Supporting Richard Stallman's Political Discourse On Sex

  Blender Dumbass
December 11, 2023

👁 74

https://blenderdumbass.org/software/freecompetitors : 👁 1

I have been given a goldmine link by Beans @MyBeansAreBaked@linuxrocks.online which is an article from a Free Software enthusiast Drew DeVault @drewdevault@fosstodon.org on his distaste towards Richard Stallman's @rms@mastodon.xyz views on sex. I will be criticizing Drew DeVault's views while supporting Richard Stallman's.

Richard Stallman, a chairman of the Free Software Foundation and the leading man when it comes to all things Free Software, is known for his rather strange views when it comes to sexuality. His unorthodox methods of reasoning gave us Free Software, but in the same time, gave us controversies such as the infamous Marvin Minsky incident, and spawned an army of ill-minded people against him.

The article by Drew DeVault about the matter, which I will criticize here is available using this link. Please read it first, to understand the context of my criticisms.

Acute Stress Response Warning

I have published an article lately titled 3 Things Keeping Us From True Freedom in which I argue that there are 3 major problems with the current state of things, which are making True Freedom practically impossible and attempts at improving freedom mostly futile.

One of the 3 things is the inability for people to understand each other due to an unfortunate process humans have in their brains called "Acute Stress Response". Or a stress-like fight of flight instinct that we have while people try to present us with an opposite world-view to that which we have.

I will be approaching the article logically, without much regard to your emotions and therefor might trigger your Acute Stress Response, so please be aware of that.

Another thing "Paternalism" will also play a role in the article.

Context

In 2019 Richard Stallman resigned from the Free Software Foundation's board of directors for misunderstandings over alleged support for Jeffery Epstein. In the text which was used as evidence of his support for Epstein, Stallman instead argues that a completely different person, who was connected with the case of Epstein, Marvin Minsky is not as bad of a criminal as people say he is. Stallman had to clarify himself multiple times and I already written a few articles about this piece of text. The article by Drew DeVault is also quoting this text as a kind of evidence that Stallman is a bad person.

In 2021 Richard Stallman came back to the board of directors of the Free Software Foundation spawning a renewed interest in controversies surrounding Stallman. Most of the attention from people against Stallman were brought against Stallman's unorthodox views on sex. Which in their opinion were not something a person should have.

Only using these two examples, we already can see that we are talking about Freedom Of Speech here and not some kind sexual crimes from Stallman. Because he didn't do any. But the article of DeVault suggests that mere presence of unorthodox sexual viewpoints such the ones from Stallman is enough to treat the person as if he is a criminal committing some kind of serial rape or something.

The entirety of the article is hammering down the same point over and over. And the point is: Stallman has strange sexual viewpoints, therefor he must be dangerous.

This is a non-sequitur and a complete misunderstanding of Stallman's viewpoints.

Let's Go Over DeVault's Article

The article starts with assertions that some people believe Stallman changed his mind over some of his most controversial statements. For example in 2013 Stallman said the following:



And then in 2019 he said the following:



Which a lot of people took as a reversal on the part of Stallman when it comes to his ideas on the matter. But then the article by DeVault goes into lengths to let us know that Stallman didn't change his mind at all.

DeVault talks about various other things Stallman had written, to suggest that Stallman is a sexual criminal of some kind. Specifically DeVault repeatedly points the attention of the viewer to a distinction Stallman makes between "Children" and "Teenagers". Which seem to have no apparent distinction to DeVault himself. And he repeatedly points to Stallman's political pieces where he supports people that were prosecuted or punished for various kinds of sexual misconducts.

In my opinion, any lawyer that would ever defend anybody who is persecuted for any kind of sexual misconduct, would be as bad as a serial rapist to Drew DeVault.

More than that, DeVault is seemingly unaware of Stallman's distaste toward the legal system. And argues from the perspective of the legal system. For example he writes:


From the perspective of the legal system this is true. Legally speaking minors cannot consent ( up to a certain age called the age of consent ) to sex. But it doesn't mean that they cannot consent outside of legal framework. And therefor we are having the "2+2=5" paradox with this particular set of laws, which Stallman disagrees with, while DeVault fails to question.

"2+2=5" is an example from the book 1984 by George Orwell where he suggests a possibility of the state making a bogus claim which would be illegal not to believe to, but is obviously false. If there would be a law saying "2+2=5" it would be a law. And legally then two plus two would equal to five. But outside of the legal framework, within reality, two plus two would still be four.

In the legal framework today it is true that minors cannot consent. But that doesn't change the reality outside of the legal framework where they can consent.

There are obvious problems with it that the legal framework is too lazy to address. Like the claims Richard Stallman made in the 2013 post, where the second half of it was:


Law is nowhere near a reflection of truth because the world is infinitely complex. No matter how much you zoom in, you will still see details ( unless we are talking about the plank length ). Therefor the law will never be able to reflect on every possible issue there is to reflect on. And therefor people should always be critical of law. A failure to reflect could potentially be a cause for mistreatment. And Richard Stallman is a man who is dedicated to finding those failures of law.

He did it with copyright. With software patents. With DMCA laws. With business supremacy treaties. And with various discrimination policies. Including this paternalistic law that says that a child does not have a right to consent. Yes. There is consent. There is no right to it, legally. And Stallman is fighting against this discrimination.

Further Drew DeVault is writing about Stallman's "inability" to comprehend "power dynamics". First claiming:


And then he brings up a post by Stallman where he is seemingly unaware of such power-dynamics. Commenting on it:


This is a flawed logic. First there is the presupposition of some kind of power to begin with. A director is not necessarily the most important person. Even if he is the person in charge of the work. For example let's look at Top Gun: Maverick. The director of the movie is Joseph Kosinski. And there are actors such as Jennifer Connelly that worked on the movie. But the main and the most important person on set is not Kosinski, but rather Tom Cruise. It is easier to replace Kosinski, and it is easier to replace Connelly, but it is out of the question to even consider replacing Cruise.

In such a case Connelly and Kosinski are on the same playing field, while Cruise is higher in the power structure. But the law in this case would still find Kosinski as the one above Cruise. ( If we let ourselves forget that Cruise is also a producer on the film ).

The fact that a person is legally higher in a hierarchy doesn't immediately mean that he has more power. And this is what Stallman is trying to tell by judging situations as they are, without much regard to what they should be if two plus two would equal to five. If law would be taken as fact.

And then, he is not saying that a presence of a power structure doesn't exist. Again, the first quote makes it apparent that Stallman is more than aware of this problem.


The solution to the power dynamics problem is not to make it illegal to those higher on paper to have sex with those lower. But rather to make it possible for ones lower to not consent to it without any repercussions. Say a boss could fire you from your job because you said "no" to him when he asked for sex. The law should not prohibit the asking. Or the consenting. It should prohibit firing you if you said "no". Therefor canceling the power dynamic and making it a plane field.

At the moment the law being the one prohibiting the asking is doing a number of problematic things: It is attacking the Freedom of Speech of the one asking; it is taking away the freedom to consent from the one answering. And even if it is making some progress. It is doing more harm than good.

With children, there perhaps should be a governmental structure, or a part of the school curriculum making sure children know that they can say no. Not only in sex. In anything. And they should know exactly who to talk to when somebody does something to them even if they said no. And this should be done to everything, not only sex. Yes it would mean that all laws forcing children to do various things would not be justifiable to those same children. But those forcing laws should not exist anyway, since they are not serving nobodies freedom.

There are only 3 types of laws. And only one of those types should stay. The other 2 types should be abolished. The 3 types are:

- Freedom Laws: Such as "Don't Rape" or "Don't Kill" which are laws that punish those who try to take freedom away from people. If a person doesn't want to have sex with you, but you force it on that person, it is illegal. But consensual sex is legal. Therefor it is a freedom law. Those are good laws when written well.
- Power Laws: Such as "Copyright" or "Don't criticize the state". Those laws do not serve nobody's freedom, but rather serve somebody's powers. Those should be abolished.
- Paternalism Laws: Such as "Don't cross the road on red" or "Minors can't consent". Those laws limit freedoms because of Paternalism. And therefor they should be abolished.

I don't know if Stallman ever heard about Paternalism. I tried using the search-bar on his website to look for "Paternalism" and it gave me no results. But from what he describes when talking about minors he is describing paternalism. Perhaps he came to paternalism on his own and still didn't coin a term for it. Therefor what I did was to send him the following email:








I hope that Drew DeVault will re-consider the views of Richard Stallman. And I hope Richard Stallman will either use the word "Paternalism" or coin his own word for it that he believes reflects the meaning better. And help up us thus finally get rid of this nasty problem, to insure more freedom in the world. Especially for children.

Happy Hacking!!!

Subscribe RSS

Author
Website

In my opinion
Post

  Anonymous Guest c:0


I don't agree. Kids cannot consent to sex. I doubt mant adults can consent to sex. I dount many people can consent to anything. Exploitation starts small but can escalate very fast. I think the law isn't strict enough. Sex apart from reproduction and porn should be discouraged. Idealy everyone stops themselves. Practically this shit cannot be stopped. This is a talking point that is completly irrelevant. I think kids are so unrealiably able to consent to sex that it should be forbidden. I do like germanys laws. Kids under 14 cannot have sex with anyone. I do dislike kids over 14 being able to sleep with people over 18. If your 16 you should be able to sleep with up to 21 year olds. Obviously no law is gonna prevent children getting hurt. And where there is no victom there is no crime. I do think you can even be sexually exploitet well into adulthood. Many people stay immature. Esspecially if they have been exploitet before. It is discusting and evil shit. I think there are more kids regretting giving "consent" than regretting not giving consent. Thus kids should be prohibitet from giving consent. With kids i mean everyone up to 21 years old. From 14 on you get limited consent. Even though age isn't perse maturity it is a relaible measurement. A 21 year old will always be more mature than a 3 year old. Well exept if they are severely retarded but that's another story. In the end sex is bad. Sex should not be done. Same as eating, breathing, anything pleasurable is BAD. But we do have to cope. We cannot stop. I personally do masturbate. I do breathe and eat. In a perfect world alot of things would be right. But i think giving kids the permission to consent to sex. That won't make anything right. Giving permission to kids is wrong why? It is giving a right yes. But it enables people to do wrong. Alot of things are like that. I am 100% lets legalize all drugs. But i do concern a little bit. People need to earn to be permitted to execute their rights. After that they cannot be taken away they are rights not privilidges afterall. But maturity needs to be proven. The first step is deatigmatising sex. Less buzz buzz. Sex needs to be seen as what is is. A means for reproduction and pleasure. It will never happen. It is the source of niggersness in humans. As soon as sex is talked about everyone goes monkey. You can sexually abuse people older than you. But mist likely older people will abuse younger people. You can talk theory alot and it is true yes but practise is diffrent. Timmy(6) has to be forbidden to consent to Walter(56). Even if timmy really wants it. Even if timmy sais yes and enjoys the sex with Walter. Even if he really desires it. Because in 99% of casee he does not. He thinks he does. He got indoctrinated. Kids want to be liked they will copy behavior. They are lkke dogs. You can make kids exited about eating brokolie if you pretend it's a plane. Same goes with teenagers and it works in adults too. But it works 10x better in kids. And because it works so well and realible and easy in kids and teenagers there needs to be a dynamic age of consent. Let's say maximum age diffrence 5 years. Or 25%. No sex before puberty. No pubes no sex. Yoy are permitted you have sex once you grow pubes . Permittet to have sex with people at maximum 25% older than you. This would protect children very well. Would also prevent old fuck from exploiting young women in their 20's. Would unfuck alot if things in society. Yeah it would harm some people. But would be beneficial to far more.

  Blender Dumbass c:1


To the anonymous I would answer this:

There is a difference between discouraging and forcing not to do. Discouraging is free speech and therefor is okay. Forcing not to do is Paternalism and therefor is not okay.