I don't support anyone unconditionally. I don't think anyone should -- we (all) are smarter, more discerning, and capable of dealing with things like ambiguity.
I read only a little bit (the begining) of the Register article covering the interview with Richard Stallman, and from what I read there, I think he was unfairly judged with respect to his remarks about the Giuffre incident. From: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_final_interview/ ` Said alleged victim, Virginia Giuffre, earlier said she was told to have sex with Minsky at Epstein's US Virgin Islands retreat. It is claimed she was 17 at the time, in a place where the age of consent is 18. Minksy was 73. Stallman's post to the MIT mailing list argued, in a spectacularly insensitive fashion, that Minsky may not have been aware Giuffre had been coerced to have sex. "The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing," Stallman wrote in his post last Wednesday. "Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term 'sexual assault' in an accusation." ` I also see, in the next paragraph, this: ` On the internet and in news publications, this attempt to downplay the alleged rape of a teenage trafficking-ring victim didn't go over well, and led to further scrutiny of past emails and online posts that made matters worse. He had previously expressed skepticism of age of consent laws and of the wrongness of "voluntary pedophilia," suggesting there is no harm done if a child and an adult have consensual sex together. ' and later: ` And he renounced past statements about pedophilia. He wrote, "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why." ' So: * for what Stallman did for the FSF and such, I thank and applaud him * for his remarks about the Giuffre case, I feel he has been misjudged and treated unfairly, and if I could (reasonably) do something to redress the wrong, I would try * for his remarks about voluntary pedophelia, those (imho) were very wrong and very unfortunate, and I don't respect him for having made those remarks. It does seem, though, that he has changed his mind and repented. For changing his mind, I also applaud and support him. Do I feel that he should have lost of any of his positions based on this incident? No. I guess I'm saying that he (like all of us) should be judged on actual facts, and not blindly supported (or castigated) and, at least in some cases, be granted forgiveness for some past sins. Now, if he had actually had sex with a child, I don't think that could or should be forgiven. If he had sex with a child, I could still thank and applaud him for his contributions to Free Software, but punishment for a crime such as pedophilia (which was not suggested in what I read) should be swift and sure. Hmm, what about Marvin Minsky -- could he really have thought that a 17 year old (or possibly a seeming 18 year old) wanted to voluntarily have sex with him? I suppose it is possible, but ... And, thinking back, I guess what Stallman was doing was, in essence defending Minsky. Could Stallman really think that Minsky really thought the 17-year old was voluntarily interested in having sex with him? I guess I have to think about that one. My overall points though, include: * that we can judge some of the actions of any man one way, and other actions by the same man another way, and sometimes one can overshadow the other, and sometimes not. * I don't wish to judge a man and, for example, excuse all his sins because of some good he has done, nor to forget the good a man may have done because of his sins. But that doesn't mean his sins should be forgiven if they are "factual". On Thursday, September 19, 2019 05:19:50 AM aprekates wrote: > I want to express my support to Richard Stallman amidst a smear attack > on his person, on his right to speak, but mostly to what he stands for . > > I stand by Richard Stallman because expressing our thougths is not a > crime but a human right. > > I stand by Richard Stallman because i need an uncompromised authentic > voice reminding me the ethic weight of our actions when we choose how to > use, produce share software and not a voice caressing my consciousness. > > I stand by Richard Stallman for the freedom he brought to our digital > world. > > Alexandros Prekates > > email: apreka...@posteo.net > social:apreka...@diasp.eu > chomw...@fosstodon.org > > > ps: for the members of the debian community not fully aware of > attack i'd recommend as entry readings: > > https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/ > > https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 > > http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/128122
