324

So cute 😊 (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 7 months ago by 0x4E4F@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world

94 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 52 points 7 months ago

https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/17/20870050/richard-stallman-resigns-mit-free-software-foundation-epstein

Yes FSF has done good things for open source. No RMS isn't a good person. Cults of personality are more of a Reddit thing

[-] xor@infosec.pub 33 points 7 months ago

beat me to it... yeah, he said that weird shit about 'consenting' underage children not being traumatized or some shit... or there was no evidence they were...
later apologized and said he was shown evidence but, nah... plus the whole Epstein friendship thing...(maybe he was just naively getting fsf donations? ) dude did some fantastic things for computers and humanity overall with gnu... but he's definitely not cool

[-] uis@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

He probably talked about age of consent in most of European countries. As mentioned by CrypticCoffee above even in UK it is 16.

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

He wasn't talking about people above the age of consent.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

Cults of personality are more of a Reddit thing

*Nervously looks at Lemmygrad and Hexbear*

[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

The FSF brought Stallman back and put him back on the board. He's on the board now.

The Software Freedom Conservancy, FSF Europe, and Bradley Kuhn are the good guys. FSF, Software Freedom Law Center, Stallman, and Moglen are the bad guys.

At least that's my thoughts. I've written a lot more about all this here.

[-] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I thought you didn't believe in bad people? Or was that just a convenient point that can change at the drop of a hat to help your arguments seem more legitimate?

And it's kind of funny that some inappropriately pedantic activist is constantly under fire even after saying Epstein isn't described harshly enough (pedantic again, but useful this time?), but much fewer people seem to care about the tech billionaires with real connections to him. If we should be demanding anyone be disgraced, it should be them.

EDIT: They've expressed no more interest in replying and they don't seem to be being disingenuous, so I'll not leave another reply, but note how that entire post was devoted to the usage of the words "good" and "bad" and addresses nothing about Stallman's actions.

Tl;dr his point was that coercion is coercion regardless of age, and of course sensationalist media spun that. Of course, the younger you get the more easily you are coerced, which is why there's a point where you can reasonably say a person could not have consented. But Stallman was not arguing against that. He was arguing that a year's difference doesn't change the morality of the situation.

And his take is that the situation was immoral ("she presented herself as entirely willing", and noting that she was coerced by Epstein to do that and that it was wrong). Of course people always overlook that part and cut his words short to make it seem like he's defending it.

EDIT 2: I just noticed that they have also said that after being accepted onto the FSF board after a change in opinions (not even back to his original role!), that means that the FSF endorses the opinions he no longer holds? Make it make sense.

[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Oh boy, I get to argue with you again.

This is way off topic for this thread (sorry to OP), but my take is that "good" (or, being more precise, perhaps something like "pro-social and self-caring" is a better way to put it) is the "natural" way for humans to be and for humans to do "bad" ("antisocial and/or self-destructive", perhaps?) things needs a reason or explanation in a way that people not doing "bad" things doesn't. (As opposed to an opposite view that people are evil and require something (authority, religion, whatever) to make them do good.)

My point in bringing it up in that other thread was that one didn't necessarily have to believe that "Stallman is bad" to believe he shouldn't have been accepted back into a position of authority at the FSF. Even if he's a "saint," giving him a position of authority in the FSF after everything he's said is very problematic. (Harms the Free Software movement's reputation, excludes people, sends an unfortunate message, etc.) It can absolutely be appropriate for an organization to exclude/remove/dethrone/etc people (or refuse to take them back) for bad behavior or for expressing reprehensible opinions especially if doing otherwise sends a message that the organization approves of the behavior or speech. (And I don't feel like Stallman later publicly changing his opinions is enough to make his return to the FSF not be seen as endorsement of his previously-stated opinions.)

In this thread, the person I'm responding to used the term "good person" and I went with it rather than going into something irrelevant to the current discussion. With my previous comment in this thread, I mean that if you're going to take sides, you shouldn't put Stallman and the FSF on opposite sides and that the opposite side that is (at least from everything that I know about things at the moment and don't expect anything to change) worth aligning yourself with is SFC, FSFE, and Bradley Kuhn. (And I'm sure there are plenty of others in the Free Software movement who are also worth aligning yourself with, but these are people and organizations that are leaders in the movement and (more) well known (than most, though that's not saying much -- there aren't many in the movement who are well known like Stallman, Moglen, and Kuhn.))

If I knew you were going to continue this argument in this thread, I would probably have put "good guy" and "bad guy" in quotes (like I did "saint" a couple of paragraphs back. Sometimes people use convenient shorthands.) But going into all of the above wasn't really relevant to this conversation. (Until your response, that is.)

At this point, I doubt there'd be benefit to continuing this conversation here in this thread. If you want to respond again, I guess knock yourself out, but I don't intend to respond here again.

[-] 0x4E4F@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 7 months ago

Oh boy, I get to argue with you again.

[-] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

by Epstein

Wait, what? If I remember correctly RMS was talking about his colleague from MIT, not about Epstein.

[-] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

He was talking about both. The "entirely willing" misquote comes from the email where he's referring to how Epstein made his victims pretend to be willing, and how he believed his former professor was unaware (stupid take imo, but clearly not malicious).

[-] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

At least that’s my thoughts. I’ve written a lot more about all this here.

Spamming your Babylonian whore warez!!

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 22 points 7 months ago

Uh, no, there's no one you should worship.

[-] zanyllama52@infosec.pub 10 points 7 months ago

I have chosen to worship you based upon this position. That is all.

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Indeed.

But people that publicly champion child rape, bestiality, and parent-child sexual relationships doubly so.

The fact there are so many people who are pro child rape, or at the very least pro people who are open advocates for having sex with children, is absolutely disgusting.

[-] 0x4E4F@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I would agree with a small portion of it, but pedophilia, no, no way.

Though I do have something to share on the subject. I used to go out with this girl, I was 19, she was 17. We had sex and all that (willingly, of course). Legally speaking, I was a pedophile, but let's take a look at the age gap and how old I was.

Anyway, I wasn't that into this girl, so I break up with her. I did know that she kinda had a crush on me, but I didn't think it was that serious. Three weeks pass after the breakup and her dad shows up at my doorstep with 2 other guys (his relatives... or at least I presumed as much) accusing me of raping his daughter... I tried to explain that there was no such thing and that yes, we did have sex, but at no point was it against her will. Sure, I might have been the one that instigated the intercourse, but it wasn't like she didn't like it. Regardless, her dad was pissed as hell and even threatened to submit this to the DA 😱... I was about to be taken to trial and very possibly go to jail for what? A girl that I broke up with that was probably deeply hurt (I am sorry for that, but you can't force someone to love someone else) and wanted to get back at me, so she involved her parrents in the ordeal, not thinking things through (of course, she's young) how this might affect the other person and stain him FOR LIFE.

Luckily, things cooled down, I went to talk to her parrents about this, I said I was sorry and I shouldn't have had sex with her, but the truth of the matter was that, I didn't rape her! They also called her to confront me on this, we had a long converstaion with her parrents present, she was furious, lying through her teeth, portraying every single time we had sex as rape. I think her parrents saw through this, since there were personal insults at my expense, not to mention that "why did you break up with me!?" was mentioned quite a few times throught the conversation and that kinda sealed the case that this was nothing more than a broken heart. I promised them I'll never contact her again, for her sake (and mine as well), and to let her heal, and I never did.

My point is, things could have ended up being A LOT worse for me. I think that me showing up alone at their house kinda made them think about the whole situation and that maybe our daughter is actually lying to us (why would I show up there and risk getting my head chopped off if I really did rape her, right). Just goes to show you that people can be mean, take advantage of a certain situation and portray it as something completely different.

I always asked a partner's age after that, ALWAYS. Unless it was blaintly obvious she's not a minor.

[-] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This wouldn't be illegal in the UK or many countries. Age of consent is 16 here. From what I've read, USA is an outlier that infantises young adults to impose mortality.

Always weird because the music videos exported by the US are often soft porn and the music industry has a thing for barely legal girls.

[-] uis@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Age of consent is 16 here.

In Russia too. Until 2003 it was 14.

[-] 0x4E4F@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago

I don't live in the US BTW. I said "the DA" to conform to what most of the viewers on Lemmy are used to (most are US citizens). In reality we don't have a district attourney, you involve the police and the state takes care of things onwards.

Always weird because the music videos exported by the US are often soft porn and the music industry has a thing for barely legal girls.

Which just goes to show you that that "imposed morality" thing isn't really working... in the US or anywhere else. The US is somewhere at the top by number of pedophiles vs. number of population.

[-] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago

Out of curiosity, where are you from?

[-] 0x4E4F@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 months ago

Macedonia, the Balkans.

[-] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago

Ah cool. I do like that Lemmy feels more distributed than Reddit. Too many Americans on it.

[-] 0x4E4F@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago

Yeah, it kinda feels that there is more diversity here, but still, I do belive the majority is from the US, so I sometimes cater in my comments to that part of the population, just to cut down on explaining myself afterwards.

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

The age of consent is 16 in most places. Like half of Europe, half of the US states.

RMS wasn't talking about 16/17 year olds.

There's very obviously not anything wrong with a 17 year old having sex with a 16 year old.

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Suddenly reminded about Shurigina.

[-] summerof69@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Are the downvoters paedophiles too, or are they merely fine turning a blind eye to these views, just because their guy was the one to say it?

Because we're in a community dedicated to memes and this post is making fun of RMS. Your reaction is misappropriate, especially with this question.

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

It's not really making fun of him, it's the usual treating him like a deity figure.

Just look at the jumping through hoops to defend him that people are doing and always do whenever his... uh... unorthodox views on child rape come up.

[-] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

COOL GUY CLUB 🎸

[-] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Why don't you include the more recent postings in which he states his opinion has changed? The most recent one here is 11 years old.

[-] Smokeydope@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

Thats the thing about saying an opinion on the internet, its tied to you forever. In real life people tend to change their minds and can re-evaluate on their own shitty opinions after a few decades. Not always, but it happens. But that doesn't change the fact you said that thing that one time 20 years ago. The people who don't really care about you and just want a mental straw man to hate don't care about things like personal growth or that you have changed stance, just that you thought that bad thing at one time.

Im personally guilty of saying some real edgelord shit as a teenager on the internet. If someone somehow collected a few comments I made when I was 15 and went on a 5 paragraph essay about how terrible of a person I am now it would make me roll my eyes and tell them to get bent. Who I was as a 15 year old and my opinions then is completely independent of who I am now and my current stances. But the 5-paragrapher doesn't care about that, they got their ragebait strawman and a ride on the high horse so they are happy.

[-] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 4 points 7 months ago

Very well said. I think people tend to not realise that personal development is really a thing that happened when they have instant access to the old opinions of people online.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (19 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)

[-] EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago

plot twist: she's the one in the maid outfit