Sterling Archermedes

Yeah, I agree that you don’t say that stuff in public these days, and I have always felt that, with Romeo-and-Juliet exceptions, the age of consent should be respected.

Keep in mind that, around the time RMS posted those more controversial blog entries (which I still feel are being quoted out of context [1]), the Wikipedia was allowing out and out pedophiles to post their disgusting and repulsive pro-pedophilia advocacy [2]. And, yes, I found that advocacy repulsive back then and find it repulsive today. [3]

[1] https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ No, I did not write this article, but I think it makes some legitimate points.

[2] https://archive.is/iG9KX (Trigger warning for victims of child sexual abuse)

[3] At https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13&diff=prev&oldid=4770710 (Again, trigger warning) I expressed my opinion in 2004 that what the Wikipedia was allowing w.r.t. pro-pedophile opinions back then was repulsive, an opinion I still hold today.

> it was his insinuation that it was somehow OK if his recently-deceased mentor Marvin Minsky ... had sex with a 17-year-old on Jeffrey Epstein's private island.

Here we go again indeed..

> Comments are closed.

of course they are, they might point out the factual errors in the premise, especially given that no links or quotes of Stallman are provided to suggest what the basis of that premise is.

FYI: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/

Is there a petition I can sign to support removing (from positions of leadership) people who spread malicious/unsupported misrepresentations of people?

EDIT: two people at least have down-voted this, without providing any kind of rebuttal to my claim that this blog post is spreading misinformation. So, is this because they believe it not to be the case (but aren't keen on rebutting it) OR is it that they don't care if it is true, it is simply an inconvenience to their political outlook?

The point is - I've seen plenty thrown around, most very clearly manipulated. What's more - some small amount of them made me doubt in Stallman a bit, like the "knight for ladies" thing, but after a while it turned out it was manipulated as well, so... it feels like standing on rms side here might be a pretty safe bet after all.

If you're too lazy to do the research yourself, I've even found a page that collects it and does proper justice to objectively present them in full context: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ (although this text could do just as well with a few less "paid to write, not to read" repetitions...)

Most people point to his essays on GNU.org

The best I could determine is that his treatment of chosen pronouns got him labeled transphobic, the abort joke is him being misogynistic (that was him preserving historical/cultural context) in addition to a rather unfortunate lapse of character when coming onto a student once. Most everything I've found tends to map back to stuff dredged up while he was under fire for the Minsky stuff.

Got a thorough write up of the debunking of lies though!

https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/

Enjoy!

Those are terrible starting points.

For the actual background on the current chain of events at MIT:

https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/index.html

For earlier allegations, take the original sources including quotes and references:

https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html

(note: there are many more archives. This also gives you an idea of the effort it must have taken to find those few "damning" posts, and to skew those out of context)

> Also, he's... extremely problematic, to say the least, in many other areas.[0][1][2]

Regarding that drama

https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web

https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/

https://twitter.com/thomas_lord/status/1174433654942007297

https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman/

https://medium.com/@whoisylvia/richard-stallman-has-been-vilified-by-those-who-dont-know-him-a3907b25b4c7