• yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      I sometimes like to read his political posts:

      https://www.stallman.org/archives/2025-jul-oct.html

      And honestly? I mostly agree with them? Like this:

      ABC ordered to pay Antoinette Lattouf another $150,000 for unlawful termination over Gaza Instagram post.

      But a company faced with enormous threats wielded by fascist officials who demand that certain views be suppressed will treat such penalties as the normal cost of sucking up.

      The [Israeli] army says that HAMAS is using apartment buildings for “surveillance”, and has bombed some of those buildings to destroy them. Based on this logic, the army might bomb every tall building in Gaza City with the large bombs that the US is providing

      He has some questionable beliefs as well, though for unusual reasons. He accepts non-binary people but refuses to use they/them pronouns because he doesn’t like the ambiguity of singular/plural pronouns. So he has invented the neopronouns per/pers to refer to singular non-binary persons. I genuinely think no other person on this planet could hold this opinion.

      • primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        Okay that’s all cool or cool-and-stubbornly-autistic. But he has some other opinions that are not, about consent and age.

        So the blanket ‘fuck yeah, stallman!’ Doesn’t really fly anymore.

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          Hasn’t he admitted to changing his opinion after learning about the effects on children? I’m not in the loop about this.

          But yeah, you definitely shouldn’t treat his words as gospel. A lot of questionable-at-best stuff in there.

          • kadu@scribe.disroot.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            13 days ago

            Hasn’t he admitted to changing his opinion after learning about the effects on children?

            He did. The argument against him was half based on misquotes and incomplete sentences, but the other half was indeed once his opinion - he argued that age of consent was a dumb concept and that instead it should be based on what the child wants to do and any harm they were subjected to.

            He later on said he regretted this view because it was explained to him that there’s no ability to consent and this always causes harm to the child. His original arguments were, in typical Stallman fashion, quite obsessed with definitions themselves, almost as if the subject at hand didn’t really matter he was just bothered about how the definition had some flaws.

            But even with that in mind… I can’t feel comfortable knowing he defended this point of view, and it does significantly harm my opinion about him.

      • _cnt0@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        I criticized singular they/them for increasing language ambiguity and suggested replacing it with something new like xe/xer multiple times. The reply is usually a shitstorm and downvote tornado. I’ve given up on that front.

          • waddle_dee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 days ago

            I always found this argument funny because how would you use pronouns for someone whose gender you do not know? They. It’s they. E.g. you are given the sentence: Jordan went to the store to buy apples. And you want to ask a followup question regarding how many, you reply: How many apples did they buy? It’s not that complicated. They has been used for gender ambiguity in everyone’s lives since grammar school. People just have an inherent bias towards trans folks and it’s incredibly depressing and sad.

            • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 days ago

              It hasn’t been used for “gender” ambiguity, but sex ambiguity, because the separation of sex and gender is only a recent thing and it’s not even unanimously accepted.

              • waddle_dee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 days ago

                Oh my gosh, you’re being pedantic. It has been used for “gender” ambiguity for quite some time. If you choose to be ignorant, then that’s your dill, pickle. At the end of the day, you get to choose whether you make someone happy, or sad. Why is that difficult? Why can’t you comprehend the concept of providing joy to someone? Why can’t you just be nice? That’s what this whole thing is about, right? You can either choose to be nice, or not. And I’m so tired of arguing with people to be nicer. Why can’t people get it through their thick skulls, that people just want to live and be considerate of each other. That’s what we all want, right?

                • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  Is calling an extremely underweight anorexic person healthy, a good weight, and encouraging them to keep losing weight the right thing to do? Is that good because it’s providing joy to someone?

                  • waddle_dee@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    11 days ago

                    Are you arguing that using the pronoun, they, is equivalent to someone harming themselves? Friend, you need to argue better. You are arguing like a college dropout. You’ve re-contextualized the argument in it’s entirety. Try again, or don’t. But stop coming at me with your weak ass, bullshit talking points. In the illustrious words of our dear leader, SAD!