

For some topics.

RMS has a history of defending or being actively supportive of pedophilia.

This isn't just a matter of RMS being incapable of speaking about a sensitive topic with grace. If I start raising questions about how smart non-white folks really are and supposing that perhaps only white folks can be in leadership positions, multiple times in multiple venues -- well, folks are going to think I'm a white supremacist. And the harm I'll have done to the non-white folks in my community will have already been done.

And no amount of (pp.) "carefully phrasing every word because it's an extremely charged subject" is going to change that.

Just to quickly clear it up since this is brought up very often, RMS has changed his views on pedophilia[1]

[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

That's fair. I haven't gone down the rabbit hole of reading everything he's said on the subject, and that was mainly in response to https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... . And I do get (and agree with) your analogy, too.

For full disclosure, I think you can make a reasonable case for at least some of what he said in the link I just posted. For instance, an 18 year old having sex with their 17 year old partner doesn't automatically make it non-consensual, and lots of states have so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws that agree. That's where the call for caution and careful phrasing come in: does he intend to mean it's OK for an 18 year old and a 17 year old to date (which I'd agree with), or for a 40 year old and a 15 year old (which I'd vehemently not agree with)? If what he meant was the former, I wish he would have clearly stated so and avoided the whole issue. If it really is the latter, then there's no way I'd attempt to defend that or be willing to consider the nuance (and more than I'd be willing to consider your analogy).

Stallman chooses his words precisely. An 18 year old dating a 17 year old isn't a pedophile formally or informally. The article he shared is about a campaign to make 12 the age of consent among other things.

But that's just it!

You're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because you're a fan of his work and his ideologies in other spaces. Which makes sense, I dig it.

For myself, I'd rather not expend the mental gymnastics. If RMS had ever wanted to set the record straight, he could have. If he isn't willing to clarify, personally I'm uninterested in attempting to do it for him, and inclined to assume this (like his other writing) is direct and unambiguous.

(Edit, to add:) And to reinforce my previous point: sometimes the damage one's words do can't easily be undone, and treating everything like it's a philosophical debate and not someone telling us who they are may reinforce that harm.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I didn't follow this whole saga very closely and I picked the one quote of his that I'd seen in the headlines. It's not that I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt as much as up until this moment I haven't personally seen anything worse than that one comment.

That one comment by itself seemed bad but explainable. If he's said worse, well, damned if I'm going to be an apologist for a pedophilia advocate.

The latter would be legal in several European countries.

It was legal in Spain not so long ago, it was 13 the age of consent. Now is 16.

I'd probably state it this way.

It's one thing if someone makes an offhand comment like "Oh yeah, Hitler wanted to be an artist!"

You'd be like "Ok, interesting tidbit but whatever".

It'd be a whole 'nother thing if one multiple different occasions you start talking about positive hilter attributes.

I think it's reasonable for people to be pretty uncomfortable with the number of times and frequency that RMS seems to want to talk about underage sex. That certainly does not make him a pedophile. It is, however, pretty off putting.

All this makes me feel very much like the Hans Reiser case. I was internet active at the time and remember all of his fans swear up and down about how innocent he was and how much he was a victim of the corrupt judicial system. Then that fateful day happened when Reiser was convicted and basically said "Ok, if you'll give me a lighter sentence I'll show you where the body is".

Stallman did a lot of good for the opensource community, which makes him a hero to many. I think, however, it's unhealthy to try and justify his statements on pedophilia. It's ok to talk about the nuance of the laws (Certainly there are major issues with the way CP laws work. It's a bit crazy that teens are getting convicted of it over normal teen behavior). Stallman has been really icky here. He talks not about age difference but instead how "voluntary" the acts are. Trying to read in "Romeo and Juliet" scenarios when he himself doesn't even mention that is trying to paint a more rosy picture of what stallman wrote.

All of this, frankly, can also be cleared up by clarifications from Stallman (which he's not published). He could say pretty much exactly what you've said here "When I was talking about X, this is what I meant". He's not done that and I think that's really telling. Maybe someone told him to STFU, but then again, he's not really been silent on his positions on sex throughout the years, so why start now?

Ugh, I remember the Reiser case pretty well, and perhaps that's a good cautionary analogy.

And ultimately, you're right: if everyone misinterpreted him, it's on him to come out and explain what he really meant. It wasn't my intent to play devil's advocate here, and my original point was just that I think he can be a poor communicator on difficult topics.

Could you show us an instance of RMS being "actively supportive of pedophilia"? This is a claim that will both ruin a man's career, life and reputation, so you better have some decent sources.

I mean, his own website?

https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...

  > I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia 
  > harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem 
  > to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are 
  > then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea 
  > that their little baby is maturing.

Please note that for the purposes of determining statutory rape, a person under the age of consent is not mature enough to give consent, so there cannot be "voluntary pedophilia."

https://stallman.org/archives/2012-jul-oct.html#15_September...

  >  Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of "child pornography"

This second seems to touch lightly on specific cases where the definition of "child pornography" should perhaps be in question -- but given RMS' stance from the former quote, it's not clear that this is the entirety of his viewpoint.

See my answer to the guy below. He's arguing for a law such that child molesters can more easily get prosecuted, instead of prosecuting teenagers who have pictures of their girlfriends/boyfriends.

That's one of the two links I posted, which I think Stallman did not link in the faith you give him (nor do I think was written in that same faith), but that's subjective.

The other is where he's doubting that pedophilia is harmful to children. So yeah, that's pretty well "in support of pedophilia." That one isn't subjective, it's the words he typed, and try as I might I can't find an interpretation where he's not saying pedophilia is fine.

So he links to a post that wants to change the law such that pedophiles can more easily get caught, but you disagree, and feel that he linked to it in some sinister motivation that isn't expressed in said article. Alright...

If I said "I am skeptical that infants smoking weed is harmful to them", does it mean that I smoke weed, or that I smoke weed around infants? Or that I actively support it? Or do I (perhaps wrongfully) state that I am skeptical about claims around the topic?

Personally I think pedophilia is just about the most awful thing in the universe. I wouldn't engage in in depth speculation about how it affects children, because I think it's a horrible thing to think about, but the fact that RMS engages in those conversations doesn't make him a pedophile. And it definitely doesn't make him an "active supporter" of it.

https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...

Did you actually read those links? The very first paragraph on the falkvinge-page:

"This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it."

So they're arguing for a change in laws such that child molesters could more easily be prosecuted? And here you are accusing a man of actively supporting pedophilia based on some gossip from someone who also didn't read what he was actually saying?

> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

We are talking about what stallman has written. The above is what he wrote. The distinction he's drawing between "voluntarily pedophilia" and "involuntarily pedophilia" is one that I don't believe exists. Particularly because "grooming" is a common tactics of pedophilies.