this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
323 points (86.1% liked)
linuxmemes
21210 readers
105 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's funny, because he didn't get fired, he resigned. And he never returned to his previous position. It wasn't about losing his job, or getting it back. It was that he grew and changed his opinion. Unless you believe people can't grow?
And the incident which made him do that (where he even said what was done is wrong!) is not related to the previous comments you've listed.
Hey, wasn't Bill Gates on Epstein's flight logs? The same Bill Gates who claims he's never been on any of his islands? Huh, someone with genuine connections and not just pedantic with words. Someone should really look into that. Funny how nobody brings up those who are actually involved.
EDIT: why'd you add two whole paragraphs about Tate a day after I replied? Were you hoping I wouldn't notice and it'd look like I ignored them? The difference is Tate continually reiterates his opinions (I.e. there's not a decade gap between him saying it and then saying his opinion changed in light of evidence) and also, actually acts on them (which Stallman has never done).
People in high up positions often "resign" when their position is no longer tenable.
It's an opportunity afforded to people at the top so they can save face.
I don't see why you're bringing whataboutism about Gates into this. The discussion isn't about Gates, nor do I like Gates. Why bring him up other than to muddy the debate and shift focus away from padeo-champion RMS?
The discussion is about RMS being pro paedophilia, and his cult being in denial about that fact.
He still didn't return to his position. And again, the things said that lead to him resigning are not related to his previous comments. And again, he actually denounced what happened, in that email chain. He absolutely wasn't defending it. Go read it yourself, in full. Not some chopped up version.
Hey, Stallman answers his emails, how about you ask him what his opinions are yourself?
rms@gnu.org
Also, I'm bringing up Gates because while there's massive uproar over some misplaced pedantry a lifelong activist did (again, while denouncing what happened and saying Epstein is described too lightly), it seems eerily silent when it comes to people in the same sector actually having real connections to Epstein and not just unpopular opinions on how words should be used.
I didn't say he returned to his position.
The entire thing led to him resigning. It was his comments on Epstein that got the ball rolling, but people bringing up his public championing of child rape using his work email address, as well as women alleging that he had been creepy with them, all led to him losing his position.
Look, you can defend him all you want. That's fine. I'm just on the "child rape is bad" side of the fence.
We're on the same side of that fence, don't think you're smart by painting me as pro-pedo. It's incredibly disingenuous and tells me you're running out of arguments to stand on. Stallman is of the belief that that is bad, and has denounced Epstein's actions. And even if he didn't, he still did nothing himself, so I'm not sure how me making the point that Stallman isn't the devil opponents say he is makes me belong on "that side of the fence"?
The "creepy" allegations have all been debunked iirc. I've heard of one about a mattress in his office, which wasn't even in his office or his mattress? I've also heard of him giving a business card (why is that creepy?). If you have any examples with actual evidence which isn't just "I heard that she said that he said", feel free to share and I'll look.
My point about him not returning to his previous position makes the argiment that him taking back his previous views wasn't just to return to the job he had. As you said that he didn't actually have a legitimate reason to change his opinion. Because if you don't like someone, it means they never have a benign reason to change their opinions!
No he isn't of the opinion that paedophilia is bad, because he has publicly said it's fine/good several times!
And no, he suddenly "changed his mind" as a last-ditch effort to save his job, and it failed.
If you genuinely believe he had an epiphany and did a complete 180 that just happened to perfectly align with him coming under fire, then you're pretty naive.
This cult behaviour is fucking weird, dude. The guy repeatedly states that having sex with children is fine and yet you're fine with him. Re-evaluate your position.
The last time I can see him saying that was over a decade ago. This isn't "sudden" or an "epiphany".
"He isn't of the opinion it's bad because he said it's fine several times", yeah right, because opinions can't change over literal decades. I'll go dig up stupid stuff you said long ago, because if you said it several times long in the past it means you agree with it now?
And if it was a last ditch effort to save his job, and that failed, then there's really no more need for effort. So if that's truly why his opinion changed, surely if you ask he'll have the old opinion?
You act like anyone changing a long-held opinion after being confronted with evidence is impossible. He originally thought it doesn't cause harm, he received evidence that it actually does, and so he changed his opinion to reflect the evidence he saw. It says a lot about you that a change in opinion after new evidence is shown to you is unfathomable.
And for fucks sake, stop saying I'm fine with that sort of thing, I'm not. I never once defended his old opinions. Stop trying to degrade my argument with that.
EDIT: You're also acting like this was more than just a malformed opinion he used to hold. Keep in mind he has never done anything to a child, nor expressed interest in it. As it should be. And he has also long held the opinion that any sex should be consentual, which of course extends to children, who he recognises cannot really consent now. His other past opinions align with his current opinion in this respect.
He didn't change his opinion over decades. He "changed" his opinion over days. Specifically, days after there started to be pressure for him to step down or be removed.
What a convenient time to have a change of heart!
Stop defending an advocate of child rape.
Sorry, when was the last time he stated this opinion? Because it wasn't anywhere near when there were calls for him to resign. There's a literal decade gap.
Again, what made him lose his job was actually him denouncing these actions and having his words spun. Because again, these are unrelated issues. From there people dug into very old opinions. It's almost as if it was nothing to do with his past opinions at all and people were looking for an excuse.
And I mean, just look at the headline that made him do it. "Stallman says Epstein's victims "entirely willing". What a blatant lie. He said the fucking opposite. He said they were coerced and told to act like they were willing to his associates...
Even if you don't like him you can't deny that there were plenty of lies about him at that time, smearing him.
Also: he was never an "advocate", just like I'm not an advocate of the idea that eating chocolate won't kill you, it's just an opinion I hold.
Hahahaha now you're saying the reason he lost his job because he made a statement against child rape?
You people cannot be helped.
I guess if Andrew Tate said he's against misogyny now you'd believe him too?
You go ahead and look at the article which kicked this all off. He was being pedantic, someone was unhappy about the inappropriate timing of that, leaked the email chain, and wrote a headline stating "Stallman says they were 'entirely willing'".
Read the actual email that quote is taken from and you'll see the exact opposite. They cut out key words to make that sensationalist headline.
This is easily verifiable.
This situation is nothing like Tate. The last time Tate made a misogynistic comment was probably 5 minutes ago, compare that to over a decade ago for Stallman's out-of-place opinion.
He also makes it his whole personality. A core part of him.
Tate has also acted on his opinions and caused real harm. Stallman, never did.
He also is not a logical person, whereas Stallman is pretty much driven purely by logic. He has never so much as hinted that he's open to evidence to change his opinions.
I'm not talking about his chat about Epstein, you brought that up for zero reason, specifically to muddy the conversation and distract from the topic, just like the Bill Gates tangent.
I'm talking about him being a proud and loud advocate of paedophilia, bestiality, parent-child relationships.
Hm yeah. Very logical to be supportive of raping kids (even your own kids) and fucking your pets. What a logical guy with sane takes.
You are. That is what got the ball rolling to him losing his job, which you brought up. You said that yourself earlier.
I think those opinions are wrong. But again, the last time I'm aware of them being stated before being changed was over. a. decade. ago. Are you going to repeat the same points in different words over and over?
So far, your arguments are:
He held bad opinions over a decade ago and hasn't stated them since (but people never change!)
How convenient he changed them 4 days after calls to resign (it's almost like he had no prompt or reason to talk about them before then)
Anything else?
No I didn't bring it up. I mentioned his views on paedophilia, you brought up he repented, I said he only did it to save his skin because he was in the process of being ousted at the time (in part due to Epstein, but I didn't talk about that because it's irrelevant to his view that child rape is fine), then you went all-in on that because deep down you know that raping children is inexcusable.
Look, we're getting nowhere. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm against having cult followings of people who are proudly pro paedophilia, and you aren't.
If you like people who are pro child rape and pro bestiality, you're free to do so. Freedom of expression and all that.
I'm ending it here. Goodbye. I hope you get to re-evaluate your position on child rape proponents, but I can't force it on you.
"then you know that raping children is inexcusable" yes, I do know that. Are you implying I don't think that? I'm defending Stallman, and Stallman never did that either.
Notice how my whole argument has been DENOUNCING these things while noting that Stallman has changed his opinions on them (and never did them!). Go find one quote where I defended any of these actions. So why now are you trying to claim I'm actually okay with these things? Because I'm not.
You were talking about why he lost his job, so me bringing up the catalyst for that is perfectly reasonable in my opinion. Especially when it shows that a lot of it was sheer lying AND showcases his current opinion that it is bad, which was clearly present before this whole thing started.
I am opposed to child rape proponents, but thankfully Stallman is not a proponent of that. Stallman has always been a proponent of consent, and when he came to understand children cannot consent under any circumstances, his opinions changed to reflect that.
I don't understand your motives for putting words into my mouth and claiming I'm defending child rape (when again, I have explicitly stated on multiple occasions that it is wrong). But I don't appreciate it. I'm done, have a nice day.
EDIT: Okay now this prick is just making stuff up, about me and about Stallman. He never said anything even REMOTELY SIMILAR to what has been said below (and again, has CHANGED the opinions that sparked this argument in the first place completely, last stated over a decade ago). I wonder what would happen if I told them I am a minor myself?
My whole point, for the last time, is that his OLD opinions are WRONG, and that his CURRENT opinions are RIGHT. The mental gymnastics being used to paint me as someone who supports his OLD opinions is insane.
EDIT 2: The reason I still replied after being told "bye" is because I was being slandered lol. I'm sure if someone slandered this prick they'd do the exact same thing.
Told you bye so didn't read.
Bye bye paedophile apologist. Keep worshiping a guy who thinks kids should be used as sex toys.
I really hope cancer claims Stallman in a way that is gruesome. Fuck him and fuck anybody else who loves the idea of kids being held down and fucked. He deserves a painful death, and hopefully he'll be remembered as the creep that he is.