• Adanisi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Adanisi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          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?

          • Adanisi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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.

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              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.

              • Adanisi
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                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?

                • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  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.

                  • Adanisi
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    “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.