• alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 month ago

      An anonymous hit job

      it’s literally his own words all the way down here. if it’s a “hit job” it’s entirely Stallman’s own fault for being a freak with morally abhorrent takes. one of the first things mentioned here is that he had to retract the position that “voluntarily pedophilia” doesn’t harm children (a category of person he defines as anyone under about 13)! any reasonable person would find this abhorrent and Stallman a horrible person for ever having defended said position in the first place, because it is genuinely abhorrent to defend something like that. that’s just child abuse.

      • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not defending pedophiles, but there was a time when 13 was considered adult. It’s still legal for teenagers to marry in most countries.

        Anything can be taken out of context.

        • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          1 month ago

          Not defending pedophiles, but

          you are about to defend pedophilia. rethink this and stop talking.

          there was a time when 13 was considered adult.

          and? Stallman is not talking about a previous time at any point here. also: that previous time was bad anyways. why would we want to–especially with respect to age of consent–go back to considering 13-year olds and younger to be adults? they cannot meaningfully consent to sexual relations with adults; it’s just child abuse. all of this is why Stallman’s words are abhorrent.

          It’s still legal for teenagers to marry in most countries.

          Stallman is not talking about teenagers. he explicitly distinguishes children (again, people <13 for him) from teenagers (people 13-17).

        • Whom@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          You’re free to look at the context that they frequently link to, it doesn’t help. His political notes that contain the majority of his public musings are typically very brief and the quotes used typically replicate the entirety of the original text or cut off changes of subject.

          Stallman is very clear in his beliefs.

        • Whom@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 month ago

          This would only really make sense if they were trying to throw around the weight of the authors, which they clearly are not. Who makes these points is irrelevant when it’s simply highlighting rms’ own words and linking to them directly. Why should I care who wrote it?

        • IrritableOcelot@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Ummm or the authors are concerned about retribution because stallman and the FSF are very powerful in the FOSS community, and I think it’s reasonably likely that they would be sued (seemingly with poor grounds) or harassed online for publishing it.

        • myersguy@lemmy.simpl.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          You can say that speaks volumes about the character of the author (though you are the one assigning said “shame”). You were asking why this report deserves credence. The points raised in the report have citations such that you can decide where you fall on the presented issues.