Comment on Why are so many leaders in tech evil?

• TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  He was a big defender of paedophilia, necrophilia, incest, and bestiality. He thinks people should have the right to fuck their pets or their children. Not to mention the reports on his creepy behaviour with women.

  Stallman is an incredible steward of FOSS, but he is not a decent guy overall.

  source

  • rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Let’s note that necrophilia with mutual agreement (pre-mortem, and same with cannibalism) and incest with mutual agreement (between adults) are fucked up, but should be defended. Animals can’t consent, children can’t consent, so not that.

    Not to mention the reports on his creepy behaviour with women.

    That - yeah.

    But I guess it’s another sobering reminder of why celebrity worship is bad. I see way too many people try to bury or deny his scummy side, just because they worship him as a FOSS celebrity figure.

    Believing in discourses and narratives without understanding that they are never real is bad.

    You can believe only in what you see with your own eyes since inception and till death.

    source

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      and incest with mutual agreement (between adults) are fucked up, but should be defended.

      Why are you saying between adults, as if that’s what he said? He was talking about children. I even provided multiple examples of him saying so.

      source

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        He’s saying all of those. Those concerning children obviously can’t.

        source
  • wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I had never heard that about him. That’s disappointing.

    source

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Yeah, for me too. Because I love practically everything he says when it comes to software.

      “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

      RMS on June 28th, 2003

      “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.”

      RMS on June 5th, 2006

      "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

      RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

      In the interest of fairness, he did claim to have changed his mind on some of this, although that only happened 2 days after his job became on the line after making strange comments about Epstein.

      For me, suddenly having a change of heart on a decades-held (and publicly-championed) opinion, only to suddenly change your mind the second it threatens your job seems a bit too convenient, so I’m unwilling to believe it.

      source

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Holy shit…

        source
      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        as long as no one is coerced

        Well, the opinion that a child can consent is technically acceptable, because the line at 12,13,14,16,18,21 years is arbitrarily drawn which is why it differs in various countries.

        But in practice he should have used common sense and at least drawn his own 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.”

        That’s scary, but I’m not sure how really wrong he is. The issue is again with child’s consent being less certain, affected more easily by various distractions.

        so I’m unwilling to believe it.

        So am I, the question is whether he has internal consistency or not in his views. If yes, it’s still better than, well, just being a jerk and proud of it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I would say it’s not a sincere change. It’s groupthink.

        Well the skit keeps getting smaller and smaller

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The FSF isn’t exactly what you think of when you hear the words “large tech company”… but you could argue that in some ways it is one couldn’t you… 😁😛

  source

  • wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    You could, but the OP is talking about the people who became filthy rich or at least notable. I don’t know if Tom ever made any real money. Almost all of the people listed used their corporate power to smash competition and dominate the market.

    If anything, Stallman is the antithesis of most of these people.

    source

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      …yahoo.com/…/tom-myspace-sold-social-media-153011…

      Don’t know how he invested it but the guy certainly wouldn’t have had to work another day in his life

      source
• exu@feditown.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  What he did is important, but he’s definitely an asshole as well

  source

  • wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Old captain crunch is another one that turned out to be a weirdo

    source
• helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  he was never the leader of a large tech company. That’s probably why he’s a decent guy

  I think you have that backwards.

  source