this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024

1246 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

58083 readers

3134 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1246

Google pulls the plug on uBlock Origin, leaving over 30 million Chrome users susceptible to intrusive ads (www.windowscentral.com)

submitted 1 month ago by mesamunefire@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

301 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children)

He has went on record multiple times saying having sex with children (even within the family) or family pets is fine. Eating his foot gunk is the least of my issues with him.

That said, when it comes to warning about software, he was pretty bang-on.

[–] mikegioia@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 month ago (16 children)

Post the link to him saying that having sex with children is okay

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (15 children)

It's pretty well-known at this point, I thought? Regardless:

"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

You can find these on Stallman's blog, which I believe is Stallman.org iirc. Just go to the dates I provided.

[+] mikegioia@lemmy.ml -8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I cannot find any of this on his blog, why didn’t you just link to his blog?

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I did link to his blog... It's stallman.org

I said from there you can go to the dates I provided.

I don't wish to be rude, but do you really need this hand-holding? It took me less than 10 seconds to find a specific link to the first quote, for example:

https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html

Did you really look?

Stallman being pro-paedophila is not new information.

[+] mikegioia@lemmy.ml -9 points 1 month ago (5 children)

You pasted the domain not an actual blog post link. And you’re the one making these claims about him on a forum, does it really surprise you when someone asks for the source? Sorry you had to google something.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

Sod off, sealion

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I gave a link to the source, his blog, and gave instructions on how to find each statement. I even gave timestamps.

I gave you the source as soon as you asked. The source is Stallman's blog, stallman.org.

Apology accepted, don't worry about it. You just came across as a bit of a sealion, that's all.

Anyway, the point is, yes, Stallman has been a repeated defender of paedophilia and having sex with family pets.

Personally for me that's a mark against him. But that's just my opinion, a lot of people in the Linux don't really mind.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You were the one looking for proof? Then you do the googling.

That is how this shit works, genius.

[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You've got the burden of proof backwards, pal.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Lucky this isn't a court of law, buddy.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago

Online discussions aren't formal debates, bud.

[–] mikegioia@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This makes no sense. This person made a claim and I asked what the source was. Shouldn’t they know where their own comment came from?

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Mike, you came at this person twice. He gave you a url and since you're on Lemmy we assume you're at least halfway internat savvy.

In my shoes I'd have at least put in a few minutes of effort to look for the information on that site. Or even a general search. ANYTHING to evince my capability for critical thought.

You were given 99% more than most are in this type of exchange and still lazily demanded more. You didn't just ask and you weren't all that polite. I found it lazy. That you appear to feel a keen need to have the last word in this type of situation is also worth a bit of reflection.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. But I'll take that downvote and no reply as a "yes, you were right. Stallman is a disgusting supporter of child rape and bestiality".

Perhaps you can learn from this. Celebrity worship is bad. It blinds you to the faults of people. Stallman doesn't deserve your simping.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

You calmed down? You agree he supports paedophilia, yes? The evidence is right there. I provided sources for you a bunch of times.

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments (18 replies)