[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Women and GNU and RMS (was Re: something else)

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: Women and GNU and RMS (was Re: something else)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 18:28:04 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

If censored, this message will be published. If you are thinking of
censoring, instead, ask me and propose me which politically incorrect
sentences to delete from here. Please don't send my nonsensical
denigrating comments how I shall "calm down" or "think". Thank you

* Sandra Loosemore <> [2019-11-01 16:52]:
> I'd like to clarify some things, and provide some references.  Since I sent
> my original post in this thread, several people have accused me of
> slandering or defaming RMS, lying about what he has said, making false
> accusations against him, repeating false media reports, and the like. Well,
> I am not a liar.
> I'm aware that some news reporting and social media posts have inaccurately
> characterized RMS's remarks about Virginia Guiffre as a defense of Epstein.
> I'm aware that is not what he actually said in that particular instance, and
> I have not repeated those false characterizations, or based any of my
> thinking on that inaccurate reporting.

Thank you Sandra, good for pointing that.

> Here are some actual things that RMS has said about sexual exploitation of
> minors, with references to the sources of the quotes.
> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.

Actual quote is:

"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."

I understand that it is talk about "harm" and it is connected to
legality terms and definitions in the USA. If you travel around the
world, you may find that age of consent is somewhere 13 years like in
Japan, somewhere 16 years maybe like USA, and so on. In Germany is 14
years. Do you know why is so? Because those children sexually mature
and engage in sex. Then comes the case that somewhere it is classified
as "pedophilia" and somewhere it is not. It is political debate where
RMS is engaging as observer.

Homosexuality was also classified as mental disorder from 1952 to
1973. Would RMS be talking about homosexuality in that period of time,
some people would be acting in the same manner as you are acting now,
labeling somebody for opinions on what is harm and what is not harm.

It does not apply to GNU. It is irrelevant to GNU if RMS thinks that
it doesn not harm children if they voluntarily engage in relations
which may be known in some countries as pedophilia.

There are many countries where children with 13 years engage in sexual
activities, I can also say that when they do so, it is really
questionable if there is any harm there. Go and travel around this

> Cody Wilson has been charged with hiring a child sex worker. Her age has not
> been announced, but I think she must surely be a teenager, not a child.
> Calling teenagers children in this context is a way of smearing people with
> normal sexual proclivities as perverts. [...]   She may have had — I expect,
> did have — entirely willing sex with him, and they would still call it
> assault.

Well said. Journalism shall be decent, it is not, it is ready to label
people for misinterpretations. Focus is on how media is
misinterpreting and labeling people who did not engage in any rape,
rather it was by mutual consent.

> Possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia .... should
> be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of
> prejudice and narrowmindedness.

Exactly. There are much more horrific pictures which caused harm to
other human beings but pornography of whatever kind. By posessing a
picture, one does not commit any harm to anybody. Why should a person
be punished or criminalized for posession of a picture? That person
did not harm anybody.

> There are many more of them, but you get the picture.

I get the picture in the sense that RMS talks of misinterpretation by
media and labeling and criminalization of people who did not commit
harm to others.

RMS never defended illegal acts. And that is the fact. 

> These are the kind of statements I referred to as disgusting in my
> previous message.  And yes, these quotes came from his personal web
> site and not the FSF or GNU project, but it's an organizational
> problem when RMS's public comments in any forum result in news
> coverage like this

That is just one of social issues as of these years, many social
issues related to sex were in past, including homosexualism, today we
have criminalization of incest in many countries, we have transgender
and gender issues. If RMS would be speaking of these issues back in
time before some decades, there would be people complaining.

He makes valid points, valid from legal point of view and valid from
constitutional points of view. 


That article biased and facts were already debunked here: and here so I am not understanding
how your repetition is not moderated and why my messages are not
passing into this mailing list.

> that all highlight his organizational ties and role in the free software
> movement.

His opinions are not related to GNU/FSF. Of course he has
organizational ties.

That somebody is inflating and accusing innocent, if you are standing
for justice, then stand for justice by respecting your own
constitution and defend innocent people.

There are true criminals out there to hunt. RMS is not one of them.

> MIT got the brunt of it because of their other problematic
> involvement in the Epstein scandal, but note that the reporter of
> the first article linked above is specifically asking for help in
> investigating abuse in the open source community (with the
> underlying assumption that this actually exists and is a serious
> problem) so we've all been tarred with the same brush.  Beyond the
> news articles, there've been a *ton* of blog and social media posts
> trashing both Stallman and the free software community for looking
> the other way for far too long. Some of those comments have been
> wildly inaccurate and off-base, but there is a public perception
> that the problem is all of us, not just RMS.  :-(

That is right, and it is our responsibility to debunk and provide true

Finally, RMS was speaking for those people who are mislabeled as being
monsters while they are not. He is speaking for injustice. Everybody
of us have various different sences of justice. But follow the thought
of RMS and you will see that he speaks of justice and morality.

> I'm confident that RMS's statements on child pornography, pedophilia, etc do
> not reflect a consensus view of the GNU developer community.

Because GNU project is for free operating system and is not there to
pretend to be

> So why can't we stand up and say that this is not us?

You can and you do.

But if you do so, then you are allowing one new direction in the GNU
project, that everyone involved in the GNU project should go around
GNU contributors and whoever else is related and connected to GNU to
see if that person did not say maybe something politically incorrect,
so to cancel the person, to take down the person for reasons of saying
something that you or anybody else thinks it was not politically

And what is politically correct is changing every few months.

Because it would make nonsense out of one organization that shall be
focused on free software philosophy.

Because RMS is innocent.

When somebody is innocent shall not bear any consequences for reasons
of any opinions.

By the way, do you know that free software may be used by worst people
on this planet? By terrorists, and all kinds of criminals, killers,
etc. Because there is freedom zero.

If we are furthering freedom zero, that means we are protecting also
free speech. I really wonder how many people don't see the point.

Look at this piece of software for example:

however, that piece of software is licensed under supposedly "free
software" license, but it is not.

Look what is written here:

"The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."

and look into this issue:

where author said:

"This Software must be used for Good, never Evil. It is expressly
forbidden to use YouPHPTube to build porn sites, violence, racism or
anything else that affects human integrity or denigrates the image of

Author is making video software similar like YouTube and is forbidding
"evil" and allowing "good".

We are left to his decision what is evil and what is good. Author is
forbidding "violence", and user is subject author's decision on what
is violent. Maybe video game is violent, I do not know. Racism can
include many various subjects. And "anything else that affects human
integrity" -- is to me so much vague, and in the end renders such
software non-free.

Analogously if you think that RMS shall be witch-hunted down for
reasons that there is rumor in media and inflation of accusations,
without not one person being injured -- and that he shall be taken
down from GNU project, then why not straight delete and cancel freedom
zero, so that we forbid using software by people who are violent,
criminal, that we forbid rapists using GNU software... let us go with
it, let us destroy freedom zero as well. Is that direction you wish to

If we are bashing RMS for his free speech, then we are subject to your
opinion, and opinion of other people who joined in defamation of the
founder, on what is "good" and "evil".

We are subject to be punished by your opinions.

We become all subject of mob justice.

And that is absolute absence of any justice.

It is analogous to lynching.


The noun lynching has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts)
1. lynching -- (putting a person to death by mob action without due process of 

> It makes no sense for us to die on this particular hill trying to
> defend those views or to defend having him as the public face of our
> organization.  And trying to excuse him by claiming he didn't really
> say those things is not going to work, either, because the evidence
> is there.

I gave you links which are proving that media is inflating
accusations, but whatever he said, one stable information is that RMS
is innocent, and there is no harm or injury to any person.

Stick to that, if you are confused.

> I can talk about my own personal experiences working at the FSF in the early
> days of the GNU project in a separate post if people are interested (it's
> mostly tangential to the current discussion about leadership), but for now
> let me just say that I enjoyed my time there and have always been grateful
> to RMS for finding me something useful and fun to do when I was between real
> jobs.  I don't have a grudge against him, and I'm not trying to smear him
> with fictional stories of things he didn't really say or do.  It's the
> things he really *did* say that are problematic.

I suggest:

Protect freedom of speech.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]