• alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.org
    shield
    M
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    FYI: if you are an active apologist for Stallman in this thread, you will be indefinitely banned from Beehaw. to the extent that Stallman has salient critiques of anything he’s under fire for (as @t3rmit3@beehaw.org notes), his use of those critiques is almost exclusively to advance horrible, indefensible, actively harmful ideas. if you actually care about the merits of these subjects, nothing he argues is actually best argued from him. almost anybody else would be better served as a mouthpiece. and it is just incredibly silly to stand by the guy who took until 2019 to retract his belief that pedophilia isn’t harmful to children just because, as a foundational belief informing that position, he reasonably thinks we infantilize people between the ages of 12 and 17 too much

    • BCsven@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      Aside for all his pedophile view points, he is correct about infantilizing 12-17 year olds. We have helicopter parents removing every roadblock for children, they grow up not knowing how to plan or resolve conflict.

      • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Aside for all his pedophile view points, he is correct about infantilizing 12-17 year olds.

        …you’re just repeating my point back to me, and why Stallman is the worst mouthpiece for this position.