Bye bye gnu
Other urls found in this thread:
he's a jew
epsteins a jew
gnu is an israeli backdoor gangbang
Stallman is 100% about this desu.
Well...its something...
Now that's intolerant against our Muslim friends.
They misrepresented what he said tbqh. He only said that the rapist may did not know he was raping someone because they "presented themselves as willing", probably thanks to Epstein force.
All the girls are portrayed as "victims" because women always get to escape any form of responsibility. The reality is that they were a bunch of sluts looking to get some easy money without having to do much so willingly went along with everything. No one forced them to do anything at the knew exactly what they were doing.
The guy that pioneered the Linux movement is a pedo? I would have never guessed
>They misrepresented
No. They didn't misrepresent him, they plainly lied.
You CAN NOT believe that he actually said this if you read what he wrote.
>pedo
Where is the pedophilia?
There is no evidence that I have seen that the guy he is defending fucked a child.
i emailed Stallman in like 20011/12 or something (was posting the response on /prog/ (RIP /prog))
He ended up saying some shit about how he wanted to be a sex ed teacher, and fuck the students.
no trole XD
Probably memed you like many others
Those times are getting so confusing.
Still gassing the kikes still seems like the most reasonable option.
Bullshit, post the email with DKIM or I won't believe you.
I'm locked out of that account now. Google realised I was using it for trolling
Was totally real though
Hot ladies.
Slayyyyyyeerrrrrrrrrrr!!!
You're saying you don't use an email client that saves emails locally? Then you're trash and I don't believe you.
mudslims are not our friends
This isn't technology, it's e-celeb drama.
Depends on how you define a child. Obviously you shouldn't have sex with pre-pubescents, but 2-digit age people are already fine with sex.
>A 10-year old is fine with sex
Pedo fuck off, the days we accepted this on Jow Forums are long over
If you didn't have a sex drive when you were 10 then you're autistic.
Hang on, I'm going to see if I can recover the account.
Give me half an hour
Well well well, give me a sec
It's a longish conversation, I'll poste it to a pastebin
does it have gpg signing?
else it can be easily be fake
I had a gf when I was 10 and no-one had any thought of sex
Nigga there's loads of PI in there to my real ID, I'm not posting loads of that shit.
Here's a pastebin
>I had a gf when I was 10 and no-one had any thought of sex
Bullshit. I've been jerking it since I was 8.
FUCKIN SSSLAYYYERRR
>no dkim
Fuck off. Nothing in that thread surprises me or is particularly shocking though.
It's a rando conversation I had with RMS in 2011 in which he said some stupid shit, and I said some stupid shit (classic interviewer technique of trying to get the person to open up more).
It wasn't GPG signed or any of that shit, it was me emailing him from a Gmail account. I could post headers etc but not really much point. Also my real name is attached to the emails.
Take it as what you will.
He's disavowed these views now I believe.
/prog/ was laffin hard at him saying teachers should fuck their students kek
Just because you jerked it does not mean you associated it with sex m8
dont believe its real but I kek'd
if you can't spot that autistic neckbeard mode of thinking about wammen as Stallman the toejam eater, I don't think any proof would satisfy
It doesn't need to be gpg signed, dkim headers would be enough to verify it was sent by him with a reasonable amount of certainty. Am I supposed to believe this email address contains your last name, and that "Google realised I was using it for trolling"?
to elaborate, I don't think the entire thing is fake, but I don't trust the content to be 100% verbatim. [someone] could've easily added a few sentences here and there without breaking stallman-like wording
The email addres sdoesn't contain my last name, but some google assigned headers to it do.
wtf is a dkim, can I show you this without giving that other shit away?
You know what, not worth the risk
I haven't changed anything, was a literal copy and paste. My desire to keep my identity secret is far greater than any desire to appease qualms about the veracity of the email.
Everyone has different experiences but thinking that children don't think about sex or want sex is dumb as fuck. Several of my friends had sex when they were 14 and 13 and they have no "mental issues" now, in fact some of them are in a relationship and doing better romance-wise than most people I know. Obviously they didn't have sex with people that are above 20 but even if they did it wouldn't matter much. An adult will probably be more considerate and careful during sex than a teenager would. But I'm not saying that there's no chance that they're an abuser or just want sex and not an actual relationship, which would probably scar the other person. Thing is, teens are the same. Your personality is already built when you hit puberty so most people who are sexual predators now were also sexual predators when they were in puberty.
Based, redpilled - and absolute fact.
>The email addres sdoesn't contain my last name, but some google assigned headers to it do.
>wtf is a dkim, can I show you this without giving that other shit away?
Dkim signs the entire email including the headers. If you sent stallman your full name along with your email, and his reply also included your full name in the headers, then that's your own damn fault for being an idiot and not using your own email client.
But really I don't see anything shocking or bad about the emails. He seems to be talking more about his general ideas of how sex should be talk, rather than responding directly to the more specific question about sex ed in public schools. He probably thinks someone slightly older who's not necessarily a stodgy 50 year old schoolteacher should casually teach sex ed, including pleasure.
I don't see any scandal or anything worse than things he's posted publicly.
>wtf is a dkim, can I show you this without giving that other shit away?
Open the email, click "show original", and paste the email headers in pastebin. Get rid of any of your private info before posting it here.
14 and 10 is a huge fucking difference man. You start developing it at 12-13
If the headers include private info and he removes it then we won't be able to verify the signature. He should only bother posting if the entire email, including headers, doesn't include his private info.
Oh. Guess I didn't know how DKIM worked.
only if the private info is in DKIM headers. According to standard the only mandatory field in DKIM is the sender.
When I said 2 digit I didn't really mean 10. But you start developing at 9-11, actually. And imho it's not that bad for kids to experiment with non-intercourse stuff once they hit puberty. Hand holding, kissing various parts of the body and mutual masturbation is nothing dangerous (obviously they shouldn't do it with someone who is 21+) and if they're interested in it you shouldn't stop them through legal means. Parenting should be left to parents, not the government.
(me)
that being said, it also only verifies the contents of the DKIM header, so we might learn that stallman did indeed send an email at that data and no guarantees whatsoever to the contents of the mail
Is he not allowed to have an opinion? He makes a lot of good points.
I don't see it as that shocking either. I'd been a /b/tard for a few years already by 2011. I just thout it was lulz he went around saying shit like that while not anonymous
>it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
>This ‘child pornography’ might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared. It might be an image of a sexually mature teenager that any normal adult would find attractive. What’s heinous about having such a photo?
>everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.
>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
>"prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia.” The computer scientist responded, “All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”
>Even when it is uncontroversial to call the subject depicted a ‘child,’ that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone, so and [sic] if you or I think it is disgusting, that is no excuse for censorship.
He's not wrong in any of this.