• TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Lol, you mean when he changed his opinion 4 days after his comments were outed, and only when it looked like his job was untenable?

    Seems awfully convenient that RMS would change his decades-held opinion that paedophilia is fine mere days after he found himself in hot water.

    If Andrew Tate, right when Google was mulling over removing his content from YouTube, said “you know, I actually think misogyny is a bad thing. Honest.”, would you believe him? Would you think he’s a changed man?

    I wouldn’t. But maybe you’re just more trusting than I am.

    • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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).

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

        • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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!

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                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.

                • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 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
                    9 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.