Title: Weaponizing Taboos to Oust Undesirables
Created: 2019-09-19
Alt-Title: How the "social justice" movement knocked down FOSS for PC corporatism
Author: zlg
Edited: 2020-05-25

(Warning: you're probably going to be offended by these words. I don't care.
Nobody forced you to visit this page and nobody will mind if you leave.)

In recent drama, Richard Stallman has been painted as a rape and pedophilia
apologist, and defending a sex trafficker. I won't link to sources because they
don't deserve the revenue. The whole Internet is buzzing about this
misrepresentation presented as fact, and it's disgusting.

The statements written by Stallman caution readers to consider the specific
charge when accusing someone of something, to ensure that the facts and the
appropriate charge are used; and with it, states that his (deceased) colleague
Minsky, if he had sex with one of the young women, it was likely he did not know
she was trafficked or was being coerced. In such a situation, Minsky may have
been guilty of statutory rape at worst, without further knowledge of the
interactions. (i.e. if he had sex with her, he would have unknowningly committed
sexual assault; the young woman would still be a victim, but the crime is
different) Witnesses have claimed that the young woman propositioned him
(under duress perhaps) and Minsky declined.

So, the media has knocked over a pedestal -- symbolically if nothing else -- of
the FOSS community using misinformation tactics and playing into peoples' deeply
held beliefs. How did they do it? Through outrage, lying, and taboo.

Taboo is a cultural ban on something. It's supposed to be reserved for actions
or behaviors considered detrimental to a functioning society, to encourage good
habits over bad. Y'know, things like having sex in public, urinating or
defecating in public, invading someone's personal space, intimidating someone,
etc. It's also a short in the circuit of rational thought when used as a weapon.
Normally rational people will be brought to a foaming rage when the right
combination of evocative words is used, because their culture has told them to
believe a certain way about something.

What is curious is what people are really crying foul about: Stallman's history
of controversial opinions regarding pedophilia and consensual sex with minors.

Firstly, a distinction: pedophilia is defined as the sexual desire for
prepubescent children. It comes from Greek /pais/ (genitive /paidos/) (child)
and /philos/ (loving). A feeling on its own does not harm anyone, and that
distinction needs to be made if we are going to cope with pedophilia as a
maladaptive trait. Feelings and fantasies are normal things to have; people are
not expected to *act* on their fantasies, because a civilized society demands
that people control their impulses. We as a society should be able to
distinguish thought from action, and help those who have thoughts that we
believe may be problematic by steering the behavior toward something healthier.

The more controversial view appears to be Stallman's argumentation regarding
consent, and more specifically on how arbitrarily the line gets drawn. All case
studies conducted regarding pedophilia and the effects of sex with children have
involved sexual assault. Stallman is not saying that people should go out and
diddle children. He is saying that to have a robust understanding of the problem
as a scientist, you need to consider other variable values. That includes
instances of adult-child sex where both walked away feeling positive. Or, in SJW
speak, cases where a child was convinced they consented to sex and walked away
positive until someone told them it was bad.

To deny that possibility is myopic at best. Now, the real beef culture has here
is the belief that *no child can consent to sex and therefore cannot enjoy it*.
Well, why can't children consent? Scientifically speaking, their brains are not
fully developed yet. Adults are literally smarter, stronger, and have more
social influence (depending on the group). The power dynamic is lopsided. But
what is consent?

Sexual consent is agreeing to let the other person touch you in a way that
brings you to climax. It's trusting someone with your body, to not hurt it,
disfigure it, shame it, or bruise it. You're trusting them to bring pleasure
instead of suffering.

Why is a child incapable of that? Further, why is it so forbidden to ask frank
and earnest questions such as this? Taboos must be backed up with reasoning and
evidence if they are to be taken seriously. We don't let people piss in the
street because it makes people sick and smells bad. We don't let people diddle
children under a certain age because we're afraid of what it might do to them.
We think that an adult can only ever abuse power in such a situation, but never
think twice about the concept of a child's agency and consent.

Psychologists have noted sexual behavior in children as early as 4 and 5 years
of age. Like it or not, children will feel these impulses -- they just won't
know what they are for a while. At that stage of development, the sexual
behavior is purely idle instinct. By their teen years, children are typically
aware of which sex, if either, they are attracted to. It's part of growing up.

Now to tie it together, we draw a line somewhere that, magically, a child
graduates from "no you cannot consent to sex and we'll ruin the life of anyone
you DO have sex with" to "ok have fun and use protection". What kind of message
is that sending about sex as a subject? All adults were once children. We
remember puberty and our teen years. What could adults do for children who are
discovering their sexual sides to help them explore concepts that are central to
healthy sexual lifestyles? For those not following, I'm talking about education
and open communication, not having sex with them. How many parents are able to
have candid and supportive conversations about sex with their children? To teach
them about consent, dos and don'ts, how to identify harassing behavior, etc.
These are essential skills for adulthood and yet nobody really teaches them. We
are afraid of what will happen to children when they are exposed to sex, but do
little to prepare them to figure it out for themselves, even.

Stallman did not advocate for anything worth calling for his expulsion over. He
asked for people to use the correct words so they do not misrepresent past
events or conflate legal accusations. In a legal context, especially, words and
charges take on different meaning. There's a difference between sex trafficking
and sexual assault, and pedophilia is not a crime because it describes a
feeling. The problem is in turning that thought into action, and only under a
certain line that differs between jurisdictions. By definition, the line is
arbitrary.

Here's where it turns black. All of this hooting and hollering (which has struck
tons of communities and individuals, like Opal, FreeBSD, Linus Torvalds,
Theodore T'so, and now Richard Stallman) has pointed the spotlight on key people
to shame them for various perceived cultural missteps that can only be described
as "they said something I don't like".

Strangely, it's only been striking the libre software community for about the
past 4-5 years. Some butthurt hackers get denied from a group or a project,
pretend it has something to do with their identity, and rally pitchforks to
mobilize the media to usurp control of the narrative by shaming and excluding
prominent figures using misleading and polarizing tactics to foment controversy
and poor optics. It's the equivalent of an angry mob showing up at your work and
demanding your removal or they block business deals until they get their way.
It's not a choice; it's an ultimatum.

Social justice is better described as an illegitimate younger sibling to real
justice, who works through conniving and underhanded ways, targets the socially
less adept (especially those on the autism spectrum), and checks boxes on
diversity lists. A legal court must follow some semblance of procedure and
legitimacy to enact its justice. Social justice is no better than petty thuggery
that is damaging a significant portion of our culture, all because some dare to
think (and speak) differently from them. How tolerant and inclusive.

I see this series of character assassinations as a campaign to discredit the
libre software movement and replace it with the politically correct, never
"problematic" corporate-driven open source model. By the way, could some SJW
define what "problematic" means in newspeak for me? Doubleplusthanks.

Culturally, America is a nation that is ever more fearful and outraged as we
keep melting away privacy and security in our lives in the pursuit of endless
growth and a feeling of safety. Painting someone to be defending a shitstain who
is now dead in order to remove his wholly earned position and legacy as a free
software advocate is the most intellectually dishonest thing I've seen all year.
I hope this bites you all in the ass as people put the pieces of your corrupt,
desperate agenda together.

And the responses from the libre software community are atrocious. You
completely took the bait and didn't read Stallman's words. I will not be
donating to the Free Software Foundation or any other organization that lacks
reading comprehension skills. I've donated to over 4 projects this year, to vote
with my wallet. I had considered donating to the FSF in the past, but the
sacrifice of your leader to appease the vigilantes is dishonorable and I will
not reward that behavior.

Shame on all of you. Do yourself a favor and stop reading JUST the headline.
There are sociopaths (high social skills, low empathy) in our midst and they
want control. They are not afraid to mislead to gain the advantage. Don't give
it to them.

I very much want Richard to stick around as a (now independent) prominent voice
for freedom. He actually practices what he preaches, and his dedication is how I
was able to learn programming. Without the GPL, I wouldn't have had access to a
toolchain that is free of charge and provides the source along with it. I grew
up poor, and without any access to formal computer education. His contributions
to mankind outstrip anything the outrage peddlers can come up with. Perhaps the
social justice movement should try building something for themselves instead of
tearing down what others have built.

-z