In movies and books one dimensional, boring sort of characters, are those that never change throughout the story. Good stories contain character growth. A change in the character's world view. Think of Jake Sully in *Avatar*: He starts as a marine, ready to shoot and kill every living thing on Pandora. And end up being the leader of Pandoran resistance.

On the internet people tend to think that other people are set in stone when it comes to their believes. That other people are one dimensional characters without character growth what so ever. If one is born with a flaw, or has a recorded history of a flaw, therefore, using the logic of the citizens of the internet, this flaw is unremovable, untouchable, and unchangeable truth representing this person's every second of existence. That is so silly. The world is full of character growth. The world is full of people learning new things. The world is full of people that change their mind.

I mean it seems like most people on the internet would be terrible screenwriters ( which is good, for those of us that can write a descent script ). But it is not good, in general, when it comes to being a 3-dimentional character yourself. As Drew DeVault demonstrates in his recent [article about harassment he experienced](https://drewdevault.com/blog/Addressing-harassment/).

DeVault states in his article that at one point in his life he made this comment:

> I’m of the opinion that 14 year old girls should be required to have an IUD installed. Ten years of contraception that requires a visit to the doctor to remove prematurely.

Just to denounce it with these words:

> This comment was reprehensible, as were many of the awful ideas I held at the time. Many years later, I can recognize that this comment is misogynistic, denies the agency of children and women over their own bodies...

This, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of character growth. In one stage of life you believe one thing and in another stage you believe another thing. That is how people work. This is why my older articles on this website have a little disclaimer on them, stating that a lot of time had passed since I wrote them. And that I might have changed my mind on the subject.

You know, back when I was 13 or 14 I hated James Cameron. I hated him because he made Avatar, about which everybody talked about. And that overshadowed Steven Spielberg's existence. When I was 16 I hated Michael Bay, or any film / filmmaker that has a lot of success ( apart from maybe Steven Spielberg or James Cameron, whom I started liking by that point ). I was in a cohort of moviegoers that prioritize art over spectacle. I was following the idea, some people have, that true art in cinema should generally be unknown to the vast majority of audiences. And that if a film is trying to be successful with too many people, it is not profound enough.

How blind I was. The strength of the environmental message of Avatar lies in the fact that movies in this franchise each make billions of dollars. Billions of dollars that represent billions of eyeballs. If nobody sees your political movie, does your political argument even exist?

Drew DeVault and Richard Stallman have a rivalry between each other. Or more accurately Drew DeVault has an issue with Richard Stallman, while Stallman supporters have an issue with Drew DeVault having an issue with Richard Stallman. Which makes it so Stallman supporters have an issue with Drew DeVault.

As I've stated in my other articles about [Drew DeVault](), I'm from a cohort of people that supports Stallman. This website, for example, is specifically banning "The Stallman Report" co-authored by DeVault from federating. Even though "The Stallman Report" is not an instance of the fediverse. I put it there out of protest.

But since I read "The DeVault Report" which I argued was a [spiteful metajoke](/articles/Is_The_DeVault_Report_a_Spiteful_Metajoke) I started respecting Drew DeVault, even though I still have an issue with him having an issue with Richard Stallman.

In a way, the political views I arrived at, through multiple decades of growth as a human-being myself, that I illustrate in detail in my [autobiography](/articles/the_psycho-sexual_analysis_of_blender_dumbass) are similar to various things both Stallman and DeVault have stated in one form of another. And which paradoxically is what DeVault thinks is wrong with Stallman.

As I already mentioned DeVault stated in his article:

> I can recognize that this comment is misogynistic, denies the agency of children...

"Denies the agency of children". This is the important bit. This is the bit DeVault paradoxically argues against Stallman, who is also pro-children freedom.

My films [I'm Not Even Human](/films/I'm_Not_Even_Human) and [Moria's Race](/films/Moria's_Race) ( and the movie project I work on right now ) are about this very topic. Agency of children. They are about giving kids their freedom. Freedom against all types of subjugation and abuse that they face today due to paternalistic unreasonably restricting paranoia driven spiteful metajoke laws.

Richard Stallman expresses this very idea through his strange psycho-sexual wording and gets attacked by DeVault. DeVault that himself expresses the very same idea his own way, for which he is also being attacked.

You know what. I get why we have Age Verification. If people get mad at you saying that kids should be free, how can we not have something as stupid, something as paranoid and paternalistic, something as spiteful of a metajoke as fucking Age Verification!!!

**Happy Hacking!!!**