I can link you a few, such as the titles of https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r... and https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient...
>after this all blow up
He changed his mind on or before 2016, before this all blew up https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biograp...
Is it wrong to be skeptical of stuff? We aren't all born with the innate knowledge that "voluntarily pedophilia harms children", it is not something that I personally agree with but surely you also at some point thought of something that the wider society would consider as disgusting, his blog just served as a place to put some random raw unprocessed thoughts that he had on news stories.
How does it apply to the article below?
https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html
To me, if anything, it applies to you.
Correction of omission: he changed his mind 2016 or earlier.
It’s a lot of words that are likely to sound convincing to those who already believe he didn’t do anything wrong, but to most people seem to be just a list of excuses.
> ... and then says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be "entirely willing".
https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
The dead comment next to mine has more examples. That said, the line
> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
is incredibly disgusting, no matter how you look at it.
This all reminds me of the sexuality portrayed among children in Brave New World, or the supposed homosexuality of Ancient Greece. What I suspect is happening here is that even voluntary pedophilia is harmful for children relative to our current society, but who knows what the case would be in a very differently structured society. Sexuality by definition is largely about how we relate with other people, so what is our isn't harmful in sexual development almost certainly depends at least in part on the society we live in.
Which means that forces that want to conserve the relevant aspects of our society have an incentive to censor RMS on any thoughts along those lines.
I still don't think "disgusting" is the right category for RMS's "thinking out loud on the internet", but the remark was definitely dangerously naive of the developmental stages of children.
It's also sobering to see how easy it is for myself to write something that can be interpreted to sound much more nefarious than what was really in my head when I wrote it.
On that topic though, I understood it to be an academic exercise, just a case of internal inquiry, and not a statement of personal motivation of any kind. I don't believe it is disgusting to objectively consider any concept without bias, even if I disagree with the consideration itself. Consideration of any ideas being off limits is indistinguishable from heresy.
They don't actually defend the content of "Email #2" but instead claimed that people said untrue things about it and then said those were "lies." But without citing the untrue claims they're debunking, they're just punching air, while leaving the actual inflammatory content of "Email #2" largely uncontested.
Their Claim #4 debunking is essentially just saying "this is accurate, but he changed his mind at some point after this all blow up" (in Sept 2019). Keep in mind that Claim #4 is "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntary pedophilia harms children" from 2006 until it was recanted 10+ years later.
Honestly contrition and growth are better avenues for Stallman rather than this type of "attack the critics" stuff, in particular when they're as weak of defenses and nameless critics as shown here. This is one of those things that someone should have written, read back, slept on, and then hit the delete key because they realized it defeats itself.