Stallman wrote that “the most plausible scenario” for Giuffre’s accusations was that she was, in actuality, “entirely willing.”
How is that a rational, defensible statement in any terms?
What he actually said, without Vice editing the quote, is:
We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
From the email thread reproduced in its entirety by Vice at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420....
In my estimation, there's a big difference between Vice's framing of "Stallman said she was 'entirely willing'" and the full quote above. There are, of course, other poor comments in that thread.
EDIT -- I mention Vice specifically, because their article (which I'd read earlier) has similar phrasing to the wording used here (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist... -- "Stallman said the “most plausible scenario” is that one of Epstein’s underage victims was “entirely willing.”"), and I'd thought the quote that codesushi used was from that publication. On double checking, it might be unfair to single that publication out for the given quote.
There are other pretty bad comments, yes. If most of the coverage focused on those rather than something he didn't actually say, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.
Now that I can't say I totally agree with. The free software movement is a political movement, and as such his statements and opinions on social issues of all kinds have a deep impact on whether or not he can be a good representative of the FSF.
But we should at least be truthful about his statements and opinions!
It can mean that.
sentence immediately after that makes it clear that he didn't mean it as such.
No, it is debatable. The following sentence does not clearly state they were unwilling.
Another Stallman gem:
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.
"Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_Septe...
Edit: just noticed that's from two days ago, so in reaction to this fiasco.
The first is what was actually said the latter is a lie being repeated.
"The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing," Stallman wrote in his post last Wednesday. "Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term 'sexual assault' in an accusation."
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in...
"We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates."
Say what you will about the inappropriateness of RMS's conduct or speech or timing, but you should not try to persuade people by misquoting him.
We know that we are in deep trouble when the new generations start solving math formula or hypothesis democratically, by the numbers of 'likes' and 'thumbs up' that they receive.
Is a popular opinion true automatically just because is emotionally satisfying to us, and hence is popular? Not.
As long as he assumes the risk to be corrected and wrong, Stallman has the right to express an discomforting ugly hypothesis or a discordant opinion. And is just that, an opinion. I have no reason to thing that is a dishonest one, that there is malice, attempt to defamation, or that there is a hidden agenda subjacent about it
Demonstratively, he did not have that right.
Or perhaps you believe in some kind of imaginary right where you could still be held to have it if you predictably suffer terrible consequences should you attempt to make use of it?
I've commented a number of times on this subject, calmly trying to direct people back to the facts-- but each time I know that any one of those message could be misrepresented and turned into terrible false accusations about me, simply because I pissed off the wrong mob.
I think the right you imagine might exist for some people-- people who do nothing of notice, people who never challenge anyone's thinking, or people who really don't have to give a darn about what anyone else thinks-- maybe it exists for me, maybe it exists for you at least for the moment. It did not exist for RMS.
Which of these three seems more likely in GENERAL:
A) That this happened on a party island and all adults were willing.
B) That someone has been lead to believe this is a consensual act on some party island with willing people there; but in reality the victim is coerced into presenting false consent.
C) That the 'active offender' is aware of a lack of consent and that they are with a victim.
Since I choose to believe that at least a majority of humanity aren't evil; just more than likely stupid and easily tricked, I happen to believe that the set a circumstance being either A or B is more likely that C. I also believe that if "services" were legalized and HEAVILY REGULATED circumstances B and C would be FAR less likely to happen.
What I was suggesting is that there are plausible reasons someone might find themselves on such an island; which seem more realistic if those involved are rich elite who lure 'loose' individuals down with warm sandy beaches and cold drinks.
My take on the full RMS text in question is that they were (probably biased but) pointing out that they believed in a friend being a good person and thus the generic case I called Scenario B being the one that they believed was likely.
As I lack the facts to properly make a judgement on the issue I can only speculate about what //might// have happened, and hope that those who should be reaching a judgement gather all the possible facts and prove those who are guilty as such, without making more victims out of others tricked or entrapped by the actual wrong-doers.
Epstein hosted conferences on a number of occasions for scientific luminaries, which is why-- for example-- there are pictures of Stephen Hawking on Epstein's island.
Minsky was involved in an AI conference held by Epstein in 2002.