Everyone who defends Mr. Stall the Man is willfully ignoring the bigger picture

>When the truth happens to reinforce a stereotype, as long as the people talking about it pay no mind to the stereotype and focus only on the actions of the individual, the stereotype is not in fact reinforced

Truth is no defense for antisemitism.

What a fag

I didn't have a better pic of him
The free software movement will have to find a way to be the same without him, and I believe they can. I believe they can escape the overzealous and covertly corporate-motivated grip of the SJWs without falling back into letting their criticisms ring true. I believe the FSF can remain uncompromising in the face of this incident, and refuse to let government or megacorp representatives into their ranks, without continuing to let themselves be associated with chauvinism or pedophilia. Freedom has overcome higher hurdles in the past.
I never even brought jews, as a whole demographic, into this conversation. Unironically, everyone other than myself is the antisemite here for trying to say RMS's qualities as a person somehow mean anything about jews in general.

>destroying autists is ok because they aren't pretending to be normal like i am
No user, you are the one who doesn't belong in the free software movement.

Attached: __lio_fotia_promare_drawn_by_zumi_tiri__601ab419a7aadf254b40c8cfd46d8964.png (900x900, 660K)

>telling a woman you'll kill yourself if she doesn't go out with you
wtf source?

Nice job completely missing the point. Whether he's normal is not the issue. His eccentricity has been self-evident this entire time, during which time no one was really vocally against it, nor should they have been, not in and of itself at least. In fact, as I've already stated, if I could still in good faith accept his eccentricity as the sole explanation for all of the above points I've made about his behavior, then I'd have no problem with him either. The issue is that there were this many of them around such similar themes. It exposes a repulsive facet of his character which I can't ignore.

>wtf source?
A roll of salami told me.
medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88

>tell some shitty jokes in the early 1980s
>lose my life's work 40 years later because of those jokes
Yup, makes a lot of sense

Attached: 1458846701091.jpg (1024x1372, 203K)

Same old tactic, refusing to see the bigger picture. The issue isn't the joke, it's the sum total of the joke and the other four things.

Okay, I hope you never did anything stupid your entire life and never held any controversial opinions else we'll gas you

Don't question women. Believe her.

Like I said, it's not the individual behaviors, it's the sum total. I've done stupid things in my life, but connecting the dots doesn't construct an incriminating narrative regarding my character.

You still haven't stated what your big picture view actually is
If you think of him as a "degenerate" or similar then you probably shouldn't be on Jow Forums in the first place

>You still haven't stated what your big picture view actually is
I believe I have.
>Notice all the "ors." I can't believe a AND b, AND c, AND d, AND e. Assuming any one of these explanations individually makes perfect sense, but assuming all of them makes less sense than the alternative explanation that he's just a chauvinist and a pedophile.

read his website to get a good idea of the kind of person he is

>chauvinist
haha what
>Chauvinism is a form of extreme patriotism and nationalism and a belief in national superiority and glory.
???

He's a good man and believes in good things. But he's also a womanizer and a pedophile. Everyone is a good person and a bad person. Everyone has strong points and flaws. There are some flaws I can't overflook, no matter what strong points they may accompany.
I misused the word. The colloquial meaning I intended in using it is antiquated.

>There are some flaws I can't overflook
That's your problem.

>I've done stupid things in my life, but connecting the dots doesn't construct an incriminating narrative regarding my character.
How do you know for sure that what you have done isn't considered wrongthink in the future? Most of your problems regarding Stallman are things he has done or said in the past. All it takes is one line in one email for someone to dig into your past and try to cancel you.

>He's a good man and believes in good things.
you're an idiot
>But he's also a womanizer and a pedophile
He not's a "womanizer", he's some who repeatedly tries to hit on people in a creepy fashion because he can't get any, kind of the opposite really
not a pedophile either

It only sounds like my problem because I chose to put it gently. What I really meant is that there are certain flaws that are unforgivable in general.
If anything I've said or done is exposed as unforgivably immoral in the future, I'll just let myself be cancelled, because I don't value my life.
>He not's a "womanizer", he's some who repeatedly tries to hit on people in a creepy fashion because he can't get any,
That's what I'm talking about. That's one way of being a womanizer. Hitting on people in a way that makes them uncomfortable.
>not a pedophile either
I'd like to believe that, but the bigger picture tells a different story.

>there are certain flaws that are unforgivable in general
The nazis said the same thing about the jews
The peasants said the same thing about """witches"""
etc

>The nazis said the same thing about the jews
They were right.

>The peasants said the same thing about """witches"""
Christians are cucked retards, more news at 11.

Ascribing unforgivable flaws to an entire demographic because of the observed behaviors of individuals is itself an unforgivable flaw, especially if you choose to take action to correct those flaws by force. I'm criticizing an individual and that individual alone, which is how criticism should work.

go back to your containment website, child
Ascribing unforgivable flaws is the only unforgivable flaw.

Since when is referring to a guy as a serial rapist "defending him"?
>i am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily[shit he never said]
What he did mean was that little Suzy realizing rubbing her crotch on Uncle Ben's thigh when she climbs in his lap feels good probably isn't the end of the world. Then he went on to say that on the other hand "children are too easily coerced to give consent".
That one sentence that's constantly posted out of context to allegedly prove he's an outright pedo at one time was an excellent google search term to find his full statement. But haters are so fucking persistent in reposting it everywhere that I don't think you'd ever find it unless you bookmarked it about 2 years ago.

>Ascribing unforgivable flaws is the only unforgivable flaw.
I strongly disagree. Abusing children, or standing in support thereof, is unforgivable. Sexism is not unforgivable, but I allege it here to support the bigger picture I claim.

Stallman did absolutely nothing wrong.
You can stick your big picture up your ass.

Who is the slut from the pic?

Fuck Stallman. He tried to steal Linus Torvald's operating system (Linux) and call it his own (GNU),

A piece has been removed from the board This is good.

>all this autism
People have different beliefs. Stop being a fucking nazi and supporting (((cancel cult))) just because of your "b-but it DOES matter if a person is 18 and not 17 before they fuck and nobody is allowed to argue against this" nonsense. People have sex when they're 13/14 and live happy lives. Kill yourself you fucking chastity supporter.

Yes it does. You just don't realize it until someone puts all the "bad" shit you've ever done into a fucking book.

>flaws I can't overlook
You're not trying to befriend him irl, you fucking idiot.

A seventeen years old femanon

>unforgivable
Don't you have some bibles to read?

Whether he is or isn't a pedophile, someone as skeptical as him should've known that expressing his pedo-enabling views could easily be used against him. So, at the very least, he's an idiot. Probably some kind of pedophile as well.

I think "transsexualism" is retarded and don't believe trannies deserve any more "rights" than non-trannies. However, I'm not naive enough to think I can freely broadcast this position, with no expectation of professional consequences.

I'm also glad he's gone.

Attached: 1553488056619.jpg (554x439, 106K)

>Since when is referring to a guy as a serial rapist "defending him"?
You're confusing Minsky with Epstein. Stallman did in fact defend Minsky, which is fine, because all current evidence suggests Minsky did nothing wrong. His choice of words entailed by CONNOTATION (NOT by definition) that Giuffre was entirely willing. He actually said she probably presented herself as entirely willing, by which he meant that Epstein probably coerced her to present thus. However, I think it's clear he was aware of the connotation he was creating, and did so deliberately. That is, from the words he chose, it's clear he believes Giuffre did genuinely consent, even if that's not actually what he said with those words. Again, this is especially evident in context of his past claims. Each allegation on its own can be explained away just as you're doing here, but all of them together make the more incriminating explanation more persuasive than those you would use to explain them away individually.
>"b-but it DOES matter if a person is 18 and not 17 before they fuck and nobody is allowed to argue against this"
I don't care about this, I care about the bigger picture. Stallman was right about every individual controversial thing he did and wrong by virtue of being one person who did all of those things.

>the bigger picture tells a different story.
no it doesnt
you cant tell the difference between a social clueless retard and an actual pedophile

>don't believe trannies deserve any more "rights" than non-trannies
I also believe this. Pronoun culture is stupid and a clear overreach on transgender people's part. However, I'm glad people no longer stone transgender people to death.
I feel that way about a lot of SJW topics in general. I align with them politically in many ways but firmly believe they need to take several steps back, and especially stop accepting cooperation from corporate monopolies and remember that ending capitalist tyranny used to be part of leftism too.

His social cluelessness is a sufficient explanation for each of the points I outline, but not for all of them. That difference between "each" and "all" is what convinces me he's actually a pedophile.

I'm still amazed to see Jow Forums support Stallman even less than fucking Jow Forums.
This board has truly reached a new low.

what got him forced out is his self proclaimed pedophilia

Why should I support someone who was plausibly in the right for doing every individual thing he did, but proved he was a pedophile by doing all of them instead of just one or two?

Because he did not and you are a tryhard faggot.
Made me reply/10.

But it's the more plausible explanation.
Each individual event is more plausibly explained by his social cluelessness, but because of the way they relate, all of the events together are more plausibly explained by being a pedophile.

You claim RMS chose his words poorly, but that's not what RMS is well known for. It's dumb people interpreting their stupidity into perfectly sane logic.

Two weeks ago the board was all about meritocracy. Two weeks ago nobody called Stallman a pedophile. It only took a blog post from someone you don't know to change your mind. Is this a board takeover?

literally the opposite happened

Sane logic, poor choice of words. Poor choice of issue to discuss really.
You do understand the difference between definition and connotation, don't you?
Words say more than just what they literally mean.

>Words say more than just what they literally mean.
that's some amazing gymnastics, schlomo

>His social cluelessness is a sufficient explanation for each of the points I outline, but not for all of them.
Yeah you're an idiot
He's mentally deranged, not a pedophile
He only ever said one or two things about the topic anyway, how is that enough to convince you?

The only two (2) things that could plausibly be linked to him possibly being a pedophile are:
>defending minsky (very, very loosely)
>claiming that "voluntary" sex with minors harms them
Everything else can't possibly have anything to do with his potential pedophilia. You are stretching everything he did way too far in order to make him look like someone he's not.
Just admit you're being intellectually dishonest instead of whining about your beloved "bigger picture". You sound like a middle school student who came across this term for the first time and now wanted to boast his newfound literary repertoire on an anonymous imageboard, defaming someone to boot.

I'm more amazed you can bring yourself to deny it.
>He only ever said one or two things about the topic anyway,
Two.
>how is that enough to convince you?
Because it's more than one. He posted about it more than once, so it's obviously a matter he has some stock in. Granted, only two such posts weren't quite convincing enough for me. His sexist behaviors are what convinced me those two posts needed to be considered as symptomatic of an underlying trait.

>with no expectation of professional consequences
That kind of reply is the most orwellian rebuttal in the history of human debate. If there is no freedom from consequences, then there is no freedom. Granted there are things that have natural self-inflicted consequences, like overeating leading to being fat. No law can protect against that. However, if there are consequences of another kind, then it's not a freedom.

With this kind of logic, you could say that everyone has a freedom to do anything, under any system. You apparently have the "freedom" to murder, just not freedom from consequences. People living in North Korea have the "freedom" to criticize the supreme leader, just not freedom from consequences. You have the "freedom" to find some upload of the Windows source code, read it, and develop from it, but there will be "consequences". We can play this game all day.

Not saying you're making that argument. but fuck i'm pissed. Justice for Stallman.

Was this meme saved at Jow Forums, uploaded to imgur for reddit purposes, reuploaded to pinterest, reuploaded to instagram, screen cappped and cropped on a phone and reuploaded to Jow Forums?

You're extremely quick to judge and a poor judge of character. As if being "sexist" somehow relates to being a pedophile. He said he didn't see anything wrong with it, in the same way he didn't see anything wrong with beastiality or necrophilia, which is completely in-line with his stupid mode of thinking and not an indication he actually does it

>Everything else can't possibly have anything to do with his potential pedophilia.
Sexism can be understood as supporting evidence for being in support of pedophilia. People who have no respect for either sex are more likely to see nothing wrong with coercing them into any action at any age. That applies to feminist extremists who think it's okay to molest young boys, too.
>You are stretching everything he did way too far in order to make him look like someone he's not.
I haven't falsely reported anything he did. The worst you can say about my allegations is that they don't connect the way I keep insisting they do.
>As if being "sexist" somehow relates to being a pedophile.
See above.
>However, if there are consequences of another kind, then it's not a freedom.
Not him but I strongly disagree. Freedom is not freedom from consequences in general, freedom is specifically freedom from consequences under law.

>His choice of words entailed by CONNOTATION (NOT by definition) that Giuffre was entirely willing
No, he literally said she was coerced into presenting herself that way. There was no "probably" or vague reference of that. it's what he said. Read the fucking email.

I don't see any bigger picture here. Where is the issue with this, is the man too rational for you?

> could believe he believed children could give consent solely because he hadn't seen any evidence to the contrary
Uh yea? Plus this was an issue about children only if you're crazy enough to think 17 years old is a child. But that's objectivel like what, 5 years past childhood?

>Sexism can be understood as supporting evidence for being in support of pedophilia. People who have no respect for either sex are more likely to see nothing wrong with coercing them into any action at any age. That applies to feminist extremists who think it's okay to molest young boys, too.
This is all pure conjecture on your part. There isn't a single logical relationship between any of the stuff you said.
>The worst you can say about my allegations is that they don't connect the way I keep insisting they do.
That's exactly the point everyone here is making. The so-called "connections" you see are weak and require lots of surmising, even when taken all together.
>freedom is specifically freedom from consequences under law.
Morals, ethics, law and justice are all different things. You seem unable to see the difference, which brings your ability to spot supposed "connections" among behavior and beliefs in doubt.

>Sexism can be understood as supporting evidence for being in support of pedophilia. People who have no respect for either sex are more likely to see nothing wrong with coercing them into any action at any age
You have absolutely no understanding of the topic
Pedophilia has nothing to do with lack of respect
Why are you spouting shit like you know what you're talking about

Yes, he did literally say that, but the connotation of his choice of words still suggested the opposite. That's the sort of blunder that I, for one, would gladly ignore, not like Selam who jumped at any chance at all to blow someone's words out of proportion and accuse them of all kinds of shit, but many such incidents of hazy connotations amount to one incident worth of a clear incriminating picture.
Child molestation may very well have to do with lack of respect depending on the perpetrator's mindset. I'm inaccurately using the term "pedophilia" as an umbrella term for child molestation and supporting child molestation. I'm doing this deliberately because it's a more convenient way to refer to these things and this is what people wrongly understand the term to mean anyway.
>This is all pure conjecture on your part.
The evidence is circumstantial, sure, but the sheer amount of circumstantial evidence justifies prosecution. Metaphorically, that is. Not literal legal prosecution. He hasn't done anything illegal.
>The so-called "connections" you see are weak and require lots of surmising,
Indeed.
>even when taken all together.
I don't see it that way, and it's clear to me that those who do are forcing themselves to ignore the obvious.

>>This is all pure conjecture on your part.
>The evidence is circumstantial, sure, but the sheer amount of circumstantial evidence justifies prosecution. Metaphorically, that is. Not literal legal prosecution. He hasn't done anything illegal.
>>The so-called "connections" you see are weak and require lots of surmising,
>Indeed.
>>even when taken all together.
>I don't see it that way, and it's clear to me that those who do are forcing themselves to ignore the obvious.

>Child molestation may very well have to do with lack of respect depending on the perpetrator's mindset
You're completely wrong, why are you pretending like you know about this topic? There is no evidence at all that he is a child molestor, and there is extremely weak evidence that he is a pedophile

Glad he's gone too: the foss community shouldn't have fat, awkward spokespersons who aren't good at publicity and new, high quality, relevant output and aren't reaching large audiences.

>why are you pretending like you know about this topic?
I do.
>There is no evidence at all that he is a child molestor,
See OP. There is ample circumstantial evidence that he believes in molesting children, irrespective of whether he's ever done it. Sufficiently ample to overcome the fact that it's all nothing but conjecture.

>He didn't say he supports pedophilia, he just said he wants proof.
Rind et al proved that, well, his skepticism is justified.

Go shill your pedophile propaganda elsewhere.
>b--b--but it was written by a """""feminist""""""""""""

The bigger picture is that RMS is a pure soul with only the best in mind for people. His downfall was simply touching taboo topics in order to make things better, nit worse. It's nit a bad thing to be sceptical and to talk about taboo topics an who else should do it, if people like him?

He's a great leader for the FSF because his purity and stubbornness that kept the FSF free from corruption for many decades. Good luck finding a replacement.

You don't if you think "lack of respect" has anything to do with it, except in the most vague of terms in that everyone who hurts another person lacks respect for them (obviously)

"Freedom" has never really existed, as there has always been some kind of caveat or limiting scope.

>"You can do Y as much as you want, as long as you don't it to X."
>"You can say whatever you want, as long as you don't say X."
>"You can go wherever you want, as long as you don't go to X."

If there was a thing such as "freedom", it wouldn't come from the government or laws anyway.The purpose of societal living and government has never been to "give" people "freedom", but instead to promise limited freedoms in return for imposed constraints. Much like a domesticated animal that's free to roam an entire fenced-in field.

Even the cavemen probably had to watch what they said if they didn't want to get their heads bashed in. "Freedom" is--and has always been--a meme.

Attached: 1555417226511.jpg (900x810, 55K)

The way he talked about those taboo topics demonstrated he harbored unjustifiable private views on them that didn't stand for the people's rights and freedoms -- not if you consider children people, that is.
Lack of respect does have to do with it. Sexism obviously doesn't lead directly to molesting children, but it can be used to justify it, and it can be a contributing factor. Not always, of course. They aren't inextricably linked. But circumstantial evidence never is. That's its nature.

cringe thread op

There is no "justification" for being a child molestor. It's not something that has a motive, it's not like murder

>bro you're being really cringe right now do you have any idea how much of a cringe normie you're being

Im going to unsubscribe if this continue bro

I don't care about personal lives of people like this. I care about results. Fuck off with your faggotry.

It is indeed something that has a motive, and that motive can vary, but sexual attraction / desire / frustration almost invariably plays into it.
However, a justification is completely different from a motive.
A justification is a story we tell ourselves to fabricate a motive we're willing to admit to, in place of a motive we can't accept.
If I were to molest a 3-year-old girl because I was a horny pedophile (>inb4 hurrr durrrrr are you admitting something to us duurrr duurrrrrr dyuurrrrrrrr) but I didn't want to believe I was the kind of person who would hurt someone for a reason like that, I'd come up with a justification.
If I also happened to be a sexist piece of shit, that justification might look something like this: "She's a girl. Girls aren't people anyway. She would have just grown up to be a drain on society. I should've killed her while I was at it."
If I couldn't come up with a justification I could accept, that might deter me from committing the rape.
At the very least, it would certainly deter me from ever publicly advocating that others take such actions, or believing in my heart that it's okay for them to do so. Whether I wound up committing the rape or not.

>A justification is a story we tell ourselves to fabricate a motive we're willing to admit to, in place of a motive we can't accept.
That's exactly what I'm trying to say, being a sexist isn't a justification for being a pedophile, it's an excuse if you're caught, which is why him being a sexist (he isn't even a sexist, no idea where you got this from) isn't evidence that he is one

>(he isn't even a sexist, no idea where you got this from)
See OP.
>isn't evidence that he is one
It's supporting circumstantial (abductive) evidence that in his heart of hearts he supports molesting young girls as something acceptable, which is what I mean by pedophile, regardless of the fact that that's not the correct use of the term.
Not only is it circumstantial, it's such weakly correlated circumstantial evidence that it would mean nothing at all on its own. But there's too much of it for me to view the situation so optimistically.

>someone has an opinion
>OP is glad someone like that got punished and is gone
ok

I'm not glad he's still alive, but I'm glad he's gone.

Nothing in the OP is sexist, unless you mean the image, in which case the person in the picture isn't actually him
He doesn't support or believe it, he made an intellectual proposition that there's nothing wrong with it that doesn't have anything to do with what he supports in his "heart of hearts" (using that phrase makes you sound mentally deranged)
He didn't say "I support it", he said "I see nothing wrong with it"
There is plenty of evidence that he is creepy around women, but being creepy around woman doesn't mean you are a sexist who hates women or wants to harm them - he just makes them uncomfortable, he makes everyone uncomfortable regardless of gender

Yes. The opinion that a man's freedom of sexual expression is more important than a little girl's right not to be traumatized doesn't belong on the board of a free software movement.
Really? I'm glad he's still alive. He hasn't done anything he deserves to die for. I'm not glad he's sexist, but I'm glad that's probably the reason he used a suicide threat to try to make a woman go out with him, because if the reason had been that he was actually suicidal, that would be bad, because he doesn't deserve that.

Stallionman fucks dead puppies confirmed

Greentexting a ridiculed version of another post is not a valid argument.

Attached: paul_graham_hierarchy_of_disagreement_1__605.gif (849x526, 34K)

I have one response to this entire post.
Muh bigger picture.
That's literally it.
>Nothing in the OP is sexist
>There is plenty of evidence that he is creepy around women, but being creepy around woman doesn't mean you are a sexist
Muh bigger picture. He liked to show his mattress off to women, he liked to ask them out knowing nothing about them and sometimes resorting to desperate measures, and he liked to make jokes about their virginity. None of these things is individually any more sexist than just being in somewhat poor taste, but "muh bigger picture." You don't have to hate women to be sexist, you can consciously or subconsciously think lesser of them for being women and still like them just fine. I think that's the kind of sexist RMS is.
>He doesn't support or believe it, he made an intellectual proposition that there's nothing wrong with it
But considering he made that intellectual proposition once and then commented on the subject again later in a way that carried a CONNOTATION (NOT definition) that matched his earlier sentiments, it makes it clear it's an important issue to him, and hmm, huh, hrmmm, I wonder why that could be. Could it be because he believes it's really okay. This is supported by his sexist (read: "creepy") behavior.
I wasn't making a separate argument, I was arguing the same post I was quoting. See the two post numbers I was replying to in that quote. I was quoting the second one because I wrote that one, and when I did, I neglected to reply to the first one, so by quoting the second one, I intended to notify the first one of the reply. That is to say, it was a "meant for" post.

Everyone is discussing "Is he an autistic pedophile?" to exhaustion, but no one is discussing "does free software suffer a loss if he goes away?". No one is asking "Why should we suffer this loss?" Is it because all you have to do is peg someone as a pedo or homophobe or mysigonist and then they are instantly deemed worthless? If a talented member of a cancer research team misbehaved, should he be suspended and all their contributions worthless? Or should they be allowed to continue their work and maybe seek some therapy or something?

Why the distratcion of "he can be replaced". That has no bearing on deciding on if he should be ousted or not. It would be even more effective to add the new person's effort on top of RMS. The question still stands, "why lose him?"

Everyone has a weakness. And usually, the better you are at one or two things, the worse you are at many other things. The enemies of free software are exploiting the weaknesses of the members of the free software movement. That's the difference between RMS's weaknesses and yours and mine. His is being exploited. Anybody can be exploited. If he's a dolphin-fornicating pedo-defender, get him some psychiatric help. Don't ban him from contributing to free software. The two are clearly unrelated. The best mechanic I know is a foot-fetishist. But he's a wrought fire on a repair job. I definitely want him on my team. But I wouldn't hang out with him. Keep personal and professional seperate. Giving him shit because of his kink is a waste of time when it comes to the tasks at hand. The only reason to assasinate someone's character the way RMS is under the microscope is for dishonest reasons.

This ousting behavior from the group who celebrate "acceptance" and "inclusiveness". The SJW movement is exposing itself to be an obnoxious, illogical sham at every turn.

>"does free software suffer a loss if he goes away?"
I, OP, discussed this briefly.

>The free software movement will have to find a way to be the same without him, and I believe they can. I believe they can escape the overzealous and covertly corporate-motivated grip of the SJWs without falling back into letting their criticisms ring true. I believe the FSF can remain uncompromising in the face of this incident, and refuse to let government or megacorp representatives into their ranks, without continuing to let themselves be associated with chauvinism or pedophilia. Freedom has overcome higher hurdles in the past.

RMS's weakness is being exploited, that much is true. But first of all, they're right to exploit it, because it's a sort of weakness that doesn't belong in the office he held. Secondly, the weakness of the FSF itself is not being exploited, because the FSF will easily overcome this setback.

Updated version of this hierarchy to contain the type of invalid argument you're talking about.

Attached: fixed-hierarchy.png (900x600, 64K)

>it makes it clear it's an important issue to him
Commenting on something twice doesn't mean something is important to you. Being sexist has no link to being a pedophile, like you already said, you can use it an excuse but that's it. You're not arguing with any logic here. "He's a creep and he said something about pedophilia TWICE = he's a pedophile". Hardly. Lots and lots of men are creeps to women. You are linking two tiny suggestive things together and saying you have a big picture.

> it's a sort of weakness that doesn't belong in the office he held
O rly? 99% of people should not even be allowed to have any job. The majority of everyone else globally disagrees with them on so many points, after all.

Let's ignore this for me and my JUST circle jerk though. We are fine, any flaws are trivial and outweighed by our moral supremacy. We get to attack everyone. Right?