Richard M. Stallman resigns
fsf.org
fsf.org
I have worked in jobs where there have been very strange creepy people, both women and men. Some are angry and tense. Some are odd and talk restless or slightly disturbing stuff that make everyone uncomfortable. But if they do their work well they can stay. Others give them some room. It's called tolerance.
If RMS was just random superhacker doing his thing. I would defend him. His boss should find a position for him where he can contribute and other people should feel free to feel uncomfortable and avoid him.
But RMS is de facto leader and public figure in movement that is also political. He does not deserve the same level of consideration as normal HR headache would. Even if everything against him would be completely unjust, there is no requirement for just treatment for top leaders. They can be sacked for any reason whatsoever.
But, he resigned himself. This is moot.
FSF was pressured. RMS did not decide this all on his own of his free will.
What does this mean ? He is a leader of an organisation related to software freedom (or more pedantically, the choice of licences used for software). How is it relevant ? All you are saying is, "Famous people can't talk like that".
If your leader appears to advocate pedophilia, then your organisation no longer becomes "that organisation that advocates for free software", but "that organisation run by a pedophile apologist".
He doesn't advocate pedophilia. Nothing has changed for years. Are you advocating it?
He has just been completely misrepresented by some popular media as supporting statutory rape, and you are fueling the fire.
It is pure bullshit - the journalists that write (or publications that publish) headlines that completely reverse meaning should be held accountable for their lies.
It is libel: make it appear Richard said she was willing when he definitely said she was coerced (within the exact same paragraph as the "quote"). Seems she was 18 too - any organisation publishing clearly slanderous headings designed for sensation and payment for eyeballs should be punished.
Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. [Reference updated on 2018-04-25 because the old link was broken.]
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children
Because people believing in that wrong thing will point to you as a figure of authority.
Not fair, but life's not fair.
You've described basically every single human being in tech I've ever met, they just don't have as big a platform. See: Musk's twitter feed, for instance.
There are only a handful of case studies of really bad cases I'm aware of. And they're not that exacting in follow-up.
Note research, not opinion pieces.
Good quality papers. I found just a handful. I'm having trouble fishing then out from the thousands of opinion pieces.
Edit: I found one credible meta-analysis so far, and the results are not good. Most of abuse is not reported. Impact is not known, how handling of it is done is unknown to affect severity.
If he said this anonymously or in private it would've been fine. The problem is him using his platform for stuff that it's not meant to be used for. So now they're taking away his platform. Seems fair to me.
Truth doesn't count if the thing hurts someone. Intent doesn't count if harm was caused. This is a view that many here would seem absurd but which many here would also agree with.
Does this still seem fair? Is truth and intent not that important when it comes to tricky issues?
Everyone bar nobody has formed an opinion on an important topic that is completely wrong at some point in their life. To correct their opinion, they will need to talk to somebody who will explain why it is wrong.
This wasn't Stallman trying to use his position on the FSF to spread his opinions, he was using his position at MIT to try and defend a colleague to other academics. And what you are describing is an unreasonable standard to hold anyone to if a topic isn't supposed to be their central area of expertise.
It does matter what he advocates and it does matter whether his opinions are technically correct and incorrect. The 5-days-comment-to-resignation mob are doing damage here; and setting up terrifying dynamics. They aren't going to stop at Stallman.
"The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
RMS on June 28th, 2003 https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
"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. "
RMS on June 5th, 2006) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party
" There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. "
RMS on Jan 4th, 2013) https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia* General principle that people in influential positions have less protections and should have more scrutiny than average John Doe. Celebrities and influential people have less legal privacy protections.
* People are free to speak as individuals, but they may not be free to speak while they have public position in the organization. Elected members of the organization like FSF don't have the same protections as employers have. They represent the organization even outside the work. Their public position gives them a platform where what they say goes trough bullhorn and private becomes public and reflects the organization. If something they say harms the organization they should go even if they are right.
That's a testament to his vision and leadership.
Linux foundation and FSF have small staff and budget but the total economic value of the projects they steer is in tens of billions.
Rather than, you know, finding some humane, compassionate approach to dealing with the personal shortcomings of someone who has done so very much for the world.
My point is that public leadership position is not related to humane retirement of people individuals. Leadership is never entitlement.
If RMS was just random superhacker doing his thing. I would defend him.
I would agree that the severity of RMS's remarks regarding Epstein/Minsky is lower than the press is making it out to be. But Stallman's bad behavior stretches back decades, and this oddly-shaped, not-entirely-correct straw happened to finally break the camel's back. Good riddance.
I'm talking about there being options other than either "giving him a pass" or "off with his head."
After almost 30 years of people giving him a pass and trying to make him understand, I am glad that he is getting some reckoning. His views are abhorrent and he gives no indication he is willing to change them.
[1] - https://fossforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RMSleisure....
The text is: sharing good books, good food and exotic music and dance tender embraces unusual sense of humor [contact details]
There is perfectly benign interpretation of this expressing the things from which he derives pleasure. The most plausible and available interpretation of "pleasure card" is a dad joke level word play on "business card", especially when considering his role in de-commercializing software.
Talking to women isn't a crime. If he didn't take no for an answer or asked women out in inappropriate circumstances, that's a problem; but we have no accounts of him doing that. All we have here is an Nth hand story [3] in which he supposedly left a conference with a woman (singular, you made it plural.) and then gave her his card. If we choose to imagine there was romantic intent, a) there's no suggestion he coerced her into leaving and b) he took pains to respect the conference's CoC. Even this extremely reaching accusation has zero implication that he disrespected an individual's volition. Sage Sharp's indictment that he "skirted around the conference's CoC" is bizarre unless the real intent is that men like Stallman should be closeted heterosexuals.
There are numerous aspects to all this hand wringing about his cards and interest in meeting women that one has to choose to view through a prurient lens to make it sexual. Even then, it's only problematic to a puritanical world view in which it's wrong for people to be sexual beings and individuals are dispossessed of their self-determination.
[1] https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch14.html [2] http://ju.outofmemory.cn/entry/119457 [3] https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1173637158181072900
This just happened. Let's check in with him in six months, and see if he's still breathing. If his experience is like many of the shitty men whose misbehavior has been unmasked as part of the MeToo movement, I'm sure he'll end up back on his feet at some point, whether he deserves to or not.
Citation needed. What kind of behavior? What exactly did he do?
"The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution,
"prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest
and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these
acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
RMS on June 28th, 2003 https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
"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. "
RMS on June 5th, 2006) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party
" There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do
not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. "
RMS on Jan 4th, 2013) https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(PedophiliaI'll just leave this here
https://www.amazon.com/Trauma-Myth-Sexual-Children-Aftermath...
I wonder how that is supposed to work. How would one acquire consent from a corpse?
Is it OK to treat men poorly?
Why single out women for special treatment?
Because college is where women are driven out of computer science, by behavior from professors and peers. If you want to talk about fields where men are driven out (and they do exist: primary school teaching and nursing come to mind) go to a thread about those. But either way, derailing this discussion doesn't help.
A lot of people take that for granted based on anecdotes, but actual data is elusive.
Some things we should expect to see if this theory is correct:
* CS student gender ratios close to 50:50 at admission
* A relatively large change in CS student gender ratios between admission and graduation, compared to other majors
* A relatively high rate of "misbehavior" (e.g. sexual harassment) in CS programs and/or the tech industry, compared to other fields
From what I can tell, though, we don't observe any of those.
> If you want to talk about fields where men are driven out (and they do exist: primary school teaching and nursing come to mind)
The same questions could be raised about those: why are we so sure they're being "driven out" at the college level?
Here's a paper investigating the causes of gender imbalance among primary school teachers: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ysu1515846...
The men interviewed for the paper disagreed that discrimination, social barriers, stereotypes, or other forms of injustice play a role. ("I don’t feel that there is any injustice… men who want to teach, are able to. It’s not like we’re being held down.")
It also points out that a greater number of men than women choose to go into primary education during college, which is the opposite of what we'd expect if they were being driven out by professors and peers.
We don't have to tolerate people who make women feel unsafe and unwelcome in our (or any) industry.
You seem to be arguing the usual tired old thing: "but he's a genius and does such great work that we should tolerate the bad things he does". I really thought we'd started to move past that over the last few years.
No it's not an insult to anyone. It's an attemoted explanation of why some neuro-atypical people behave in atypical fashion.
The original claim was that saying that someone's anti-social behaviour was due to being neurological atypical, was an insult to everyone who is neurological atypical. This is clearly nonsense.
If we're just going to throw around absolutist statements: No, it's not.
Also, you're doing a bait and switch, neuro-atypical covers a large swathe of people including autistic people. May be you're using it here as a mere synonym for "autistic" for lingual flare, but it includes people who are generally typical in social settings.
It's absolutely true that neuro-atypical people can learn from others, even if they can't pick up on social cues the way neurotypical people can. I'm guessing stallman just goes unchallenged on much of this stuff because of the lingering effects of the rockstar syndrome in tech, where "great men," geniuses, whatever, get cut a lot of slack because of their position in the industry.
It's only recently that I've seen a shift away from prizing our jerk 10x rockstars ("hey, he's so smart he can keep the whole codebase in his head!") to valuing better-behaved people. stallman seems like he'd be even more isolated than the typical one of those, with less chance to have the rough edges smoothed off in the rock tumbler of social interaction.
Again, not an excuse, but I'm more interested in, "how did we get here?" (where "here" is a decades-long public figure questioning the wrongness of pedophilia and making jokes like the "emacs virgin" thing well into the 2000s).
It has quotes you might be able to follow up on.
Promoting intolerance of people we disagree with, even if we vigorously disagree with them, is perhaps not the best response.
If we want to talk about disagreement...
He only recently recanted (with quite suspicious timing) his view that pedophilia is fine if the child gives consent. No, I'm not going to tolerate that view. I wouldn't want to work for someone that had that view.
In the email thread under discussion, he wanted to redefine "sexual assault" and "child rape" to something that agrees more with his sense of linguistic purity. No, that's not ok.
At some point, when people keep having disgusting views, and won't change them, you give up on them entirely. It's just not worth the effort anymore.
> Gano also posted a photo of Stallman's office door, which has a sign on it reading: "Knight for Justice (Also hot ladies)."
Gano posted a photo of the sign, not the sign itself.
I certainly would not excuse him! Nor should anybody else!
But given his stature, it's surely worth discussing and understanding him. And any attempt to do that would certainly have to include his famously black-and-white and self-described borderline autistic thinking.
Pointing out that somebody is austistic (or left-handed, or that they have psoriasis, or dyslexic, or seven feet tall, or...) and thinking about how that may affect their actions isn't excuse-making. It is empathy. It is critical thinking.
I did. To me, it says "I've known a lot of creepy people; as long as they get their work done, it's ok". And I don't agree with that.
> self-described borderline autistic thinking.
That's another thing: has he actually been diagnosed? If not, well, he may still be autistic, but that just sounds like RMS himself hiding behind a shield of autism that he's crafted himself, which is pretty low.
> Pointing out that somebody is austistic and thinking about how that may affect their actions isn't excuse-making. It is empathy. It is critical thinking.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what was written. The parent even said "if RMS was some random superhacker doing his thing" he'd defend him. To me, that's excuse-making, not empathy or critical thinking.
But I do agree that autism can certainly explain some behaviors, and it's worth trying to understand people, even though the explanations may not excuse the behavior. The parent's post just did not strike me as that.
Nobody thinks this of RMS. He's a competent developer who was in the right place at the right time to found a new ideology: The idea that software should work for the user, the only way for software to do so is to empower the user to also be a developer themselves. That's all.
Being competent himself wasn't a sufficient condition for anyone to listen to him, but it was necessary.
Stallman's job as head of FSF wasn't just to be technically competent, which he has in spades, but to forward the mission of the foundation and a certain level of social acuity is a necessary part of that.
A lot of people (mostly men) hugely overestimate just how fragile and vulnerable women are.
The semi-autistic are a lot more likely to be made unwelcome than women.
And yes, celebrities will get more of a pass than others. Which isn't ideal.
Hand waving and quietly ignoring is the mark of tolerance. But one wonders exactly how polite society is. One certainly presumes the existence of both knights for justice and hot ladies in a nation of millions. What society are we talking about?
I don't expect MIT to be any more representative of society than the NFL. It is a magnet for extreme people who defer common sense and common acceptance in search of very particular goals. I wonder if we were to get rid of Stallman and replace him, deserving as he must be, for a bust in our Hall of Fame if our society could resist defaming his very image and existence.
As someone actually autistic, he doesn't get to blame being a douchecanoe on being autistic.
> His socially clueless black and white thinking makes it look like he is far in the spectrum.
Then _learn_. Also, we're not talking about not getting social cues about when it's okay to start talking, we're talking his considered and repeated position on issues such as sexual assault, and his _actual actions_ towards teenagers.
> But if they do their work well they can stay. Others give them some room. It's called tolerance.
Great tolerance for the people your creeps chase out or abuse, thanks. You actually do have to pick, and if you pick people like RMS, you pick against all the people that can't - and shouldn't have to - deal with an environment people like RMS create.
I was trying to give explanation, not excuse.
I was trying to communicate understanding, not acceptance.
Was he a douchecanoe? Is that even a helpful label for you to apply to him? Was he claiming he behaved / behaves the way you think he does solely because he's borderline autistic, or are you extrapolating?
It's just reasonable to remove him from those positions.
Independly I find it very weird what he was saying nonetheless and for this he falls under a category of humans which I don't think are worth it to give such amount of support.
There are other people out there which are worth it more.
I stopped working with people who might be technical good or very good but dicks. I hate working with dicks. There is no amount of brilliance which justifice being a dick.
But sure, he is probably a dick so let us remove them...
You know what? He actually probably isn't the easiest person to be around. Just saw him once and he certainly isn't the guy to move crowds.
But let us be certain that we have very distinct definitions of what constitutes "being a dick".
There would have been someone else to create something like the FSF.
Wouldn't you think so?
Really?
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...
I agree that there's a current climate that's even less amenable to open discussion than at other times. However, I disagree that words carrying perceived intent is something new. Any time you make an assertion about individual facts of a particular situation, people's first assumption is going to be that you're pushing the narrative best supported by that assertion. Telling people what you're not saying will continue to be important even if the current climate improves.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm stating a general principle, not saying anything about what RMS did or didn't say, or did or didn't intend to say. I don't have time to dig into all that.
The only people who deserve less consideration are those that pick and choose who to treat justly.
If his past behavior was sufficient justification for his sacking, then that should be enough. However, that is not why he was sacked. He was sacked on the basis of false allegations, and as an attempt by MIT to deflect from their own complicity in the Epstein scandal.
This is not (only) about finding a place for weirdo super-hackers to contribute to society (without bothering people too much) but about the truth dammit.
Normally, when someone engages in behavior seen as offensive, the procedure is to pressure the person to apologize and mend his ways, and only get rid of him if he refuses to do so.
But when a "scarlet letter" offence is involved, we jump straight to the punishment phase, removing the person outright with no judicial process. This is completely backwards, anti-democratic, and anti-freedom. It brings a chilling effect on everyone, because suddenly people start to realize that they're living under the Sword of Damocles, which could destroy them at any moment without warning. You can never be sure if something you say or do is going to get you publicly pilloried in future, and destroy your career, friendships, and reputation in the blink of an eye. Far better to just sit quiet and never say anything that might offend someone. Far better not to participate at all.
Mob justice always turns ugly in the end. That's why we have courts.
I don’t know the guy but that’s a big accusation.
For the other statements, I dont think he's "endorsing" it, he's raising questions. I'm not AT ALL on the same boat as him wrt this topic, but I dont mind a discussion on this topic. I consider that the basis of democracy.
Also, from this recent interview on the register it shows he changed his mind on this topic: "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.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in...
I respect that people openly change their views.
But when a 66 year old man says that he has now learned that sex with children is wrong, do you just wipe the past clean and forget that anything ever happened? Would it be wrong for those past views to have any effect, now that he's changed his mind?
And yes, I think we should not dig up old statements once he has announced he has changed his views: that's why I commented.
I understand those past views will linger on, I just dont think they are protayed fairly, nor that it is adequately considered that he has changed.
He probably means hebephilia (11-14) or ephebophilia (14-19). In some countries (Italy, Germany) or cultures the age of consent is as low as 14. Some are perhaps lower. The strict liability concerning statutory rape may also be different, which is likely what he wanted to bring into question.
There are currently people serving sentences for sexual crimes they "committed" after being lied to by their partner.
[1] https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in...
> The guy has a long history endorsing pedophillia.
This is a big accusation, do you have source to back this up?
I agree with the principle of people being able to change their minds and we should accommodate that, but I also have a hard time giving a huge credit when a 66 year old man says that contrary to everything he's written on the subject, he has recently learned that having sex with children is wrong.
If changing doesn't have any benefits, would anyone change?
I'm not saying there should be no lasting repurcussions for such behavior, but when someone admits they are wrong, it should matter.
If admitting they were wrong doesn't matter, then it doesn't make any sense for them to do it.
Among the many things one can say about RMS, this is not one of them.
This is just slander.
https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
he's saying that it should be legal at the very least.
For example, i think that drinking alcohol and smoking pot should be legal, but also think it is stupid thing to do and definitely would not endorse that.
While redemption is one of the themes in the book sadly the internet has not quite developed that level of sophistication so we are stuck with denouncement/punishment.
The point of the Scarlet Letter is that its victims are forever oppressed by the masses, and those near to the victim are made guilty by association.
It doesn't matter what the crime is; forever punishments are unjust, and prone to abuse.
But what we've seen instead is cowardly throwing someone to the baying crowd.
Had he just apologized when the academy first brought up the issue, he could have gone right on with hosting. As it was, he pulled out of the deal because he didn't want to be a distraction.
—Adding this to expound on what DanBC writes.
[1] Goes on to explain that this varies by jurisdiction and many have passed laws protecting apologizers.
[1]https://accidentlawyerhenderson.com/is-saying-im-sorry-an-ad...
I don't know how other jurisdictions handle this.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/section/2
> Apologies, offers of treatment or other redress
> An apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty.
This is especially true if you're a healthcare professional or work in a healthcare organisation. Your professional registration tells you to apologise; your organisations registration body tells them and you to apologise; your medical defence body tells you to apologise; a bunch of arms-length bodies are clear that you need to apologise if you do something wrong.
mc32 wasn't saying an apology will increase damages, just that it is often seen as an admission of guilt. In some places (e.g. Canada) an apology is not a sign of guilt. But you seem to be saying something different?
It seems like you're gravely overestimating how much power angry people on Twitter have.
As it stands now outcomes vary wildly. Some people like Kevin Spacey were literally erased from movies that were already filmed; some others have just claimed back their place (maybe not their peak fame) on their own like Louis CK. And then there are neutral outcomes like the one you mention.
And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught in, uh, something that's not a good look.
He was caught framing innocent white men for hate crimes. He was going to send people to prison to boost his 'clout'. It's not just 'something'. It was a vile crime
> "got cancelled"
> Jumanji sequel
A part on the sequel to a reboot of a mediocre 90s movie? WOOO living the dream!
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
Stallman decided it was a great idea to, in the wrong place at the wrong time and in response to a protest regarding someone he knew (Minsky, not Epstein), construct a hypothetical that exonerated Minsky and then judge that protest, again publicly, through that hypothetical. That's not a "believe he said" thing. That's what he did. He got tossed out on his ear for that and that's a thing he did.
Now, RMS then did construct a hypothetical based on his knowledge of Minsky's character. Note that nowhere in his hypothetical did he either defend Epstein or assert that the victim was in fact willing - both of which were things that he was accused of doing. He then insisted that people be more precise in their speech, which is exactly what you should do if you want actual justice.
> When a person tells someone else "I'm sorry that you feel that way", they are not acknowledging the potential role they might have played in making them feel this way. Instead, it is more like they are absolving themselves of responsibility, and are showing apparent sympathy that the person who is complaining might be upset for some abstract, and potentially irrational reason. It not only fails to acknowledge the potential role played by the speaker (or who they might represent), but this phrase is actually used to position the speaker as an innocent actor who has had little or no influence over the current situation.
> feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said. I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding.
The statement that RMS did not attempt to make an apology even one that is a false apology is 100% made up, he did in fact make a false apology.
My point is that like many people on here the person making the argument believes RMS did wrong and they are now inventing reasons to justify their belief, its not an honest argument.
You are ignoring or not reading the argument I was responding to which establishes the honesty of an apology as irrelevant. This is another example of a dishonest argument because it is moving the goal posts of the argument again to justify your prior beliefs.
No he didn't. Making a false apology requires some form of deception or misdirection whereby it isn't obvious that you are denying any responsibility.
For example "I'm sorry you feel that way - but I'm not at fault!" Is not a false apology, since it is very clear that you are denying responsibility, despite that fact that it contains the triggering substring "I'm sorry you feel that way".
Stallman had no control over being misquoted.
He also didn't say "I'm sorry that you feel that way" - He specifically mentions he was misquoted, leaving no doubt that he is not apologizing for the cause of the offense - People were offended by the misquotes, not the original statements.
So he's being punished for thinking out loud and not apoligising for thinking out loud?
He has nothing to apologise for in this respect, but he does say:
> I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding.
This could be seen as an apology, "I'm sorry" often is; but in context you can see it is not. It is literally "I'm sorry I could not prevent this hurt" without any sense that He is responsible.
Ironically, this sentiment only brought on more criticism: The claim that this was a "false apology", i.e. something masquerading as an apology despite not being one - but that was Stallmans intention, it is thwarted by all the other sentences in the same paragraph that make it clear he is being misquoted.
He has a long history of using forums meant for technology discussion to promote borderline (and that's generous) social opinions, and of being openly hostile to people who don't tow his line. In this instance he ridiculously downplayed the most egregious instances of sex trafficking of minors, by a horridly evil individual... who happened to donate almost a million dollars to him!
His previous comments about minors on his personal blog, which I don't even want to dignify with a description (you can do your own search), leads me to wonder what other connections than money he had with Epstein.
For all of us that don't worship Stallman - I consider him a net negative to the FOSS movement - this has been a long time coming. It would have been a deserved resignation in a normal social environment.
Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology.
And this kind of tar-and-feathering is precisely why we need official processes for this sort of thing. Official reprimands leading to termination if unfixed, like all civilized peoples do. This ensures that it's made crystal clear what's acceptable and what's not, with time to mend one's ways. The alternative is arbitrary terminations, which makes everyone insecure.
Why are so many people obsessed with applying the same standards used in a court to real life?
If someone is a jerk, I don't have to maintain a chain-of-custody for the evidence I use to determine that person is a jerk, and I don't have to have sworn testimony from reliable witnesses to apply the jerk label, and I certainly don't need the opinions of a jury of said jerk's peers.
Here's a job-keeping pro-tip, free of charge, for everyone: Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired.
> Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired.
Great. That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me.
I'm sure that's hyperbole because comparing being asked (I assume) to resign after downplaying child sex trafficking is not functionally or morally equivalent to lynching.
As far as watching what you say, that is the world:
1. As it has always existed.
2. It exists today.
3. Will always exist until the end of time itself.
And that will never, ever, change.
Don't conflate raging anonymously online with being able to say whatever you want in public.
I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society.
Many people seem to be complaining about this.
As far as I can tell, very few people are filming and posting publicly a video saying:
"My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I think 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.”and he should face no consequences."
or
"My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “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.” and he should face no consequences."
Instead they wave their hands and mutter about "free speech".
To take one of the more innocuous examples from the past consider the Red Scares. It was fundamentally driven by people believing that they have the moral high ground against a certain view. Communism is bad and therefore it was okay to do bad things to people who held positive views of such. And it was simply 'common sense' that supporting communism in any way, shape, or form was an absolutely abhorrent thing to do. And I use that as an example only to avoid any rousing of emotion but the exact same logic drove the KKK, Nazis, and nearly every group, sinner and saint alike, throughout time. Moral authoritarianism is again, a very dangerous thing.
And I certainly do not agree with you on this was or will be the way of society. Words and actions are distinct. I think an ideal society would have no tolerance for intolerant actions but an unlimited tolerance of words. Indeed this is even what the actual quote, often egregiously bastardized and misused by the most intolerant of today's society, on the 'paradox of tolerance' fundamentally suggests. Even looking back now at the Red Scare we can generally see how quaint our intolerance was. There's no need to name and shame communists - the view itself is simply not supported by enough of society to matter. And if it does become supported by enough of society? Then we try it, almost certainly fail, and continue on our disjointed path "forwards" as always.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here.
As Scott points out in https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/02/social-censorship-the-... censorship is mostly used against groups we think are dangerous (mostly because they actually have a fairly large amount of support). Someone advocating that going to church should be mandatory and divorce and blasphemy should be illegal will get eye rolls, not anger.
Because IRL there's no attorney of defense.
You can just throw accusation in the air and somebody else get hurt.
The question is--should being a jerk be a fireable offense?
On its face... yes???
*IANAL
Prosecution: "We think he knew this person was subject to coercion and we say this because X, Y, Z".
Defence: "We think he did not know this person was subject to coercion and we say this because we interpret X, Y, and Z differently."
These involve speculation about the mental state of the accused.
Is there any evidence of this? There is a big difference between the place he works at taking money and him taking money.
I don't think its right to hold an employee responsible for their employers actions.
How often does he bring it up and how often is it in response to someone else saying something that is technically wrong?
How many years and incidents is enough to move to removal?
RMS chose to step down himself. That was his decision. Even if you think MIT told him to, that would ultimately be MIT's decision, not the work of some "mob".
Furthermore, stepping down from MIT is not destruction you're playing it up as being. People have done similar (and of course, worse!) things and, after being the subject of some number of embarrassing articles on the web and some larger number of angry tweets, are currently living their lives with new jobs just fine. RMS doesn't need us to feel bad for him. He's still free & healthy.
If you're worried about kangaroo courts and injustice, there's plenty to focus on somewhere where people's lives and livelihoods are actually at stake, like the US-Mexico border or Hong Kong.
The mob pressured MIT and the FSF to remove him from his positions. It's ultimately their decision, sure, in the same way that it's ultimately up to a local business owner whether they purchase a "protection plan" from the nice salesmen with the baseball bats.
>RMS doesn't need us to feel bad for him. He's still free & healthy. If you're worried about kangaroo courts and injustice, there's plenty to focus on somewhere where people's lives and livelihoods are actually at stake...
You could just easily say "Hong Kong doesn't have it that bad, they have food and shelter. Focus on conditions that are actually bad, like starving child soldiers in Africa."
This just seems like deflection. Conditions being worse elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the issues that are more local to us.
If you think the brass at MIT are in any physical danger from a bunch of angry tweeters, I don't know what to tell you.
This just seems like deflection. Conditions being worse elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the issues that are more local to us.
No, that's a deflection. Someone choosing to step down from their job is not an issue that can, as the parent post puts it, "destroy them at any moment without warning". Being a starving child soldier in Africa is, being locked in a cage in a foreign land is.
He is merely encountering actual consequences for saying absurd, indefensible things -- and, likely, also finally encountering consequences for being a well-known source of creepy behavior towards women for a very long time. People lose jobs all the time for less.
Yeah, he's done some good things. And maybe (MAYBE) he's actually not neurotypical. But that doesn't mean he gets a pass on being a creep forever.
This isn't a one off and he's one of the least likely people to mend his ways.
This is one of the reasons it took so long for homosexuality to become accepted.
Free speech is a right, but it's not a shield. He can continue to express his opinions, and the public will continue to have the right to object to them. If public opinion on a person is negative, companies will not want to associate with that person. That's the way society has been and will continue to be. This isn't inherently good, as seen with things like race/sexuality--but conflating the long struggle of the LGBT community with one man's archaic thoughts on pedophilia is frankly disgusting.
Censorship can be done by governments, institutions, individuals or society as a whole.
I'm not really conflating the LGBT history with RMS views, merely noting that attempting to surpress non-majority views can be bad by using them as an example.
Having the wrong opinion about certain topics is getting more expensive. Stay away from taboos or else... never mind the fact that what we regard as wrong changes across different societies over time.
Weirdly all the information technology is steering towards being more similar in our opinions and in what we can say without facing consequences.
Recently I started to thing about how in spite of having the ability to share, and change, and store information better and with more ease than ever, we seem to be going in the opposite direction. Instead of having more transparent institutions, everything is getting more "opaque" (so to speak) towards the public (even it this is happening due to overload).
does anyone remember "information wants to be free"? I don't think anybody says that anymore, but I remember reading that a bunch on slashdot in the early 00s
I think the trend's moving more quickly towards self-censorship than anyone realizes. How can we even quantify that? Those who censor just disappear?
What stands out for me is the obvious monoculture we're developing.
I miss custom PHPBB boards for every little interest and opinion.
I really wish you'd have to write a reason when downvoting.
The phpbb forums tend to be a lot more ruthless in self-moderation and probably a fair amount of gatekeeping too. But the content is significantly better than reddit, which I believe is a source of pride for many of the participants. I also get the impression that there is a growing sense of “coolness” using a crappy outdated UX. I predict the return and rise of the niche community sites will happen before its total disappearance.
some did close but the reason is facebook sucked people in its time consuming spiral of irrelevant noise.
There is also a history of controversial stuff related to his time at the FSF which meant that probably wouldn't settle for a simple apology either (not that RMS seemed willing to give one).
As organisations change over time, what they need in leadership also changes. In this case, they didn't need an ideologue with a history of generating controversy, they needed someone who can keep the ship going forward so that the projects they are overseeing don't lose enough talent that they become irrelevant.
Calling him an ideologue in contrast to current pioneers in the software industry is a bit much, maybe he just had some hard principles.
> wouldn't settle for a simple apology
To whom? To those that endorsed questionable business relations that drew attention in the first place that still are in leading positions at the MIT?
> need in leadership also changes
Visionaries and thought leaders can probably have a positive influence. I doubt we will get a adequate replacement. There also is no strong leader/mentor that can make you magically smart. He would need to inspire you to learn yourself which I would argue Stallman did pretty well.
"Controversies" are seldom intellectually engaging and if you look at the core of his statements, the subject and reactions become quite ridiculous.
You probably have been in a bubble all this time. I grew up in former Soviet Union without an internet connection with whatever software I was able to buy around the corner. It wasn't Linux and GCC, it was Windows 9x, Delphi, then MSVC, and so on.
I think the first time I've used (any) FOSS application was after 4 or 5 years of using computers. I had the fundamentals more or less covered by then.
This only strengthens your point though.
Side note: Ito, at least, is out at MIT. Others may be as well.
As far as to whom, it would have been to "anyone who was harmed by his statements". This could include those at the FSF who he represented, the students and researchers at MIT, who also were associated with the statements, and to people victimised by Epstein and others like him.
It's not as hard to find someone to apologise too, as it would be for the guy to actually admit he's wrong in the first place.
FSF entire purpose is to push for the adoption of Free Software licensing (in opposition to Both "Open Source" and Commercial licensing)
From what I’ve read about the Cultural Revolution and Jaquereies, what’s going on looks pretty much the same mob pattern.
Stallman is a legend, which means he has a great distance to fall. His point was lost in the fray. I wish he could’ve just kept it to a private conversation with a friend.
Obviously no child can consent to being pimped, for money or otherwise.
It was actually a private conversation.
If you control money that goes to Fred who employs Bob and tell Fred fire Bob or I fire you then while your actions may be verbal they aren't merely communicative. Clearly you are acting to censor Bob. You may well simultaneously be within your rights to do so and also wrong to do it. If I tell you so I'm not controlling you I'm just trying to persuade you.
It's not. Take it from me, a guy who predates social media by decades.
If you go back and look at what Gary Hart dropped out of the 1988 presidential race for, and compare it to what Donald Trump said on social media before, during, and after being elected President, there's just no comparison.
Racial, misogynistic, derogatory, offensive sentiments you can easily find being published on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or most other social media platforms would not have passed muster in any mass-media channel or public conversation 30 or even 20 years ago.
On the positive side, social media has been a tremendous boon to marginalized communities like gay/lesbian/bisexual, transgender, heck, even furries. It has allowed like minds to find and support each other, and allowed the rest of us normies to see these communities for the constructive, positive forces so many of them are. I am convinced that social media aided in their growing public acceptance.
In fact, I'd say that social media has opened up the discourse so much that even the resignation of a powerful figure over controversial remarks about pedophilia--an outcome which would have been expected and commonplace for at least the past 70 years of U.S. society--are taken as somehow problematic.
In other words, things are so de-censored now that even the most anodyne and obvious objections to gross statements by powerful figures is taken as censorship. The Overton Window has moved way over to one side, but people still complain when they hit the edge of it.
However, it seems that the political division is greater than ever. It is almost as if there are two Overton windows now, one for liberals and one for republicans (roughly).
The republican one shifted to much less self-censorship, while the liberal one shifted very slightly to more self-censorship.
And RMS seems to be caught in the liberal one. He has held his opinions for a long time, and nobody really cared that much.
He is also not a particularly powerful figure. If anything, FSF is weaker than it has been in the 90s. That's also an interesting change in dynamics, the shifting of both windows now affects powerful and powerless alike, where in the past, it was I believe considered less decent to have "wrong opinions" if you were powerful, and the wrong opinions of the powerless were tolerated much more. (Basically, the difference between elites and proletes, and agreement who is what, is now morphing into a difference between liberals and republicans.)
This extremely perverse situation tells us a good bit about a lot of our fellow citizens but nothing about what the rest of us can get away with nor the constraints placed upon us.
If I said something that was misconstrued sufficiently enough for thousands of people to hear about it and hate me even wrongly I wouldn't be giving up my position at MIT I would probably end up homeless until lack of Asthma medication caused me to suffocate.
Part of that not having billions of dollars to fall back on thing.
If you or I said something stupid, it'd either not be noticed much at all, or get 15 minutes of fame and then fade into obscurity. In reality, our lives wouldn't change all that much. Yes, there's an outside chance that we could do something so dumb that we'd lose our jobs, but that's vanishingly unlikely, and still, I'd expect the effect to be temporary.
If you start expressing opinions about how sex with a sex-trafficked child should be legal, won't your friends and family raise some questions about your character?
Unless we're talking of morally flexible individuals. And at least parents should raise an eyebrow, since we have this natural reaction to protect our children.
> information wants to be free
Whomever said that was probably thinking of facts, of knowledge, s/he was probably not thinking of having opinions about pedophiles.
EDIT: don't get me wrong, I think there's a time and place to argue that consensual sex with teenagers might be ok and I think people should be free to make that argument, the problem in this case is that the sex couldn't have been consensual, in which case age becomes relevant, as that teenager isn't fully developed, therefore the harm done is amplified.
And also these opinions have been delivered by a very public figure, with a history of harassing women.
Words matter so the lesson here is don't be a jerk, as technology won't save you from that.
-He argued that rape is no the same as having sex with a minor. He is right, that's not the definition of rape.
-A minor is not necessarily a child. You can be a minor and the next day be 18 in a porno movie.
-Never did Stallman said it was ok, He just raised the question whether Minsky knew She was being coerced by Epstein. Clearly not the same.
(it would be funny if you did; it would also be equally funny if you didn't, and are surprised that children didn't express said argument, even though you didn't give them the chance)
> Whomever said that was probably thinking of facts, of knowledge, s/he was probably not thinking of having opinions about pedophiles.
John Stuart Mill is probably rolling over in his grave from this conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty#Of_the_liberty_of_t...
Edit: Particularly relevant to the topic of self-censorship: "unmeasured vituperation, enforced on the side of prevailing opinion, deters people from expressing contrary opinion, and from listening to those who express them."
That is not what Stallman said, wrote or advocates so that's kind of a strawman hypothetical that continues to pedal a false narrative.
Good thing RMS never did that then.
And your comment is a good representative of the modern debate climate: People will exaggerate whatever their opponent said, and they will assume no good faith in their opponents what so ever. They will not consider an argument something to be learned from, but rather something to be "won".
Getting someone fired over having the "wrong" view is merely a bonus, but a bonus the SJW-crowd loves aiming for none the less.
No wonder we're all getting dumber, when merely trying to have a discussion can get you fired. Of course people will stop debating, and stop gaining insights from that debate.
These kind of comments are clumsy claims to moral authority, useless flame fodder.
What? 17-year-olds are still in high school. They probably just barely got a driver’s license. They can just barely see an R-rated movie without a guardian. They can’t even sign waivers to give themselves permission for field trips in my state. How on Earth is it fair to consider them adults and fit to give consent for sex with older men while employed for sex services?
A 17 year old is not a child, but also not an adult.
In Germany a 17yo cannot drive, CAN drink and can have (I'm old and it doesn't apply to me, so this might be only somewhat accurate) sex with other people (but cannot be a prostitute), might marry (needs parents approval I believe). Age of consent is 14 (but .. not for sex with adults as far as I'm aware).
I know that German law has nothing to do with this. But please stop and reflect for a second: The US allows 17yo to steer 2+ tons of steel at high velocities, Germany (as the one example I'm familiar with) lets them have consensual sex or drink beer. The same way you say 'How can they agree to sex' one might ask 'How can they be responsible enough to drive'.
It's cultural, not absolute. I understand the outrage, I am in no way defending Epstein, Stallman or anyone here - but please don't present your moral position/your upbringing as absolute truth. See it as something that you were raised to believe and that A LOT of people disagree with on this globe.
(It's obviously not helping the fact that the girls got paid, it's a completely disgusting, sad and shameful story with no recourse - but don't claim 17yo can't have sex with someone older, ... just because)
In the era of mechanization adult men were replaced in factories by children as young as 6 years old and it was considered a great progress because they could be paid much less and do the same job. Is that fair ?
Before school was made mandatory at 17 you had been an active part of the work force for 10-12 years. was that fair ?
At 17 you can be drafted and sent to war to be killed, fair ?
A couple generation ago at 17 you had been working to bring money to the family for several years.
Problem is that fairness is a human made artificial concept, looking at the human societies almost nothing is fair in them, it's mostly about perpetuating hierarchical structure of power and domination, exploitation and competition. The few examples of success through fairness and cooperation comes from the wild that we collectively work so hard to eradicate.
This Stallman case is edge-case fallout from a massive political movement. He could have probably discussed the age of consent in public pre-2013 and maybe get a few disgusted reactions but generally be fine. The political control of internet arguments is more obvious than ever, and the quest for advertising money.. but I'm fairly sure I can start and run a website/subreddit/blog for whatever niche idea and be left alone.
He did. People don't remember, but his home page used to have articles regarding age of consent, which he later took down.
So? Don't make these clicks and you'd never see them.
> The political control of internet arguments is more obvious than ever, and the quest for advertising money
Advertising money has nothing to do with it - FSF doesn't need advertising money. They're just live in deathly fear of the woke Red Guards, as many before them (e.g. Mozilla) - and that fear may be very well justified.
> but I'm fairly sure I can start and run a website/subreddit/blog for whatever niche idea and be left alone.
Sure you can. If you can do without: hosting, DDoS protection, DNS, advertising, search engines, social media, payment processing, etc. All those have recently been engaged in deplatforming people for political considerations. But yes, you are free to lay your own cable infrastructure, set up your own data centers, build out your own internet, and there have you own website about whatever you want, completely free.
Advertising money has something to do with YouTube deplatforming people which is part of evaluating the idea that we are becoming a monoculture.
I think only the daily stormer is an example if you go anywhere you will be pulled down, including for. Controlling that stuff is the government's job, I would expect radical political sects to lose the fight to host a website. But if your idea is non political you're basically in the clear.
Many fewer of my current associates hear any real thoughts of mine compared to 20 years ago. I used to get into all kinds of arguments like Stallman’s, on public email lists, which thankfully haven’t surfaced online (yet).
The general over-reaction and constant jousting at windmills seems like a net loss to me.
I am forced to exercise self-censorship.
Many angry down-voters bashing that [-] button only making my point.
I've found that a net good thing at least for myself. I used to be the dude who would blurt out whatever popped into my head and not care too much how it would be received by my audience, and sometimes even relish the fact that it was badly received.
By self-censoring and thinking through what I'm about to say and thinking about my audience before I open my mouth I find not only are social interactions easier and more pleasant, but I actually get my points across more consistently and clearly. People are then also more open to listening and don't always automatically get defensive. So ironically applying self-censorship has made it easier to make the points I actually want to make.
Not only getting one's point across better, but actually getting a better point across.
On the whole, definitely a net positive.
It's not the 99 times when your parachute opens that you stress about. It's the other 1%.
(Mis)interpretation reduces to choice, as does the principle of charity. With a large enough audience fallout is a statistical certainty.
Arguably the (male) head of the Free Software movement has no place debating the definition of "sexual assault" or "statutory rape" in a conversation about a human trafficker and child abuser. His opinions there have zero value (not to mention that a debate over such definitions is missing the point entirely), and engaging in that conversation -- even to come to the defense of his tangentially-related dead friend -- was a very poor choice, even for someone known to be contentious and often misunderstood.
And they could self-organize into self-selected groups. Then each type could best thrive in their own self-constructed communities.
And they could practice other-tolerance for the other sort of folks. Because tolerance.
You call your solution self-censorship, but I just kinda think it's general common sense: why do you feel the need to broadcast your views to a large, unknown audience on controversial subjects where misunderstandings cause a lot of trouble for you? There are plenty of other real-world places to discuss things that don't carry that risk, and likely some more-private places on the internet where you can join an actual community of people who will get to know you over time and understand what you say in context.
Put another way: most people wouldn't randomly walk up to a group of 10 strangers on the street and immediately bring up a controversial topic. Why do we think that's a good move on the internet?
I think we're starting to see the social limits of instant around-the-world communication. It just doesn't work as well as we want it to. The internet is still ridiculously new to the world, and our understanding of its social nuances is still in its infancy.
I do that a lot.
You could trivially interpret that as "exercising judgment", but it's not that. I am exercising caution and self-preservation.
It's akin to the onset of apathy.
However, that would categorize Stallman's gaffe here as bad judgment and not self-censorship. Seeing as what he said was definitely not appropriate to say in those circumstances.
I agree.
Are there perhaps some views that you think are not quite hateful or bigoted, but aren't totally fine to state? Maybe, "err on the side of caution" type views?
I wonder what Zeno would think on moving your views from completely hateful to completely fine: first you must go halfway-hateful, then half of that, and so on. Perhaps one will never find a completely fine view to state!
- How someone is treated depends heavily on whether they're perceived as being part of the right clique. For example, a few years ago Nintendo sacked someone who thought it was a great tragedy that owning photos and videos of kids being raped was illegal and bloviated about this on social media. (Probably not for that reason as it turns out, although her job did involve interacting with kids.) She was in the clique and the people who drew attention to this weren't, so all the right-thinking folks and publications rewrote her views into something much less objectionable, then insisted that repeating what she actually said was a bigoted lie and the whole thing was a misogynistic attack against her. I'm pretty sure there's a heavy overlap between those people and the ones going after Stallman by rewriting what he said in the opposite direction now.
- The views you have to hold in order not to be a bigot aren't consistent from year to year. For instance, there's a faction of self-proclaimed feminists who're really hateful to trans people and have successfully lobbied for some rather bigoted laws. A few years ago any trans woman who merely pointed out the harm they'd done was labelled as a terrible misogynist. Sometime around 2016 this flipped and all the same people who'd been demanding everyone shut up decided those views were now so evil that they justified beating up elderly women merely for holding them, and that the people who were uncomfortable with this violence were the bigots. There was zero overlap between the views that were acceptable before and after the flip, and no room for a more moderate position. That faction has become increasingly irrelevant over the years, so fighting them is actually less important than it used to be.
I hate how diluted the word "rape" has become. I can't tell if you mean some perfectly willing petting between a 17 year and and a 20 year old.
The fun is always in defining what exactly should be in the category "hateful"/"undermining stability of our country".
As a side note, I've advocated for chattel slavery in the past, it actually didn't go too badly.
Moral outrage as a language game, especially where certain hot button issues are concerned, like anything involving sexuality, bears a striking resemblance with the language game that unfolds umong children when it is alleged that someone has the cooties.
When such an allegation is made there are three possible plays. Agree, disagree, or stay quiet. In my opinion, the best play is to vocally agree with the allegation when it is made by at least one popular kid or when a critical mass of kids agreeing with the allegation has already been reached. When a critical mass has not yet been reached and the allegation is backed by only a small number of kids and kids who are unpopular or of undetermined popularity status, the best play is to stay quiet while waiting to see if a popular kid joins the allegation or if a critical mass is reached, at which point you should start to also voice your agreement. Something you never ever want to do is to speak up to disagree.
This is because the claim "you've got the cooties", despite being by definition false, draws credibility from how many people agree with it. If someone finds themselves on the receiving end of the allegation, the only possible response is to go "no you've got the cooties" and try to build consensus around that.
So, Kid A goes "Kid B's got the cooties", Kid C goes "No he doesn't". That would be a very stupid play if Kid C is an unpopular Kid, because it would be likely to make Kid A pivot into expressing the view "Kid C's got the cooties", putting Kid C into a strategically worse position than he started out in.
Now, choosing between the vocally-agree versus stay-quiet plays: Vocally-agree is usually a better play. Because Kid B could respond by turning around and saying "no, Kid C's got the cooties!" That is unlikely, but the probability is greater than zero.
If, on the other hand, Kid C goes "Haha! It's true! Kid B's got the cooties" that makes Kids A and C allies, so it advances Kid C's position by getting it into the safety of the herd, so to speak. Because now, if Kid B goes "no, Kid C's got the cooties" you will find that Kid A will voice disagreement. So between Kid B having the cooties and Kid C having the cooties, the greater consensus is around Kid B having the cooties.
It quickly becomes apparent that the game unfolds around popularity and conformism as a self-fulfilling prophecy and that, at the end of the day, popular kid always wins, unpopular kid always loses.
So, about Stallman. Popular kids win. Yet again. Who would have thought that. Stallman's got the cooties.
If you or I said what Stallman said, but to a coworker or to the boss, we would get fired - justifiably. This is not a new concept unique to the digital age, nor is it a concept that should be done away with. The popularity of your comment depresses me deeply.
Suppose there's a boxer, "Joe", and he has a scheduled fight against a named opponent. It's set in a legitimate venue, is freely advertised as if the promoters have nothing to hide, includes a normal ref & audience, and then proceeds like any other boxing match, including the traditional cordialities between opponents before and after. To "Joe", nothing's wrong. But then, years later, it's discovered that the opposing boxer was coerced into fighting, perhaps with threats of violence or blackmail.
Is "Joe" now guilty of physical assault, for repeatedly punching the other boxer, even if to "Joe" at the time it seemed like a normal voluntary encounter, no seedier than any other boxing match?
Maybe RMS's take was dumb. Maybe my analogy is dumb! But it's not "shameful" to try to work out the reasonable characterizations, given Minksy's possible mental state, the law, or common-sense. It might even be possible, under formal legal definitions, for Giuffre to have been "assaulted" while at the same time Minsky's actions don't rise to the level of "assault".
(Of course, there's also reasonable debate as to whether or not Minsky actually had sex with her. One person who was present at the gathering claims Minsky didn't.)
But how do you know Minsky didn't "ask[] some very hard questions"?
At the time of the alleged sex, 2001-2002, Epstein's cover as an investment billionaire who threw money around to win the attention/affection of young-but-legal women was still secure. He'd been a recent repeat visitor to the Clinton White House, and President Bill Clinton's multiple trips in Epstein's plane were contemporaneous or followed soon after.
The thinking at the time would have been: "If an ex-President (and husband of sitting Senator Hillary Clinton) can hobnob in public with this guy Epstein, he can't be into anything too shady, can he?"
Legitimate question, I haven't been following this closely enough to know. If it was reasonable to assume she was an adult I don't see an issue with it, but I don't have a moral objection to prostitution
I mean, given everything in the news these days, this is blatantly untrue. I suspect it wasn't ever quite that true before either. Maybe it should be but I don't think it's quite that easy.
> The wrong opinion? Stallman questions whether the victim, who he admits was coerced into sex, was actually sexually assaulted. This is an incredibly shameful take on the situation. [...] There are people trying to downplay sexual assault.
I'm hesitating to respond to this (self-censorship and all) but I'm not a public figure so I can risk being wrong, right? Right?!?
This isn't exactly what RMS was getting it and you're kinda missing the point in the same way RMS kinda missed the point. He didn't get why we use the term "sexual assault" as broadly (and reasonably so) as we do, and it doesn't sound like you get why he decided to argue the semantics of it.
His point was that he felt calling what Misnky had done "sexual assault" seemed to imply that Misky hadviolently attacked and raped her in a physically restraining sorta way instead of, to his best knowledge, in a "she was coerced by a third party without his knowledge" sort of way.
He missed the point that regardless of those details she was sexual assaulted. Further, he seems oblivious to the fact that splitting hairs defending his friend distracts from the real issue: that this isn't about any of them, it's about what happened to the victims. I think that take is fair enough but I agree making that case is bone headed. Not because he shouldn't speak his mind, but that it's just besides the point.
I think you're missing the fact that at all RMS was about was just clearing up the record of what Minsky did and didn't do. Not even that he was fully innocent. I agree it was in poor taste but I think if he was any less a public figure it would have been read more charitably with an awkward sigh instead.
Stallman was not saying that Minsky should not be absolved of responsibility. He was just saying that the term "sexual assault" is inaccurate in that it implies violence.
> I think Minsky was smart enough to know what was happening.
That's a fairly large assumption. Minsky's name shows up twice in hundreds of pages of deposition. Once is in a statement by the victim when she is asked to name names:
> They instructed me to go to George Mitchell, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, another prince that I don't know his name. A guy that owns a hotel, a really large hotel chain, I can't remember which hotel it was. Marvin Minsky.
And the only other reference (that I am aware of) is in reference to being on a private flight with a bunch of other people.
How are you able to infer so much from so litte information?
Which is also incorrect. Sexual assault encompasses coercion without physical violence.
It is accurate to say that the girl was sexually assaulted; whether or not Minsky sexually assaulted her is up for debate.
I agree with the parent that it seems sketchy that Minsky (and the others present) didn't have at least some idea what was going on. At best, these girls could be prostitutes, but just assuming everything about the situation was completely legit is in my mind morally questionable.
Then there wass also a person present at the gathering who says Minsky turned the girl down. If she says that she had sex with him, I would tend to believe her, though.
I was actually reading Stallman's site last night, after seeing the article about him leaving CSAIL. I noticed he had a "glossary" section where he basically rejected the use of many common words and phrases, because their literal meaning did not match the colloquial or modern use (for example, he rejected the word homophobia, being pedantic about the phobia part). I'd bet this whole thing about "sexual assault" is along the same line.
When he uses the tools of pedantry, he does so to try and change the goalposts of the conversation, not to provide greater clarity.
In that case think its important for thinking clearly to develop your own definitions that group things together into categories where all members share important traits.
“whether or not Minsky sexually assaulted her” is precisely the thing that Stallman was debating, and got into trouble for.
I don't know... to me it seems totally understandable (even somewhat admirable) that Stallman would stand up for a deceased friend/colleague and try to set the record straight.
The fact that he thinks people don't have issues with that, but with the fact that he may have forced himself on her, is what makes him a piece of shit.
To be clear, I think Epstein committed some terrible crimes and I am glad he was eventually brought to justice. And based on the limited details available surrounding Minsky’s involvement, it certainly looks bad for him as well. And my heart goes out to the victims for the terrible exploitation they were subjected to... I literally can’t even imagine what that must have been like as I have never experienced anything even remotely comparable in my life.
But that doesn’t change the fact that I think some acts of sexual misconduct are worse than others. That I think details and precision matter when accusing someone of a crime. Or that I think the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Does that make me a “piece of shit” too?
Sure, but no permutation of details could make an actual sexual encounter, which is the hypothetical RMS is talking about (what really happened isn't even relevant when assessing what RMS said), benign or okay. It could be even worse, sure, but not really good.
> whether he knew she was under age
The only way to not know that would be to not care.
Saying that one crime is less severe than another does not imply that the lesser crime is “benign”.
Stallman takes issue with the word “assault” because he doesn’t think it likely that Minsky forcibly assaulted the victim. That doesn’t mean he is saying Minsky is without guilt, or that the whole Epstein ordeal is somehow “benign or ok”.
> The United States Department of Justice defines sexual assault as "any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.
Saying Minsky might not have realized she was coerced, in context of a 17 year old on a private island having sex with a 73 year old, is just nonsense. If (!) he did anything at all (and so far, there's only a claim that Minsky turned her down, plus no claim he had sex with her, AFAIK), that'd be sexual assault just by merit of the power differential.
If RMS doesn't understand that at age 66, that's tough luck, and splitting hairs about the arbitraryness of the age of consent or territorial jurisdictions, then talking about how it was all misunderstood and mischaracterized, because he was also, additionally falsely accused of defending Epstein, doesn't make it seem like he learned anything, at all.
Last, but not least: Not knowing someone's age because one didn't ask for ID isn't ignorance, it's not wanting to know. Likewise, a highly intelligent man thinking "oh my, this young lady who also happens to vacation here is really into me, what a lucky bastard I am" and any variation thereof doesn't pass the smell test. Even having attempted that argument was insulting to anyone's intelligence, and it's insulting to victims of such things.
I didn’t interpret Stallman’s comment to mean this at all. But rather that Minsky assumed that the victim was engaging in prostitution and willfully engaging in sexual acts in exchange for money.
With regards to not knowing someone’s age, there are a few plausible scenarios that come to mind. The victim could have lied to Minsky. Epstein could have lied to Minsky. She could have presented a fake ID, etc.
I think you making a lot of assumptions here that just aren’t borne out by the evidence available. Assumptions about what Stallman thinks or has implied, and assumptions about the nature of the accusations against Minsky. As far as I am aware we don’t know where or when it allegedly happened, the victim’s age at the time, or the details of how it was initiated. Some of the details you are assuming about the victim being 17 or the encounter having occurred on a private island seem to have been pieced together in a highly speculative verge article or from internet commentators (if you have quality sources of information that report otherwise please share). Stallman may not have had these details in mind or may have had a different set of assumptions when he wrote what he did.
I for one would like to see Stallman elaborate on some of his positions to better answer these questions. Not silenced.
It does though, just by leaving room for Minsky just thinking she might be "willing", "not coerced".
> As far as I am aware we don’t know where or when it allegedly happened
On that private island during an AI conference held by Epstein when Minsky was 73 and the girl 17.
Though AFAIK there isn't a claim Minsky did anything, just that the girl was "directed to have sex" with VIP, including Minsky. One person stated Minsky turned her down, and she AFAIK didn't claim Minsky even touched her.
But that "something happened" is the hypothetical scenario within which Stallman argued on that mailing list. It's not my "assumption" at all.
> Some of the details you are assuming about the victim being 17 or the encounter having occurred on a private island seem to have been pieced together in a highly speculative verge article or from internet commentators (if you have quality sources of information that report otherwise please share)
Why not just ask right away, instead of after me telling me about my assumptions and sources. The first thing I heard about this was a link to the mailing list, the rest from searches. I never even read the Verge article, no need. I know some articles falsely claim RMS defended Epstein, but that's also not from reading them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky#Allegation_of_ch...
> In 2016, Virginia Giuffre named Minsky as one of the people she was "directed to have sex" with on Jeffrey Epstein's private island while she was 17 years old [5 sources]. It is alleged to have happened in 2002, during an AI conference hosted by Epstein at his compound in the US Virgin Islands. [1 source]
See the sources in the footnotes of that article. If you disagree, don't just do it here, correct the WP article. I for one made sure I know what I'm talking about before I even started to do so. And Stallman isn't being silenced, either, he simply doesn't have a leg to stand on here.
When asked when it happened, she answers “I don’t know”. This is why I question whether she was really 17 at the time.
There is a flight record that shows Minsky and the victim were together on the same flight, when the victim was 17 years old. But there is nothing that links that flight as occurring at the same time that the victim was directed to have sex with Minksy. Given that the victim was employed by Epstein for years, and reports that she basically traveled everywhere with him at the time, it's entirely plausible that they were two separate events. The reporting that links that flight with the victim's deposition is entirely speculative.
This is my understanding of the available evidence. But it is entirely possible I am missing something. If you think so, please share.
On a partially related note, the abuse of language that has lead to the current definitions of "rape" and "sexual assault" is distressing. :(
> The word "assaulting" presumes he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way.
And then Stallman goes on to point out there is no evidence to suggest that Minksy acted violently toward the victim, and may have been unaware that the victim had been coerced by Epstein.
Given that the definition of "assault" is "a physical attack", I can't really disagree with him from a purely semantic perspective. And I would agree that there are other terms terms such as "statutory rape" and "soliciting prostitution" that may better describe what Minsky is accused of.
Is it "shameful" for me to see some merit in his argument?
(Check your local statutes!)
And to make matters worse, he tried to quibble about the definitions of "sexual assault" and "statutory rape", which is pretty insulting and hurtful to people who have been victims of those situations.
Now, I don't necessarily see that this should definitively add up to RMS being forced out of MIT and the FSF, but this, combined with decades of awful behavior around women and some pretty messed up attitudes around what he called "voluntary pedophilia", is an understandable camel's-back-breaking straw.
It also confuses me to see people talk about stallman's language tricks as pedantry when he spends a lot of energy redefining terms or trying to pull out alternate meanings -- kind of the opposite of pedantry. Or a pedantry against his private dictionary.
Laws are notoriously complex (it’s why we have lawyers), and if you are going cite “a legal definition” that conflicts with the common definition of a word (e.g. assault), I think that carries a burden of actually citing the applicable law that was violated. But that’s simply not possible with in Minsky’s case as there are just not enough details in the deposition where he is named, and he was never formally charged with any crimes.
In none of them does the law say "let's break the phrase up into two words, sexual and assault, now, assault implies violence, and was this violent?"
That's not pedantry, that's playing word games.
I’m not playing word games here, this is just how I understand the English language to work and sexual assault to be defined.
I understand that in certain legal settings, any sexual interaction with a minor is deemed a sexual assault due to the fact that a minor cannot legally give consent. But as mentioned above, the laws in the US dealing with sex crimes are actually quite complicated, and details of what actually occurred between Minsky and the victim are few and far between, so I don’t know if that term would apply in Minsky’s situation.
Maybe I am wrong or maybe we just have different understandings of the phrase (possible given the vagaries of the language). But I think accusing people of “playing word games” and trying to “move the goal posts” is not constructive. You’re assuming bad intent where it could just be something as simple as a difference in understanding.
I do not believe the same is true of stallman, after having watched him redefine terms for decades, offer his own set of meaning for jargon in common use elsewhere, and so on. I think his frequent stance of "we must examine what this means" is more often than not a distraction, because sometimes he takes a technical meaning, sometimes he substitutes his own, and it never seems like his goal is a shared understanding; just that we should accept his.
I greatly dislike the new emphasis on feelings and image over accuracy and truth that has entered the tech sector in the last decade or so.
^ not particularly directed at your comment, it just inspired the thought
Sadly this is not true; it's been routine for all kinds of authority figures to blame the victim and excuse the perpetrator in cases of sexual assault and rape. Including police and judges.
The only way we've moved forward is the public making very clear that that is not acceptable, but this actually has a low hit rate. For every Stallman there is a Kavanagh, and a hundred rape apologists to back then up.
Having a a factually or morally incorrect viewpoint on a public happening isn't an assault on a victim. Its an opportunity to help that person learn better and even more importantly to help the many more who believe the same as the speaker but who wont speak up learn as well.
Silence dissent and you lose that opportunity and everyone is poorer for it.
"I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. [...] Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
A child who had been captured by Epstein and coerced into sex with a bunch of people said that Minsky was one of those people.
RMS said let's assume it did happen, and then started defending Minsky by quibbling about the definition of assault.
RMS said that minsky having sex with a coerced child shouldn't be called assault because assault requires force or violence.
He's wrong. Assault has an every day English definition and it doesn't require violence or force. Assault has legal definitions and they don't require force.
His position on the word "assault" makes no sense.
This follows on from earlier comments where he said that children can be willing participants in incestual abuse, or that he thinks it's unlikely that children who are abused are harmed by that abuse. He retracted some of those after people told him that yes, in fact, children who are abused are often harmed by that abuse.
Not sure where you live but in my subculture it does. It's quite possible it also does in RMS's social environment.
Do you have a source on his retraction? I would have thought Rind et al (and a bit of first principles thinking) would have been his main source.
I don't really see how this is so hard. Don't treat women poorly, in person or online. Don't talk authoritatively about subjects you don't understand, especially when those subjects (like rape and human trafficking) cause people intense pain.
If you really do want to act this way, then you probably should exercise some self-censorship, and rethink your views, perhaps.
> ...in what we can say without facing consequences.
What you say should have consequences. No one should censor you (what you say should be up to you), but you don't live in a vacuum. What you say has a real effect on others, and if that effect is bad, you should be held accountable.
Thus you probably want to avoid growing in the only global circle we have. With smaller circles, getting cut off (as always has happened) is less of big deal.
In a similar vein, I'm fine with scientists exploring "IQ of the races" in their work. But going on a podcast and sharing that with a more general audience while not understanding its role in broader society while washing concerns away with "this just facts" is fine to have consequences.
Do you think having norms that advocate hiding knowledge that someone could argue is dangerous from the public will do more good than harm and won't backfire in the form of public distrust of experts?
I think as well that we as a society should learn to be more empathic, more tolerant, to learn how to forgive, and to avoid mob judgements.
Both, are my opinions. I don't know if there are any studies or references to this.
I would advise not speaking authoritatively even if you are an authority. People are less likely to offer suggestions and ideas you didn't consider if you act like you know what you're talking about. I learn all kinds of things by not sounding as certain as I usually am.
...they said, authoritatively. I'm a work in progress.
No one is allowed to have an opinion unless they're an "expert"
(Sarcasm)
Maybe we should start an experts registry, so there is no confusion about who can speak.
Then it's time to just shut down HN in general, eh?
Morality is constantly changing and what is considered treating someone poorly changes too. More recently it appears to be changing faster than ever. That can make it hard to remain with the bounds of what is in the current instance of time considered socially acceptable by the majority. There is no absolute morality even though it may seem like it if you are thinking with the span of an hour or a day. Stretch it out and it's a constant shifting. In any case, I don't think anyone should be silenced. If they say something that the majority feels is foolish, they can be considered a fool, or a debate can be had to convince them of why they may be wrong, but to silence externally, or increasingly, self silencing with self censorship, in my opinion is dangerous as that means ideas cannot be discussed openly.
Speech is just a tool to share a thought, if a thought effects some one it is for them to bare alone.
The idea that sharing thoughts should have consequences upsets me greatly, maybe it shouldn't but it does. Your speech has filled me with bad feelings and troubling thoughts is that burden mine to bare alone or should I hold you responsible?
The sword you are flailing is sharp at both ends.
This is an excellent point. More and more, there is no middle ground in consequences. Nothing like a suspension? or leave of absence etc. I don't recall how things used to be but I really lament the lack of some sort of gradient scale for punishment.
Then you should be way more careful, sir. Lost metaphors are seldom returned, in these uncivilized times.
You’re free to say what you want and I’m free to not want to associate with your or not want to do business with you and encourage others to do the same.
I don’t see how you have one without the other.
Patently that is false.
Given the sheer amount of ad revenue that youtube, twitter et al get from hosting stuff that if printed or broadcast, would be liable to fines. (at least in the UK)
Self censorship is what defines empathy. When your child has done something hilariously stupid and hurt themselves, you comfort them, you don't stand back and tell them how incredibly stupid they are.
99.999% of people would never Mock a grieving spouse in person, why should you be enabled to broadcast that to millions of people on the internet?
People can say that these platforms are privately-owned and freedom of speech is only about government censorship, but where do you speak when these platform are well established and chances of dethroning them with a decentralized and open alternative are slim to none?
Social media is not social, it's corporate.
I was there, about 20 years ago, when he sent e-mail urging all free-software advocates to protest a bill under consideration in the US Congress. I asked him if he had read the bill. "No," he said, "I don't surf the Web." I saw that as a huge cop-out; how could someone claim any moral or leadership authority when he called for protests and a letter-writing campaign on a subject he didn't know about first hand?
It's certainly true that RMS has been remarkably consistent over the 30 years or so in which I've interacted with him -- starting when I was a reporter for the MIT student newspaper, and then maintained the Emacs FAQ, and then wrote for Linux Journal. (No, not GNU/Linux Journal. Sheesh.) He's an extremist. He's a purist. He indeed doesn't get the nuances of interpersonal communication.
But you know what? You can't both lead an organization and be tone deaf to people. You can't be a public figure, demanding respect, and then show such disrespect to others. You can't expect that people will pay attention to what you say when you have so little respect for what they say.
Stallman has long been difficult, obstinate, and rude to people in general -- and a general drag on the cause of open-source (or "free") software. But I had no idea that he was known to be so terrible to women.
But even if he had treated women well -- which doesn't seem to be the case -- it's pretty hard to imagine anyone, anywhere defending Jeffrey Epstein in any way, shape, or form. The guy was terrible, did horrible things, abused a huge number of women, and amassed wealth and power in the most disgusting ways possible. To defend Epstein, or the people who were associated with him, is unacceptable.
Again: You want to defend Epstein in your own personal life? Go for it; you won't have many friends or colleagues afterwards, but that's up to you. But if you do it as the public face of a well-known activist organization? You can't possibly stick around there.
Good riddance.
RMS achieved a sort of secular saintly status early on, and as a result has been excused from developing any sort of interpersonal skills or, apparently, human decency for most of his adult life. Now we say he identifies as autistic, like this excuses it, but in the absence of an actual diagnosis (and maybe even WITH one), it feels like a cop out.
It's well past time to accept that rms may well have damaged the FOSS movement with his behavior as much as he's helped it in recent years.
The free & open software world can do better. It deserves better. We ought to demand it. Moving on from rms is a great first step.
Being autistic does not automatically make a person act shitty towards others and statements like that do a great disservice to autistic community.
When people say "getting the nuances of interpersonal communication", they usually mean "Not telling the truth when it may hurt other people's feelings or your own reputation".
It's perfectly reasonable to not not tell the truth —and even lie— in those cases, but I would prefer if you stated this idea like it is.
"Getting the nuances of interpersonal communication" is saying it like one doesn't understand that people don't act rationally and will throw logic completely out of the window when one of their religious ideas gets questioned.
Stallman is not an idiot, he knows he will get shit for saying what he says, he perfectly gets the "nuances" (i.e. irrational behaviour) of personal communication. He just doesn't care about them.
...
>You want to defend Epstein in your own personal life? Go for it; you won't have many friends or colleagues afterwards, but that's up to you. But if you do it as the public face of a well-known activist organization? You can't possibly stick around there.
You criticise him for not having read the bill, yet you rant about him without having read his emails? Where did he defend Epstein?
> To defend Epstein, or the people who were associated with him, is unacceptable.
Sorry, but Epstein's crimes, and the horrible things he did to a lot of people, and the growing web of powerful people involved with these crimes, are not something to have trivial fights over.
Maybe RMS was just defending Minsky's participation in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme. That's bad enough to me.
source please? All I know is that a girl offered herself to Minsky and that he rejected her.
This was not just Minsky having dinner with the guy in his apartment.
Link: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...
> To defend Epstein, or the people who were associated with him, is unacceptable.
He's defending Minsky, who was indeed an inspirational genius in many ways, for being part of Epstein's sex trafficking.
Sorry, but there's no possible defense there. Trying to say something nice, or claim that Minsky didn't know, or say that we shouldn't use terms like "sexual assault" because they are laced with moral judgment, is all pretty bad.
Is it because it makes the dogpiling seem less justified? That we shouldn't just try and destroy everything that magical thinking can link to Epstien?
I haven't seen anyone actually make that argument, but I have seen a lot of people arguing against it.
It is clear RMS was stunningly clueless to write anything about this, but surely we all know of similar engineers that would make a similar error? If everyone were held up to the same moral standard, we wouldn't have many people left in power! Just to be clear: I'm definitely not supporting hurting children (directly or indirectly) - I hope I'm not falling into the same tar pit.
I certainly respect RMS for what he created and his idealism (although last time I saw him talk he spent about half the time negatively pontificating about Linus and Linux, which seriously damaged his credibility IMHO).
It must be devastating to be on the receiving end of such ire.
I see plenty of political and tech leaders set extremely low moral standards. Why is RMS being used to set an example? Do you think RMS actually hurt any children?
His comments are tragically inept - but this seems to boil down to being targeted by breaking headlines such as the New York Post: "MIT scientist says Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’".
That said, while the headlines are sensational, the fact is that RMS doesn't seem to understand what willing means or power dynamics.
The way I understand what rms said is that the victim would've acted ("presented herself") as willing to Minsky, while being coerced by Epstein. That does not imply she was actually willing in any way shape or form.
I think you're misunderstanding it too, based on your statement: "RMS doesn't seem to understand what willing means."
The way I see it, what rms did was (strategically) dumb and tactless, but not unethical at all.
So RMS' defense of child abusers is stupid, harmful, malignant and yes, unethical.
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
It also happens to chronicle a ton of other bad behavior that he's been engaging in for decades.
"This was not, actually, all that much about Richard Stallman. Stallman was just the last straw. This was really about all the times I have heard about a classmate’s advisor crushing her dreams, about Seth Lloyd mocking female students, the number of women alumni that were too jaded to feel surprised by this revelation, the story I read from a 1987 alumn about the trauma she experienced at the MIT and the world of that era. This was really about everything that has come out before and after the Epstein revelations, before and after Richard Stallman’s emails.
Did I even really know who Richard Stallman was before those emails? To be honest, not really — I’m a mechanical engineer who didn’t pay enough attention, apparently."
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
That implies that there's some sort of process or council there deciding Stallman gets cancelled. Also this just isn't about his most recent comments about underaged trafficking victims potentially being entirely willing, he's had a long trail of classically sexist "look a girl" moments in speeches and really out there opinions about pedophilia and consent that he only outwardly came out against last weekend _after_ he started getting in hot water about those emails.
Often who gets hit and who doesn't isn't 100% about the most recent events and depends a lot on the story catching fire and in this case it caught and there was a whole barn of old dry tender that had largely been brushed aside because of his technical work.
A leader doesn't just keep their head down and stick to whatever the prevailing zeitgeist is, that's what followers do.
It was the wrong forum, the wrong topic, and the wrong argument. It shows a complete and total lack of good judgement. Combined with his history of such a lack of judgement, that is the standard which we should hold people to.
Apparently it was the right forum to be inviting people to protest Minsky and to label him a racist and pedophile. So why not to defend him?
Were the people calling him a rapist and pedophile sacked as well?
And this wasn't RMS's first time wading into bad positions on topics that honestly aren't up for debate.
It's a shame that this shitstorm started due to blatantly dishonest reporting, but I'm not sad he's gone.
1. If you are attacked by the media, you will lose in the court of public opinion (I expect we wouldn't know about this at all except for the egregiously misleading "news" headlines).
2. Never ever discuss toxic topics (particularly if you are either a little odd, or politically weak).
3. If you publically question anything about a witch hunt, you too will be branded as a witch.
4. Beware of getting poisoned by association (Epstein -> Minsky -> Stallman -> anyone defending RMS).
From what I can tell, the actual morals of RMS don't seem to be the actual issue here.
There is surely a modern Grimm parable in all of this.
This is not the fault of the media looking for witches to hunt. This is the result of a massively intelligent man deciding to spit into the political wind.
Here's the context "...plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein...".
Richard is talking about her being coerced -- to pretend that she was willing.
The witch hunt is taking the context (Richard presumes she was unwilling) and then twisting his words to make it appear that he said she was willing.
The moral dilemma is: is someone willing if they pretend to be willing? Let's guess she was paid to pretend to be willing (why else was she doing it?). Perhaps she was paid to be a honeypot (entrap someone by pretending to be interested in sex - it is at least plausible). I think we can all agree that the girl probably would prefer not to have to screw some random. Of course, any underage sex is breaking the law, and ignorance won't help you (in court or the media).
Richard's words could have been better, but the quotes in the public media (and you repeating the two key words) are clearly twisting his meaning 180 degrees.
> This is not the fault of the media looking for witches to hunt.
The media is at fault when it radically perverts meanings just to get eyeballs. Why pretend that there can only be one single canonical root cause?
> This is the result of a massively intelligent man deciding to spit into the political wind.
It seems obvious enough to me that Richard is definitely not "massively intelligent" when it comes to social nuance. We all have our strengths and weaknesses: many engineers cut themselves using their blunt EQ knives.
To me, showing a profound lack of the intelligence that is incredibly pertinent to your role is no different whether you're an engineer who can't write FizzBuzz or you're an OSS leader who says that sometimes it's fine to have sex with children.
Then again I beg to differ, the vast majority of people do not live in the US and have different local definition of underage, also the US has a reputation for having a fascination for sex with teenager (one of the most popular porn sites categories during the last 25-30 years).
[1]:https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
Next to a vicious billionaire, a famous intellectual and the most prolific hacker? Um...
> In the days of the PDP-1 only one person could use the machine, at the beginning at least. Several years later they wrote a timesharing system, and they added lots of hardware for it. But in the beginning you just had to sign up for some time. Now of course the professors and the students working on official projects would always come in during the day. So, the people who wanted to get lots of time would sign up for time at night when there were less competition, and this created the custom of hackers working at night. Even when there was timesharing it would still be easier to get time, you could get more cycles at night, because there were fewer users. So people who wanted to get lots of work done, would still come in at night. But by then it began to be something else because you weren't alone, there were a few other hackers there too, and so it became a social phenomenon. During the daytime if you came in, you could expect to find professors and students who didn't really love the machine, whereas if during the night you came in you would find hackers. Therefore hackers came in at night to be with their culture. And they developed other traditions such as getting Chinese food at three in the morning. And I remember many sunrises seen from a car coming back from Chinatown. It was actually a very beautiful thing to see a sunrise, cause' that's such a calm time of day. It's a wonderful time of day to get ready to go to bed. It's so nice to walk home with the light just brightening and the birds starting to chirp, you can get a real feeling of gentle satisfaction, of tranquility about the work that you have done that night.
> Another tradition that we began was that of having places to sleep at the lab. Ever since I first was there, there was always at least one bed at the lab. And I may have done a little bit more living at the lab than most people because every year of two for some reason or other I'd have no apartment and I would spend a few months living at the lab. And I've always found it very comfortable, as well as nice and cool in the summer. But it was not at all uncommon to find people falling asleep at the lab, again because of their enthusiasm; you stay up as long as you possibly can hacking, because you just don't want to stop. And then when you're completely exhausted, you climb over to the nearest soft horizontal surface. A very informal atmosphere.
RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 30 October 1986 https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.en.html
We can mostly defend against men that give out creepy social cues. Guys that are not creepy are far harder to defend against or get justice against: a guy that knows how to present himself understands social signals (almost self defining) and they can often get away with a lot because of that.
Plenty of guys hit on young women (I saw a study that showed that men of any age say they want a 21 year old). Are we surprised to find out "teen" is a major keyword on porn sites? Many men with a social standing (or money) use that to their sexual advantage. Go to the pub and listen to some drunk bro's: there is a large number what a lot of men say is extremely disturbing. I think they are highly immoral; but the attitudes are common and we usually avoid the moral argument and simplify it with a legal argument (statutory rape laws which rightly protect our weak and vulnerable).
I don't doubt that RMS has been an arsehole, and his workplace, voluntary workplaces, friends, family and acquaintances should definitely make him accountable, and take action against arseholery.
However, what seems to be happening here is that Richard is getting publicly shamed and publicly tried and judged guilty for being creepy - no accountability required.
I wasn't trying to say his behaviour is acceptable. It seems he needs to work on his social interactions (most of us need to work on that, and we should all fight for better).
The only reason for this brouhaha is that the media has attacked him. He wrote that she was coerced. The media has said he said she was willing.
Now plenty of words are being used to picture him as immoral.
What seems weird is that Richard comes across to me as idealistically moral, almost religiously moral: with the misfortune to have a popular wave crashing into his philosophical castle.
Case Singular Plural
Nominative homō hominēs
Genitive hominis hominum
Dative hominī hominibus
Accusative hominem hominēs
Ablative homine hominibus
Vocative homō hominēsBy exchanging clearly visible markers against which action can be easily taken for unaccountable bullying and mob "justice" (which tends to unfairly advantage women in the same way you level your accusations)?
All you want is to give a different group the right to bully and oppress others rather than actually solving the problem. This isn't making things "better"; it's typically considered rather harmful, unless you're a sexist, racist, or both.
Yeah. This is true.
He was intermittently homeless while developing the free software stuff. It was kind of homeless lite because he was a hacker and often slept at work.
He was unable to register to vote at one point because he listed his work address and described himself as a squatter. He got his right to vote when some interview in some national publication came out stating the same thing. At that point, the registrar of voters accepted his work address on his application.
Sorry, but you have to be explicit with your accusations. Call me naive, but if you say 'mattress and all the implications that went with it' in the context of hacker culture : the obvious implication is that he is a hacker, who likes to immerse himself in his work, pulls all-nighters. At worse it implies a lack of hygiene and a healthy separation between life and work. Okay a mattress might be taking to the concept a bit far but bean-bag culture is rooted in the earliest days of Xerox PARC, Microsoft, Apple (both Steve Jobs and Bill gates have talked about a lifestyle of sleeping in their office and not going home for days on end), Homebrew club, etc.
I read the medium article and its accompanying appendix, and imo, its scant on facts, and filled with weasel-wording, political posturing and self-obsession.
There is mention of a report of sexism in AI labs. But what are the facts of the report. Was Stallman implicated in this report? The article doesn't say so. It looks like the author ju just put it out there to make a association between RMS and sexism in the minds of the readers.
The only real factual account( by 'factual' account i mean explicit about the alleged details and facts of events) is the one where the management undergrad was hit on in the restaurant.
Coming from someone who admits to have written out of anger accumulated from different personal experience, admitting she iss after someone she had no idea who he is, who misrepresented what was said to fit her views and narrative, I would not give much credit to anything that was added afterwards in this appendix.
I'm pretty sure we could assassinate the character of anyone that started writing on the internet before we knew it was going on your permanent record.
Perhaps Richard is a heel, but he doesn't deserve unaccountable bullying and mob justice.
Where is the accountability for the publications and bloggers portraying him to be a rapist apologist?
Or, newly reformed pedophilia apologist given the latest developments?
He's discussed his views on pedophilia for a very long time, and this was just the latest on that. It's finally the last straw that was able to bring enough attention on him for action to be taken. It should have been taken decades ago.
Yes, he has.
This is his view as of Friday[0]:
> 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.
Can you help me understand what's wrong with that view?
[0] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
You're talking about a role that has to inspire by example, someone responsible for advocating for your institution publicly, recruiting supporters, and so on. No one who has a history of making incredibly suspect comments about children and sex should expect to stay in such a role.
Incidents like this are NOT about setting up an ethics court and decide the morality or immorality of the person's views. They're about an organization waking up one morning and saying, You know what, we really would rather not have someone with a history of bizarre pro-pedophilic comments as our leader. For god's sake, how would you feel if your CEO had a personal web page with a history of arguing for lower age of consent laws? At a certain point people just don't want to come 'work for' such a person.
And really, who among us would be surprised to wake up and find "RMS indicted on child porn charges" on the front page news? People with normal views on child sex topics tend not to be the ones out there talking about 'ephebophilia' and "now I'm no psychiatrist, but here's my argument for why children actually CAN consent to sex with adults." I'm not saying I'm convinced he's a pedophile, or even that I believe him to maybe be one. It's just not a revelation that would shock me.
And even if he is fixed on the matter of his views on pedophilia, we still have all his creepy behavior toward women to contend with.
The social contract is you try to fix yourself up, society looks the other way on your old acts.
Of course, on some crimes it makes sense to put some limits directly for directly related stuff. E.g. not employing ex-child-rapists in schools.
But shunning people for their opinion, not even what they acted on, in an unrelated field... What's the incentive in getting in line with the society then?
And this guy has been the leader and public face of the FOSS movement for decades? And everyone was fine with his views on sex with children? I had no idea, truly incredible.
From what I read, he loved to stick them up his nose in front of people. I believe he admits to it on his website.
Try and find a primary source for that "fact". You are just repeating black rumours, which signals that you have no credibility.
Why does this feel like such a witch hunt?
How do you fell about James Damore?
Still, I think the way he was forced to go is shameful. Some journalists couldn't interpret a simple statement (sadly very common), started an outrage and the pressure became too much. I hope he sues them and wins enough money to have a peaceful retirement. I don't want a world where some of the biggest contributors to technological wealth we have access to can't freely state their views, qualms and doubts or even start a discussion about controversial moral issues.
I read the original post that started this witch hunt and my baloney detector went off all along, in particular when I read the quote from RMs stating one thing and the author calling for his removal misrepresenting and misunderstanding them as if they said the exact opposite.
That was definitely a witch hunt. He worked hard to give advice that he thought would be useful for improving diversity at Google. Nothing he said was outside of the scientific consensus, yet he was demonized[1] and fired for it. The whole thing is absurd.
1. Check out some Googler's responses to his document (which, in case you forgot, was deliberately leaked without diagrams or citations): https://imgur.com/a/S48QN Several want him physically battered for his opinions.
It's really sad that people felt the need to stoop to threatening him with physical violence, but that doesn't mean he wasn't completely wrong and had to go.
1. https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/google-wrong-article-1.3...
2. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagge...
Because it is a witch hunt, in an age where witch-hunting is the most popular sport on the internet.
However, if it did, to be fair, you would have to seriously consider if it is reasonable to assume that person was ignorant. For example, if you know your friend is a drug dealer and he asks you to "drop off a bag at another house", you would get the book thrown at you even if you didn't know they were drugs in the bag.
And likewise from a moral perspective: Minsky did harm her. Regardless of his knowledge of the situation at the time, I would expect him (were he still alive) to apologize and do whatever he could to try and heal the pain he caused.
However, I do also think it would reflect much differently on his character if he knew all the details of the situation he was in vs. if he did not. That, from what I've seen, is still unclear.
Consequences and intent both matter.
So he did not harm her.
If someone Minsky's age went out and started dating and having sex with high schoolers, he would go to jail. Period. Regardless of the exact social dynamics.
Remember that before making absolute statements about mental powers.
By the way, coerced sex (sometimes rape, sometimes assault, sometimes pimping, in some places prostitution) is illegal among adults too. You can keep it extra illegal for minors.
Minority should not be an absolute but treated as a high bar. (The younger, the higher.)
Unfortunately legislatives are black and white in most countries, and people accede to it.
Here's the Vice headline (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...): Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing' (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20965319 )
New York Post (https://nypost.com/2019/09/14/mit-scientist-says-epstein-vic...): "MIT scientist says Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’: report"
Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/us/mit-professor-jeffrey-epstein-ass...): "MIT scientist defended Jeffrey Epstein associate in leaked emails, claimed victims were ‘entirely willing’"
These headlines do not match what Stallman wrote. They wrote awful words, and put them in his mouth, in order to support a narrative in which he said something which he didn't. That's not okay.
If Minsky could show up to court for his crimes and he said "Your honor, I didn't know she was 15", he would still go to jail.
You are making the same defense that you are claiming "that's not his defense." You both are making the same statement that "its ok, because he didn't know.", just in a very roundabout manner.
If Minsky were tried in US, he would be convicted. Ignorance is not a defense.
You don’t have to agree with this idea (it’s not like we have any evidence after all), but I hope we can agree that it’s not entirely unreasonable.
This is correct, at least for many US states (22, according to Wikipedia’s article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal) ) . You can meet someone under the age of consent in a bar, see them drinking alcohol, even have them show you their license and be fooled by a fake ID, and still be liable under the law to go to jail for statutory rape.
According to that Wikipedia article though, in some other U.S. states ignorance would be a defense. Whether that’s the case for the U.S. Virgin Islands isn’t clear.
He would be convicted if he had sex with her. The evidence that he had sex with her is that she was sent to his room and he didn't report that to the authorities. That doesn't seem overwhelmingly persuasive.
The way you worded this makes the argument much clearer, it's helpful. This is one of the few comments that add value in this thread. Thanks.
Disclaimer: I am definitely not defending the whole sex dealership thing, I am just wondering about what a 19 or 20 year old college student is supposed to do to behave legally.
Edit: as a comparison, in Germany the age of consent is 14 afaik and there exist several additional laws to protect, e.g. 15 year olds from older people that have some kind of power over them (e.g., teachers).
Regardless, I think Stallmam's mistake was to try to start a debate about Minsky's guilt and about statutory rape in the wrong place: a mailing list about Computer Science which includes both staff and students, especially given that he is not a random person, he is an authority figure when it comes to CS and at MIT.
The debates might be valid but the place, and time (given everything going on about the connections between Epstein and the MIT) are what is wrong here.
Yes. And it's such a Stallman thing to do, to have a valid debate regardless of circumstances (whether it was the time or the place to do it). He takes his principles to unheard-of extremes.... but at least, he is a principled man. I wish we had more people like him, TBH. It's one of the persons I don't always agree with, but I always found it very easy to respect his position.
He explicitly does not think she was willing. He thinks she was unwilling but was coerced to give the appearance of willingness and that the appearance of the two from Minskys point of view were the same.
This isn't a subtle difference. You think he said almost exactly the opposite of what he said
Thanks. You're right, it isn't, but the gaslighting had me doubting my own sanity for a moment there.
But then to have a long track record of disagreeing with age of consent; semantic arguments about pedophilia; treating women with disrespect and general creepiness-- it eventually gets to be too much.
Any time you have to say this:
> 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.
After having said this:
> 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.
You've really screwed up, IMO. https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html
That is, once you've fucked up with pedo-apologia a few too many times, maybe it's time to be really, really careful in what you say in defense of a colleague's possibly questionable sexual actions.
I would not want to work for a CEO who believed for years that "voluntary pedophilia" doesn't harm children. If I were someone at the FSF with any amount of power, and I found out about that, I would immediately work to get him ousted, or, failing that, I'd quit.
And it's not like this is the only thing he's done; he's been creating a hostile environment for women at MIT for decades. It's about time he was held to account for that, too.
Now, say I tweet about my boycott of this company. Am I now silencing someone?
Since we're discussing the fine details here, can you tell me exactly when my freedom of speech becomes a tool to coerce and silence others in this scenario?
A key reason behind him stepping down is because the GNOME folks wanted to part ways with the FSF over these issues.
But surely, if you are saying what he said is bad, it must matter whether he said some thing, or it's exact opposite.
Or is this the Schrodinger's cats of statements where it and it's inverse are both totally and equally intolerable?
So, are we saying this is a particularly good defense? Because it doesn't sound like a great defense to me. It doesn't sound like any reasonably smart person -- which Minsky undoubtedly was -- would find themselves in this situation and not have a question or two about the ethics.
Let's agree that the reporting did, in fact, get Stallman's meaning wrong here. Let's even agree that isn't a subtle difference. Here's the thing: even the most generous reading of what Stallman wrote is still, at the end of the day, excusing Minsky's actions.
And at the end of the day, I think that's still a problem.
I'm simply saying he failed at the task of correctly parsing this statement in a way that is clearly causing him to misunderstand the story.
[Update] In another place he does argue that it is not evident that Minsky eventually did have sex with her - from the deposition it seems that she said she was directed to do it and then the lawyer asks where she went to do that and she answers that question, but it is quite probably that she misunderstood and answered the question 'where was she directed to go to do that', and there is a witness who says that Minsky turned her down. For me this is a fair argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe
We are conflating 'law' and 'morals/ethics' in these arguments. If you act with strict adherence to the law, I'm assuming you've never jaywalked, committed piracy, ran a red light, etc.
Oh, these are 'victimless crimes?' What about sex after having a couple drinks? Technically neither of you can consent under the law... a person has probably committed rape if their consensual partner had a 0.08 BAC.
I think that our lack of a legal word other than 'rape' to describe 'statutory rape' does a disservice to those women are victims of forcible, violent sex acts.
Although technically correct in many US jurisdictions, I think you would have a VERY hard time arguing that an 'adult' having consensual sex with a 17 year old being described as 'raping minors' is morally equivalent to the things that 'rape' is typically used to describe.
While it might seem icky, sex between 17 and 75 year-olds isn't a crime.
That is the distinction being made here, especially since in other parts of the world it's even legal to buy weed.
> a pharmacist supplied drugs to a patient who presented a forged doctor's prescription, but was convicted even though the House of Lords accepted that the pharmacist was blameless.
> a 15-year-old boy was convicted of statutory rape of a child under 13, a crime under Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The prosecution accepted the boy's claim that he had believed the 12-year-old girl to be 15, but he was nevertheless sentenced to 12 months' detention.
When I read this, I'm very happy to live in a more sane part of the world.
I'll repost here a comment found under the original source that started this misinterpretation of words:
I want to point out a problem: The article claims that Stallman states
(…)that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.
His claim, which I don’t really believe is well-founded (but that’s beside the point at this instant) was:
(…)the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
That is, as far as I understand, he’s stating it’s most likely that Epstein coerced her into the situation, but that she led Minsky to believe it was of her own free will — and, while I (and I suspect many other people) don’t see where Stallman gets that idea, and it isn’t necessarily the case here, I would assume we can all agree that in such a case, the individual wouldn’t be guilty of rape (due to a lack of mens rea, that is, not knowing that the person was being coerced). In short: he never states that an enslaved child could be ‘entirely willing’, merely that someone lacking relevant information could believe an enslaved child was entirely willing (requiring them to neither know the individual is enslaved nor that they are a child — which is possible for someone who’s 17 years old)
Okay, but then they also ran a suite of opinion articles that said "Trump calls Denmark PM nasty" and then "Trumps Problem With Calling Women Nasty." I mean, look.. I get the thread and all that but that springboard article headline is just factually incorrect and then you have a whole analysis piece built off it. CNN has no way I'm aware of to report inaccuracies.
So much of news is just designed to get a rise out of people and EVERY site is guilty. It's particularly bad with opinion pieces which are, IMHO, tailored to specific demographics. News orgs hide behind the "opinion" label but really they just kill the whole orgs credibility. NYT keeps stepping in this; most recently with the Sunday Review piece on the new Kav book..
"…and then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. Let’s also note that he called a group of child sex trafficking victims a ‘harem’, a terrible word choice."
[1]: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
Actually they did not do that, they simply parroted what had been posted on medium by Selam G.[0] in her call to remove Stallman[1].
Not trying to defend the media, they clearly did not do their job of fact-checking and jumped of the bandwagon of making outrageous headlines to make money, but the actual responsibility of misrepresenting RMS words to call for his removal lies on the original author.
[0]https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/author/selamie/ [1] https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
In no way is he defending Epstein. He actually calls for a harsher sentence for Epstein, and a more concrete term that paints him in a harsher light than the verdict. This is a simple matter of classification, which doesn't seem at all strange to me coming from a scientist at MIT...
Link and full text below.
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_201...
> (Now) Labor Secretary Acosta's plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein was not only extremely lenient, it was so lenient that it was illegal.
I wonder whether this makes it possible to resentence him to a longer prison term.
I disagree with some of what the article says about Epstein. Epstein is not, apparently, a pedophile, since the people he raped seem to have all been postpuberal.
By contrast, calling him a "sex offender" tends to minimize his crimes, since it groups him with people who committed a spectrum of acts of varying levels of gravity. Some of them were not crimes. Some of these people didn't actually do anything to anyone.
I think the right term for a person such as Epstein is "serial rapist".
If someone does a 100% legal thing according the information they know, and is not otherwise negligent, there is no crime they should be charged with. As it happens, in the US, statutory rape is the only one I'm aware of that does not follow this criterion; even manslaughter requires negligence (although I'm not making a point about that).
It's like benefitting from any other kind of traffic, isn't it? If you benefit from a money laundering scheme or a fraud, you'd be charged with complicity, even if you took a lot of care into not inquiring about the provenance of the money. At least, that's how it's be judged in my country (France, and I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me on that). I can't tell for other countries.
They are, for the most part, very minor crimes — things like parking violations.
Stallman raised the question of Minsky's mens rea, suggesting that Minsky might not have had any criminal intent at all. To people who feel that mens rea should always be a criteria in criminal and moral judgement (such as myself), the existence or lack of existence of mens rea matters to Minsky's moral culpability.
With all that in mind, I'm dubious that Minsky could have been approached by a young woman and not had some degree of mens rea. At the very least, Minsky must have assumed the woman was a paid sex worker and recognized at least some possibility that she was trafficked and/or underage. I can't abide the notion that a old man would have mistaken the invitations of an uneducated young girl as genuine attraction.
Lots of famous men of all ages are approached by groupies. Some accept their advances, some don't. I've never heard of any of them reporting the fact to the authorities.
If elderly fat mildly famous academics get solicited for sex by random teenagers in the VI on a regular basis, I must have missed the memo.
Simply based looking like I'm from a part of the world where life is not as difficult seems to be enough for a number of people living there to take a chance. I could also feel how I was the focus of attention of many who did not dare but were considering making the move. A very strange and creepy experience.
And that was in the streets and public places, I'd expect that in the context of a private party the teenagers who managed to get their way in to be daring enough and trying harder, so I guess we have different views based on different personal experience.
You have no way of knowing that.
In another place he also argues that it is not evident that Guiffre had sex with Minsky - she says she was directed to, but she does not say that she eventually did that, the lawyer did ask here where she went to do that and she answered this question but it is quite probable that she misunderstood the question (and instead answered the question where she was directed to do it) and there is a witness who says that Minsky turned her down. It is a fair argument for me.
Scroll down to the inline doc reader widget. Background: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
Earlier today the director of the GNOME Foundation requested that RMS resign from the FSF, and said severing ties with the FSF could happen if he didn't step down.
https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relations...
0: https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/17/20870050/richard-stallman...
The technology industry is taking baby-steps towards actual inclusivity and diversity of thought -- and not this dumbass "I want to be free to say stupid offensive shit with impunity" flavor of "inclusivity" that people around here seem to champion. That is a Good Thing and organizations like MIT and the FSF need to be very careful about whom they let represent them.
As far as I'm aware Stallman has neither been arrested nor has his website been torn down, so he's welcomed to continue to make whatever good and bad points he feels like and the rest of us are welcomed to judge him as we wish: smart, stupid, ignorable, or maybe even abhorrent to the point where maybe he shouldn't be representing a place like MIT. Or the FSF.
It's a free country, after all.
edit: Additionally, because I think this isn't obvious here, Stallman opened up the knowledge about software to the whole world and put energy in keeping it that way. Anyone was able to profit from this.
This seems to be a pretty common paradox.
The people who promote "diversity" (and sometimes even diversity of thought!), never accept anyone who wants to debate the nuances of that concept, nor how that may best be implemented.
Basically they demand conformity to the one "diverse" view and their definition of diversity. You're either with them or you're "part of the problem".
You'd think at some point they would notice how they come off ass utterly hypocritical.
In my experience people who say what you’ve said above actually don’t want debate: They’re frustrated that other people have made their choices and wish to either belabor the topic endlessly or filibuster and waste everyone’s time. You may have freedom of speech, but you do not have an enshrined right to be debated against. There are only so many hours in the day and people must get on with their lives.
The flip side of diversity is inclusion and those actions ran counter to MIT's own policies on an inclusive workplace (if you want a legalistic justification for him needing to leave).
At the same time, though, diversity can't be a cover for actions that are harmful to the larger community. Many places in the world still have strict social pressures against other sexual orientations. Saying you want diversity and inclusion, but excluding gay people—that would be conformity. However, being around queer folks does not actively harm the workplace environment or social culture. However, asking new female students if they want to go out with you, or being grossly insensitive to the plight of sexual assault victims is harmful to a non-trivial portion of the lab.
I would argue that, while RMS is a rightfully accomplished activist and computer scientist, his removal at this point in time makes CSAIL a more inclusive place. Those who might stay away because they're worried about his reputation or hurtful insensitivity—say, young female students, often underrepresented in science—may be more willing to work there.
That doesn't mean people "have to conform", but that our treatment of people should not be diverse: it should be the same for everybody, and accomodating of their diversity within the bounds of acceptable behaviour.
RMS has been treated in the same way anybody else would be. He hasn't been given special treatment. We are therefore being consistent as a society in our treatment of him.
Right now, I can hear people already screaming about diversity of opinion, but they're missing the point: equality and diversity is not about a right for anybody to behave however they want, but for the treatment of those behaviours to be fair and equitable.
RMS has been treated fairly and equitably: he has not been arrested or imprisoned. MIT have behaved in a way consistent with any other employee, and FSF have been consistent with any other organisation trying to protect a public perception for a wider cause.
In this respect, he is not a brave contrarian warrior tackling an unjust society. He's a man who treats other people rudely and says things 95% of the population find unjustifably crude and offensive who has found himself at odds with clear and explicit employment law and codes of conduct.
Inasmuch as any organization must have a set of goals and principles that everyone within that organization must adhere to: Yes!
No one has taken away Stallman’s freedom of speech.
I am not affiliated with either MIT or the FSF, so my social norms have little to do with it.
Anyway, you're playing the dumb little game that people like to play with this topic: "If you're so 'tolerant' why won't you tolerate people saying offensive shit?"
And you've heard the answer a million times, I bet, you just won't accept it: Because it silences higher-quality diverse voices and "asshole who says repellent things" is already a wildly overrepresented class of person in the tech industry.
There is not a defense for what RMS was writing or how he was trying to defend Minsky.
The prevalence of comments trying to turn this against "SJW"s or whatever "other" they can because they're a fan of RMS is disturbing.
This isn't us vs. them.
This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it. Defending him by pointing towards people who overreact to things is a bit terrible.
The firing was appropriate and reasonable, not a response to extremists, zealots, or some other kind of witch.
I welcome anyone to provide a counter-argument.
That's not what happened.
Minsky was accused, and those are the details.
It doesn't matter if it didn't happen, RMS was defending Minsky in the situation that it did by saying the girl who was less than a quarter of his age would have appeared willing.
That gets you fired. Even if it is entirely hypothetical.
Why would he be concerned with such details if not for defending Minsky? He is weird, and pendatic. But that we knew for a long time.
Some people do software, like Linus Torvalds, other linger for decades doing nothing and discuss the value of rape. Hope we'll hear less of his nonsense in the future.
Although it looks like you really believe that's what happened, it is not what happened.
And no amount of repetitions can change the fact that he did not "defend his friend from rape accusations".
> It doesn't matter if it didn't happen
It kinda matters though...
> That gets you fired. Even if it is entirely hypothetical.
And that's absurd.
We always arrive at the same conclusion.
EDIT:
can I ask you why all these comments look the same?
it kinda looks like a pattern to me...
He just expresses on honest opinion on the matter.
Like he always did all of his life.
> That's not how argument works.
To prove you wrong I don't have to prove an alternative scenario.
You are wrong, that's enough.
It's just what it is, he wasn't defending his friend, which, BTW, is not even accused of raping anybody.
> The comment was inappropriate
Like this is new for RMS...
I never said he is not weird, I've said he never supported or praised or defended rapists.
That's enough to prove who said it wrong.
It's all in the transcripts, it's all there, word by word.
> Those are the rules of the game (public relations),
But he's not a PR.
He has never been.
Right, and this time he has finally paid the price. I admire RMS; he's a genius, and he's done a lot with FSF. But I'm tired of his jackassery. If he, in his high profile position, wants to make arguments nitpicking what is rape and what is the age of consent with what is obviously a sensitive subject, then sure. Just don't do a surprised Pikachu when people hate him and want him gone.
For what?
For stating the obvious?
This time he didn't do anything wrong, other than pointing out what everybody in their right mind think: a dead person who cannot defend himself anymore was being falsely accused of child rape but the evidence just proved that he did no such thing and that, anyway, admitting there was sex involved, it wasn't pedophilia.
> I'm tired of his jackassery.
Who cares what you are tired of?
I'm tired of this constant wining, just because you're alive it doesn't mean your feelings are _so_ important.
But I don't want you to be fired because of it.
> is the age of consent with what is obviously a sensitive subject
so we should not talk about what you think is a sensitive subjects?
It isn't for me, I live in Europe, age of consent in my country is 16.
Are you so self entitled?
Who do you think you are?
> Just don't do a surprised Pikachu when people hate him and want him gone.
People are stupid.
I don't care what people think.
Nothing has been proven. It hasn't even entered a court of law yet. Yet here you are willing to accept any and all internet rumors. Aren't you a smart individual.
> But I don't want you to be fired because of it.
I absolutely would lose my job if I was holding a high leadership, PR position at my company for making idiotic statements. You would too.
> I don't care what people think.
There you go. No one cares about your sentiment. Literally I don't care about what it is you have to say at all. Why should anyone care about what YOU, some no-name internet user has to say. The fact of the matter is that people care about what high profile individuals think whether you agree with this or not (once again no one cares about your silly opinions). And someone spoke with their foot in their mouth. Is it technically wrong to state that more people die from medical errors than mass shootings as Neil Degrasse Tyson so eloquently put it? No it's not wrong. You and RMS are so insistent on being right that you can't even understand what context means. You guys are the type of people to get mad at the world and can't understand why you're hated by everyone. So by all means live this way. But no one else does. And don't whine because you're not liked.
And just for the record,
> But he's not a PR. He has never been.
is actually completely wrong. RMS by his own account hasn't written actual code in decades now. What does he actually do with his time on FSF besides go around and do talks? Nothing. What is that? Oh wait... it's literally PR for FSF's values. He does do some things now that I think about it. He writes his silly opinions on CSAIL mailing lists when many thought he wasn't even a part of CSAIL anymore. So he had that going for him as well.
Do you know the presumption of innocence principle?
> I absolutely would lose my job if I was holding a high leadership, PR position at my company for making idiotic statements. You would too.
I dare you try and lose at this game.
I can't lose my job, I live in a country where workers freedoms are protected.
Especially when expressing opinions as private citizens and not while doing their job.
You probably should learn a few things about what RMS stood for, even for a low standard country like the US.
> Why should anyone care about what YOU
For no reason.
In fact I'm ok with it.
You are crying that are tired.
> You guys are the type of people to get mad at the world and can't understand why you're hated by everyone
I really don't care.
I'm loved by the people I love, you, believe me, are less than dog shit to me.
And I'm quite sure it's reciprocal, and that's ok.
It is very saddening though to watch "you guys" still using this pathetic tactics...
This are things people use to say when they are kids, to try get under other people's skin and make them angry.
They don't work with functioning adults.
Are you sure you aren't the one everybody hates?
Looks like it's very important for you to be loved, you;re obsessed with it.
Have you talked with someone about it?
> RMS by his own account hasn't written actual code in decades
And Bosso hasn't played any music in ages, and Schumacher hasn't driven a race car in years.
Guess what? they can't anymore!
So what?
> So he had that going for him as well.
What makes you so sure you're not gonna be next?
> Oh wait... it's literally PR for FSF's values
He was founder and president of the FSF foundation.
He stood up for FSF values, because FSF values are HIS values.
He made them. they didn't exist before him.
He wasn't a PR, he was himself.
A PR is someone who works in public relations, he never did that.
So innocent until proven guilty? Oh wow aren't you the legal expert. You're taking Greg Benford's words at face value. Everything is still "he said, she said" and you don't know any more than I do. Yet you're willing to assume that someone simply cannot be guilty of any wrong doing based on pure speculation while calling it evidence. You're not some neutral balanced individual, so stop pretending.
> I can't lose my job, I live in a country where workers freedoms are protected.
This isn't a matter of freedom of speech being violated. Many Americans strongly support free speech compared to many European countries. But your speech obviously has consequences. If you're dumb enough to write things that can get you fired on an email to a large mailing list, then don't blame the world when people don't like it. And RMS didn't break the law. He won't be arrested or fined by the government. But yes employers or organizations can want him gone. Why don't you read what freedom of speech actually means.
> I really don't care.
I already wrote that I don't care about your opinions. So I'm just gonna not read the worthless part here. Congratulations on responding to me not caring about you with you not caring about what I care about. I applaud you.
> And Bosso hasn't played any music in ages, and Schumacher hasn't driven a race car in years.
I'm saying that RMS's previous contributions don't matter. Read between the lines.
> What makes you so sure you're not gonna be next?
You clearly don't understand what I am saying. Literally read what I write if you want to respond sensibly.
> He was founder and president of the FSF foundation.
Yes, and he was asked to resign and the FSF (it's not actually FSF Foundation so learn how acronyms work) will have a chance to live on. It's hilarious how you equate FSF with RMS. Yet the person who is apparently so important to the cause just got himself fired because he couldn't act more sensibly. I anticipate the FSF actually doing something meaningful now.
> He wasn't a PR, he was himself.
You're just saying semantics at this point. RMS had the most comfortable in the world. He went around the world on FSF dime from donations. He lived in a house that MIT provided for him because his old professor Gerald Sussman asked for it. He hasn't written actual software in decades. All he literally did was travel to give talks. If that's not PR, then what is it. I'm glad that fanboys like you exist all the way in Europe. Go start a GoFundMe for Richard Stallman. I anticipate he's not showering again.
It does matter that RMS, in a hypothetical defended the supposed actions in the way that he did.
And yes, I repeated myself many times to several people saying similar things with the intention of facing all of the threads with a similar challenge. So what?
Like... he wrote about it?
Many others did, nobody lost the job.
It must be horryfying to read someone else's opinion in 2019 America...
You're talking like Stallman is some kind of new Ted Bundy...
> And yes, I repeated myself many times to several people saying similar things with the intention of facing all of the threads with a similar challenge. So what?
are you sure you're not simply obsessed with it?
The thing with him is that people were just so frigging fed up and didn't know what to find to get rid of his ass. One day, he decided to write about the moral definition of rape, the next day he was out :D No need to be a Stallman-level genius to see what happened, he could finally be fired without all the frigging free software extremists yelling censorship... Stallman is now the SJW devil incarnate ahah
And I'm Italian, my grandfather was a partisan, I know what I'm talking about.
BTW, I am yelling, because what he said is perfectly reasonable, given the context.
And surely to defend a rapist, even an accused one, is nearly as bad as being a rapist? Why, perhaps we should skip the courts all together and simply tar and feather them in the public. That's worked out well historically...
He was asked to resign because it's a good play for MIT, you don't have to defend against a wrongful termination suit if the person in question willingly resigns.
If he wanted to defend himself, he would have stayed and fought, let himself get fired, file a lawsuit.
But he resigned, willingly.
Or possibly, because both the SFC [1] and the head of the GNOME foundation [2] said that they would find it unacceptable to work with the FSF as long as Stallman was still the leader, he realized there was no way staying on would be possible.
[1] https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-spea... [2] https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relations...
Clearly, as the angry Twitter mob of virtue signalers clearly has no desire or respect for objective arguments and accusations based on facts, let alone what the law actually says.
This smear campaign targeted at Stallman only ceased to be about the law once the self-righteous Twitter mob of virtue signallers was forced to admit that Stallman was in fact absolutely right to point out that the accusations correspond to statutory rape instead of sexual assault.
Unfortunately instead of doing the honest thing and admit they were wrong, they started moving the goal post and resort to Cardinal Richelieu tactics to try to come up with anything to keep up with the harassment and persecution.
So RMS is defending his deceased friend as though he was accused, it would have been more effective to question the accusation rather than to defend as though it had happened.
He said: The girl was most likely willing, and it's morally imprecise to call this a rape, at worst it would be a statutory rape.
Who gets respect, who gets fired ? :D
He very clearly did not say that, he said the girl was most likely presented to him as willing.
How is it you've made half a dozen posts in a thread about this without even bothering to read what you're commenting about?
Par for the course, ditto everybody else that did not bother to read the court transcript. It's 200+ pages but doublespaced, you can go over the whole thing in an hour or two, it makes you wonder how Epstein ever managed to avoid being jailed for a long time.
I'll bet that before this whole thing is over there will be many more 'names' that end up disgraced or worse.
Why do you feel compelled to paraphrase (and in the process lie)?
Plenty of criminals take objection to their crimes being described as crimes, but “men should be allowed to have sex with underaged girls” is a particularly self-serving and gross position for a man in a position of power over young women to take.
There is no age of consent in France. (However there are aggravating thresholds if there was a crime: under 18 if committed by someone with authority over the victim, under 15 for other cases.)
Not defending it, but characterizing his words correctly in context.
It’s not the same as a rapist saying “it wasn’t rape, she didn’t say no” especially since he wasn’t the implicated party.
In fact I don’t see him not stating it’s not a crime or not morally bankrupt by itself either.
Assaulted does carry a particular connotation does it not? Assaulted meaning, in the biblical sense: attacked.
Thank you for reminding us of this. The man was a noted stickler for language. In fact many ppl only know him via the GNU/Linux interject meme.
Some(?) European countries do legally differentiate between children and teens and that seems reasonable bases on what we know about biological and developmental differences.
I also regrettably used "child sex abuse" inaccurately before when referring to Epstein. This reflects the legal status in the US I believe, but paints the wrong picture of actual children instead of teens being harmed. It pays to be accurate, because discussions around this topic are completely hysterical as it is.
That "and" is pretty disingenuous here, turning the sentence from accurate to grossly misleading. RMS took objection to the act being characterized as assault. Not as crime. And the truth is, it does matter what crime was committed, not only that a crime was (allegedly, as it turns out). It would matter to you if your deceased friend was accused posthumously that their record is at least kept accurate, if it isn't straight.
He can hold an opinion about the moral definition of rape, sure, but why express it so widely in a corporate environment, it blows my mind.
Here's a radical supposition: it's actually good when speech has consequences in society.
How about a rational debate concerning factual things? I have allmost no background information, knew RMS only as the weird FSF guru .. and it is very hard for me to find facts. Most of the debate is about other stuff, than what actually happened.
edit: so apparently all of it started with this:
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
A rant by a female MIT student, offended by something she rad of RMS she did not know before. She writes very emotional, but much better, in terms of facts, than what vice etc. made out of it
its getting increasingly boring to have to engage with people who don't see the irony in a belief that they can be an objective observer of what is "factual" and "rational" in their lives.
> Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him.
> In response to a student pointing out that Giuffre was 17 when she was forced to have sex with Minsky in the Virgin Islands, Stallman said “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.”
These are totally reasonable things normal people say!
Because, to that sentence:
“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.”
I would agree. I simply define "rape" as sex that was enforced, usually with physical violence or threat of it. Or maybe existential threats of other kind. Mixing that term with consensual sex with a 17 year old is not helpful to actual victims of rape, I believe. Consider a couple of both 17 ... all ok. Now one of them turns 18 and now their relationship is rape? That does not make sense. Now there is surely a difference between 17 with 18 and 17 with 70, but I really believe it is not the same category as "rape". Exploitive maybe, depending on the situation. And if in the concrete situation it was actually not consensual, than it also actually might have been rape. I simply don't know that situation and trying to make sense of it. But that small sentence from RMS alone does not justify any witch hunt.
And to those claim:
"Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked."
I would like a actual quote from RMS, that he actually said that.
(Maybe this will end up with a second organization for Free software funded by a hefty settlement from Vice Media et al. One can hope!)
Vice is taking a quote of only two words out of context. Stallman was saying that Epstein was coercing his victims to present to Minsky that they were "entirely willing". Basically what pimps do. Stallman's argument was that Minsky was a victim of Epstein's pimping.
I don't agree at all with Stallman's conclusions or way of thinking (and from all the other independent reports of his behavior, he should have been reprimanded for his approaches decades ago), but Vice is just peddling pure yellow journalism, you can't trust their reporting.
Yes, RMS seems to be a sexist, unsensible at least, maybe not fit to lead such a position, but the media coverage about it is disgusting and misleading. But so is also some of the criticism of the women who started it. She seemed to be really upset about it and not just a "attention whore". Because there still is lots of sexism in the IT nerd world and being a man I can only try to understand what it means, when you try to show good computer work, but get sexually responses instead. So she reacts different, when she sees the sign on his door: " knights for justice (also hot ladies)" to which I would think, stupid maybe, but not to be taken too serious. But I am not a women. I do not have to avoid his office to not fear sexual mollesting, which apparently quite some students experienced.
That's totally bogus, and I think you should consider the consequences that your speech is already having on the people around you.
Personally I love the guy and his weird contributions to the field. But how can you look at this and not think "wow thats not ok to say" no matter what we can consider he may have meant after the fact?
I read what he wrote, and i DO think it's okay to say. Further more i think it's RIGHT to have said it, publicly, especially by a person of his standing.
It took an incredible amount of courage and determination for rms to have the impact that he's had on the world.
And now, he's been cancelled.
This is a bad sign.
Let's consider the logical conclusions of "society" being able to inflict consequences upon someone if they speak an unpopular opinion.
If you're an individual human being, it's likely that you have at least one opinion about something that isn't inline with the overarching culture. The particular issue of Epstein or Stallman or whomever is irrelevant; while you may agree with the mob in this case, next week or next month you might not. Under your proposition, that leaves you with three options:
1. Keep your opinion to yourself and refrain from telling anyone for fear of reprisal. In other words, self-censorship.
2. Changing your opinion to match society's, out of fear of being ostracized.
3. Expressing your opinion and then having your personal or professional life ruined, or at the very least, affected to the point where you suffer financially, mentally, emotionally, or socially.
Which of those three options sounds beneficial to you?
Further, all of your "options" sound amazing if what the person is doing is calling human trafficking victims "willing." It turns out that there is a difference between good and bad things. AND it's actually possible to determine which is which!
This notion that a social technology such as public opinion can be used in a negative way is not some sort of revelation. Weapons only have the morality of those that deploy them. Just as we must decry immoral use we must also celebrate moral use, otherwise we'll be living in a society where people can claim that victims of sexual violence were "willing."
1) there are material consequences for "expressing an unpopular opinion." some of which aren't up to the person expressing them. 2) those determining the consequences, such as the organizations that let RMS go, are and should be allowed the freedom to self-govern in this way. they are well within their right to refuse to be associated with people who say these things.
But that isn't what is happening. There is no reasonable discussion. There isn't even any attempt to understand the complexity and nuance of a situation. It's simply: you're gone. It's mob politics 101 and anyone familiar with political history has seen it time and time again.
The main consequence of this mentality will be that organizations like MIT will be filled with yes-men/women and those that toe the intellectual line. And subsequently the real losers will be society and MIT.
Please stop spreading this misinformation. As explained in this thread countless times, Stallman never called the victim "willing" -- he just said she might have been threatened into looking like she is.
But.
I think its really important for people making this sort of argument to deal with the fact that public people who make public statements do not get to control how those things are taken. In much the same way that your production as an artist isn't entirely yours when you release it to the public, RMS' actions have consequences outside of what he may have meant. I for one dont think for a moment that he means to justify human trafficking. But what he did do what make a statement that can be taken as victim blaming. This is very, very dangerous and there should be consequences.
> 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.
It's pretty clear to me that he acknowledges the victim to be a victim, who has to deal with threats and coercion __in addition to__ sexual assault. He just argued that Minsky might not have known what was going on, which has nothing to do with what the victim actually felt.
The only people who interpreted this as victim-blaming are the media outlets who straight up lie in their headlines. Here's Vice:
> Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'
Stallman does have a responsibility to ensure he cannot be reasonably misinterpreted, but this headline is a blatant lie.
In a world where wilful misinterpretation was not somehow weaponised I would agree with you, but that is not this world. This norm would leave every PR person completely at the mercy of any enemies they are unlucky enough to make.
I sure know better than to redefine the moral value of rape in a corporate mailing list, but heh, who would want to horribly self censor their every brain farts, surely not heroic stallman, defender of free speech and provider of no value.
Comparison with lynching seems fair to me.
All of this got me thinking about creating, you know, accepting tech community where everyone is free to express their own opinions. I'm personally fine with my code being called shit and me being called dumbass for a good measure, just tell me what you really think and we'll sort things out faster instead sugar-coating stuff to not hurt my ego.
No one dislikes Stallman on the basis of the color of his skin, and no one is murdering him. The use is a grossly inappropriate metaphor that diminishes the real meaning of the word.
To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry.
(Law) (tr) (of a mob) to punish (a person) for some supposed offence by hanging without a trial.
Nothing about racism here. The only thing that doesn't apply to Stallman is that he has not been hanged. That's quite important one. Though words are sometimes used not in their literary meaning (like "I'm killing it" -- well hopefully not).
BTW from what I've gathered this entire thing happened because Stallman was pedantic and has written something along "let's be precise with words, I think what happened was not rape, but statuatory rape because of such and such".
> This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired.
This is a man who said something mildly inappropriate in a forum, as is his wont.
> He deserved it.
A completely appropriate and reasonable verdict, no doubt. Doubts are for unreasonable people, of which one you are not.
> I welcome anyone to provide a counter-argument.
Somehow I doubt that.
>When this email chain inevitably finds its way into the press, the seeming insensitivity of some will reflect poorly on the entire CSAIL community. Regardless of intent, this thread reads as "grasping at straws to defend our friends" around potential involvement with Epstein, and that isn't a reputation I would like attached to my CSAIL affiliation.
What do you think as an administrator if you see a comment like that about one of your prominent employees?
But, he wasn't?
1. "Minsky has been accused of assault"
2. RMS: "you shouldn't call it assault - might give people the wrong idea"
3. "It would have been literally rape in the relevant territory, 'assault' is a fine word for it"
4. RMS: "ok, even if it's legally rape, it shouldn't morally be considered rape, so don't call it assault if it was 'just' statutory rape."
What inaccuracies did he point out? I see that he expressed his opinion that 'assault' is too strong a word for some cases of rape, but what inaccuracy was there in the original statement regarding the allegations about minsky?
Seriously, what is it with all those people discussing in corporate and public function their stupid opinion of the moral definition of rape. Let justice speak, and you, speak privately. For someone lauded as a genius of some sort, he could have maybe understood what you can say where.
The consequences here are out of line. You can be reprimanded to take your discussions to a non company venue, in a situation like this, but fired is over the top.
Stallman said “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.”
It's pretty clear with the age difference being what it is, this is exactly what statutory rape laws are for. But it is also incongruous that somehow if she was a year older it would be ok. It's also fucked up that if Minsky were 19, the consequences would be the same. Maybe there's a better law to be had here, but how would we ever know if you can't even have the discussion?
I'm appalled by how free speech is under attack lately by the outrage machine.
I bet everyone here has one opinion that can definitely and very quickly destroy their lives. Let people be wrong, let them speak, let them think ... We can then convince and converge into a common good. Cancelling the guy that gave his life for the cause is appalling and is showing how evil social media is.
Where and by whom is appropriateness and timeliness determined?
I don't take "free speech" to mean anyone can say anything without consequence. The government has a whole lot of power and it comes with limits like free speech.
That doesn't mean that people in my employ can say awful things and I should just ignore it.
Free speech doesn't extend to being protected from consequences for how you express yourself.
It's atrocious that our academic institutions, which used to be a bulwark of free-speech are leading the charge here.
Stallman made questionable, but reasoned statements. He perhaps should not have made them in a work forum, but the consequences here are way out of proportion to the "crime".
You've been throwing a lot of stones here, but I'm sure you've held or expressed viewpoints just as questionable at some time in your life. I know I have. Should you now be denied the right to make a living if they come to light?
Look, that's the reason he's gone. So you said it yourself. That was his decision.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs. Warn him to take the discussion elsewhere and then wait for the outrage storm to blow over. People have such short attention spans in these social media days anyway.
Firing people for political views, especially expressed in coherent not aggressive way is certainly violation of free speech and thought. It's also currently legal in US.
Not all opinions are the same.
Advocating for open borders and basic income are fairly straightforward political opinions. So is being a member of the republican or democratic party, or saying you support lower taxes, or even that you voted for Trump. Had Stallman resigned over reactions to calmly expressing these type of opinions, the fallout would be very different, and I suspect most people would say something similar to what you've said, and side with him.
But if a person repeatedly says, in public, that our definition of pedophilia as a necessarily-bad thing isn't right, and that people are being too hard on the billionaires who recently got in trouble for this -- even if they do so calmly and coherently -- they are espousing views that many people believe would lead to actual harm to actual human beings. The same would be true for someone who openly supports fascism, or calls for the deportation of Hispanic-looking citizens (I want to avoid a straw-man here, so to be clear I am absolutely not saying Stallman supports these views; they're just examples).
In that case, don't other people have a right to react negatively to that?
As for the consequences of that reaction, that is somewhat proportional to the person's position. If that person was a gas station clerk who, outside of work hours, had posted something on a forum, then we'd again be having a different discussion. But the positions of President of the FSF and Visiting Scientist at MIT carry a lot more weight. Putting someone in these positions who not only holds but eagerly volunteers these types of views is seen as an implicit endorsement of these views by the FSF/MIT -- _especially_ when he chooses to broadcast these views directly to his work community, directly in defense of someone at the center of a recent scandal.
> Firing people for [their] views ... is certainly violation of free speech and thought
Stallman is free to _think_ what he wants. He's even free to _say_ what he wants -- he was never censured afaik. What he is no longer free to do is to continue doing so from the position of President of the FSF or a Visiting Scientist at MIT. Should an institution (such as MIT or the FSF) be forced to protect its personnel from all consequences for individually sharing _any_ opinion in any public forum? I don't think they should.
The line between fairly straightforward political opinion and what some people consider extreme is fairly thin in today climate. This is the case with Stallman's recent posting as well. It's hard to imagine (for me!) that the expressed opinion about the usage of the word assault or questioning sensibility of age of consent laws goes beyond reasonable discourse.
You have a point about pedophilia but that's from very long time ago. He also publicity stated he was wrong and thanked people who helped him understand that. He expressed that views in the distant past as well. He wasn't as prominent by then and he did it from what I understand on his private website. One way or another having sex with 17 years olds is not pedophilia by any stretch of imagination. I consider his comments which he retracted long time ago irrelevant to current situation unless of course we consider it acceptable to dig out every controversial comment from the past to help with character assassination today.
I do think institutions schould take care to not fire people over outrage especially caused by expressing political/philosophical opinions. It's illegal in some countries and treated as common sense there. It is currently legal in US but it doesn't mean it doesn't have grave consequences for public discourse.
Depends. Had they repeatedly harassed women in work contexts over the preceding several decades?
They were. A casual look at Stallman's history will show you that his views (and behaviors), as well as his discussion of them in a public forum, are not by any means new or unknown within the community. They _have_ been ignored for a very long time by the university, the FSF, etc, right until he chose to take this particular moment in time to repeat his views, specifically in connection with a recent scandal.
I think that this _is_ sad in the sense that had folks been stricter with him earlier on, perhaps he would have understood why it was not a good idea to continue doing that, and avoided making these specific public comments at this specific time. It's really hard for me to believe that no one has ever _tried_ to tell him to (essentially) "take the discussion elsewhere" about this stuff, so I have to assume that people did, but he did not think that he had to follow their advice: he relied on being able to say what he liked, wherever he liked, with no real consequences.
And until now, he was correct. But today, people no longer believe that it's ok to be heralded as a pillar of the community (which as both the president of the FSF and the holder of an honorary position at MIT, he is) and be able to say whatever you'd like in a public forum. And enough people believe this today to make these institutions be unable to just ignore his behavior indefinitely.
Yes, and that's basically why there is a "CSAIL minus RMS" mailing list.
This was not just a "work forum", it was a mailing list containing thousands of people in the MIT computer science community, including professors, researchers, administrative assistants, graduate students, and hundreds of undergraduates.
This isn't just a matter of his comments being inappropriate, it's also about him arguing them in an effectively public forum.
I have no idea if that sort of political email is common in the mailing list, but if it is appropriate to share/advocate the protest, surely it should also appropriate to discuss the topic?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
I think people are missing the context of the level of shitshow that’s going on at MIT CSAIL right now with Epstein, Ito, Minsky, and now Stallman.
When the original story blew up over Media Lab and the Administration lied that they didn’t know anything about donations to Epstein, I can only imagine the chaos.
But at this moment in time, they've intersected with the real-world activities of organizations that he has considerable influence over. He seems to have prioritized theoretical point-making over the organizational necessity of addressing people's concerns.
Running things and debating things are two different activities, and for Stallman those things are currently in conflict. Maybe he's tempermentally incapable of dealing with conflicting imperatives; in any case he seems to have taken the absolute route to resignation.
I don't want to pretend he had no choice in the decision, but to pretend he did if of his own free volition is false.
There was no sex, no rape, no violation of age of consent, just a lot of slanderous allegations by folks who had no idea about the background, and didn't read about it.
On the other hand the students allegations on their Facebook event had a proper basis, against MIT management. But this had nothing to do with RMS defense of Minsky.
He reasons that because it would have been in the best interest of Epstein not to disclose the harm that's being done to the girl, she would have been convinced to present herself to Minsky as willing. Thus it is argued that Minsky might have had a sexual encounter without having realized that the girl is being forced to do this. In such a scenario, it is proper to accuse Epstein of harm, but wrongful to accuse Minsky of sexual assault.
All participants of the discussion should refer to the original MIT email thread and not base their opinions on secondary information. There is also a quote from a scientist who names himself as an eyewitness and clears Minsky of wrongdoing. He was not listed by the girl as present during the event and it may be too early to accept his words as the truth. However, if the girl's account corroborates his, then even the harshest critic should be obliged to exonerate Stallman's statement. It reminds me of the role of the lead in "Twelve Angry Men".
What exactly is it that we're trying to "express ourselves" about here? what "progress" are we trying to make on old men having sex with young girls?
If there's change to be made, then someone is going to have to weather the cultural storm that speaking out about it brings in order to bring change. If it's not worth weathering that storm, then maybe it's not worth having that discussion in the first place.
There is a real conversion to be had about our statutory rape laws. They're absurd in some aspects. That's beside the point.
Do you think an advocate for paedophilia and child pornography should be able to pick up a job in a childcare centre or primary school?
These problematic statements were made in the context of someone who has a long, long history of upsetting, angering and offending people with bad behaviour. People in CSAIL kept plants around them because Stallman hates plants and it functioned like garlic to a vampire.
Firing him may be disproportionate to the moment, but it's overdue given the history. The guy who fired him literally said "straw that broke the camel's back."
In so far as Stallman was discussing the law, he was genuinely engaging in political dialogue; in so far as he was speculating about Minsky or the situation in question he was not.
To say that we can exercise speech but must face the “consequences” is just begging the question — what “consequences” are compatible with a free society? If my boss says it would be a great thing if California secedes from the Union, and I say I doubt that would go well, we rely so much on other states for water, &c, &c ... I may definitely offend him. How acceptable is it that a person be fired in that situation?
In my country it's illegal to fire people for their political views even if the employer finds them immoral and incompatible with the culture they want to foster. It's part of legal and social framework to protect freedom of expression. Freedom of expression neither starts nor end with what The Constitution says about it.
Your conflation that free speech is under attack is disappointing - That's not what is happening here.
Whether it's good or bad for society is a complex topic, but spending your time riling up a digital mob every time someone says something controversial can't be a personally healthy way to live.
Stallman had said more than enough to merit his termination IMO, but he still deserved due process before such judgment was passed.
As a business owner, if I felt that an employees continued employment was a net negative for my profitability, I'd be forced to let them go. Perhaps I could keep them for a while, but that's the case.
Yes, I think powerful people facing consequences for doing and saying absolutely abysmal things is a net good for society. Going from no, to some, in egregious cases, accountability is great. RMS shouldn't get a pass for this. Especially not since he's done the same thing before. Especially since now it's concrete and deals with real people and not just abstract ideas.
The threat of an abstract "you could get fired too for saying a truly terrible thing" falls flat because, well, I don't make a habit of doing that. You'd have better luck claiming that I benefit from people making statements that could get them mobbed. But that too is unconvincing: people who I benefit from sharing their views are pushed out anyway via structural dynamics, often due to the things powerful people who don't face consequences do and say.
And then of course, it's not like my life, or his would be ruined. Damore is, as I understand it, gainfully employed and mostly out of the public eye.
I'll ask my questions again since you didn't answer: what due process does one deserve before being fired? What of that did Stallman not receive?
That's fair. However in this case, his "eccentric" views were widely known for years in the FS/OS community. It took a media shitstorm to turn that into a firing offence, which tells you it's not about the content of the views.
> As a business owner, if I felt that an employees continued employment was a net negative for my profitability, I'd be forced to let them go.
That's fair too, and similar argument can be made for a non-profit. At best all I could accuse the various organizations that disassociated with RMS is that they lack backbone and yield to pressure, or try to capitalize on the outrage, but that's not a problem.
Market entities do what they do. But they wouldn't have to, if the story wasn't spun. It's not the e-mails themselves that ended his career, it's how they were fed to the media and then blew up there - especially as this story shows how the reporting doesn't even have to be truthful; lying in a headline and not linking to primary source is standard journalism nowadays.
> The threat of an abstract "you could get fired too for saying a truly terrible thing" falls flat because, well, I don't make a habit of doing that. You'd have better luck claiming that I benefit from people making statements that could get them mobbed. But that too is unconvincing: people who I benefit from sharing their views are pushed out anyway via structural dynamics, often due to the things powerful people who don't face consequences do and say.
Today me, tomorrow you. Each of us has said something that could be misconstrued into a fireable offence, and the problem is that structural dynamics and mob sentiments change; if you accept people being labeled as undesirable for just expressing an atypical opinion and attempts at removing such undesirables from the society, don't be surprised if five years from now it happens to someone you like.
> And then of course, it's not like my life, or his would be ruined. Damore is, as I understand it, gainfully employed and mostly out of the public eye.
Damore is young, and its firing was on such weak grounds that there was a lot of people who wouldn't mind him on board once publicity died down. (At least that was just after the firing; I haven't followed his life since, but I hear that he ended up radicalizing; wonder if the mob ended up being the cause.) RMS is AFAIK 66, and haven't worked in software in 40 years. His job was essentially being an icon of the movement, and now that this was destroyed, he's essentially unemployable. At best, he'll retire.
> I'll ask my questions again since you didn't answer: what due process does one deserve before being fired? What of that did Stallman not receive?
I purposefully didn't use the words "due process". Anyway, I'll answer with a counterquestion: what protections do people deserve from being killed in a flood or an avalanche? Floods and avalanches kill people, that's what they do. And yet protections are instituted so that innocent people don't find themselves unexpectedly in harm's way. Similarly, companies fire people who become a net loss to them, but in recent years, there's been an uptick of cases where someone's private or semi-public conversations have been misconstrued and blogged or Tweeted about with the express purpose of causing a public outrage and ruin the career of that someone. Maybe we need to talk about protections from such events, and even focus on the people who push others under the train because they find their opinions offensive.
To continue with military analogies, social media storms are like gas weapons. They're effective if launched at a distant enemy (though if you're not careful, the wind may carry it back towards you), and not something a force would use around itself when engaged in combat.
That said, I have a nagging worry from watching some videos of his behavior that he is mentally ill and there might be a backlash from that.
But why we can't allow a process like that to transpire before passing judgment is beyond me. Why wishing such an impartial judgment upon him is downvote worthy is really worrisome to me. That's not what western democracies are about as I understood them up to now.
I Just do not believe we should make career-ending decisions like this based on the rage of a mob on social media, that's literally a Black Mirror episode (and a really bad episode of The Orville as well). I believe their role is to raise awareness of situations like to the point where the above should transpire. Does holding that viewpoint now make me subject to "cancellation" as well?
TLDR: the accusation of harassment is 100% determined by the accuser. The determination of whether harassment occurred OTOH is decided by HR after judging the merits (or lack thereof) of the case.
I see no reason why MIT shouldn't have proceeded similarly. And while you might argue that's not 100% impartial, that's a lot better than a Twitter mob (to me at least).
Given the piles of video and text of Stallman being Stallman, and the "Hot Ladies" bit on his office door, do you really think they would have high-fived his conduct and told him to carry on? I'm cynical, but I'm not that cynical.
Or let's put this another way. The Unabomber and Charles Manson got their due process. Are you saying Stallman is worse than both of them? So I'm guessing you guys downvoting me no longer believe in our legal system? That'll end well I'm sure.
https://twitter.com/corbett/status/994012399656042496
https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267277460619265
https://twitter.com/wiredferret/status/1173042834179534849
https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stal...
https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stal...
https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/d5dxf3/stal...
When it's this widely known that he likes to creep on women, the only thing that makes sense is that HR has had plugs in their ears the whole time.
PS The Kelsey Merkley talk is fantastic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y0FuH5FNCo
No. But I do think you're not really looking at this situation objectively. Here's what you've said:
1. It's clear that an objective board should have fired RMS
2. We shouldn't make these decisions based on mobs
Additionally, we know he was fired. With that information, you can't make any conclusions. How and why are you so certain that some board didn't weigh the evidence and pass objective judgement? The problem with this fear of "cancel culture" (which as others have mentioned is really just "holding powerful people accountable when they do bad things culture"), is that so far I haven't seen any evidence that the bad things people fear have happened. RMS did a bad thing. He faced consequences for a thing that even you agree was a bad thing. Your only concern is that it is possible, not even certain, that the method by which he faced consequences for an action that we both agree was bad and deserved consequences might have not have been up to a standard that few employees anywhere get.
I want to stress that last bit: very few employees are afforded the privilege of an impartial committee to decide whether or not they should be fired in any circumstances. You're arguing that RMS should get a stronger protection than your average employee (either that or that workers should, in general, have much, much stronger protections than we currently give them).
tl;dr:
> I believe their role is to raise awareness of situations like to the point where the above should transpire.
To me, this looks like exactly what happened. Why are you complaining?
Even when they're caught, they get put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) which is shorthand for giving them 60 days to find a new job or to turn their life around internally. Usually, it leads to the former, sometimes the latter. I've seen both.
It's an imperfect and biased process. But the attempt is usually made because HR fears unjustified termination lawsuits despite the "at will" employee status of just about everyone.
Unless they've tried to hack the company's servers for private data, I've never seen anyone fired on the spot without the above process unfolding. Maybe your experience differs?
PS I also think Charles Manson and The Unabomber were unambiguously guilty. That doesn't change my opinion that they deserved the trial they got.
PPS If as amyjess seemingly suggests that female professors at MIT repeatedly filed complaints against him and nothing happened, well then carry on Twitter mob, good job, seriously.
RMS isn't an employee of the Tech industry. He's a university something (visiting professor, I think, but not a tenured or official faculty position). Members of the tech industry are also unusually privileged in this regard. Ask a line cook or an employee at a department store if they're given a PIP if they are underperforming. And again, by all accounts, it is possible, and even likely, that there was such a process spurred on by the twitter mob. So its not clear to me what your complaint is. To address it, let me be more explicit: What would you like MIT to have done differently in this situation?
As I see it, they have a few options. They could of course not fire stallman. We agree this is unacceptable. Objectively he deserves to be fired. They could have already fired him, this is perhaps the best solution but requires time travel or foresight MIT lacks. I guess this suggests MIT hasn't yet developed that technology or skill. They could wait to fire him, which costs them PR, and potentially causes others to resign, for no gain (they're going to fire him). Or they could do what they did: fire him now. Again I wonder: what are you complaining about?
> PS I also think Charles Manson and The Unabomber were unambiguously guilty. That doesn't change my opinion that they deserved the trial they got.
You're conflating being fired from a job and being imprisoned, or in Manson's case, sentenced to die. Those two things aren't remotely comparable.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/04/04/former-photog...
Stallman OTOH didn't even have tenure. The bigger story for me is if repeated complaints of sexual harassment (leg grabbing etc) went nowhere until now. That's unacceptable and I suddenly side with the Twitter mob in that case because if so he's had his due process already. And in that case, not only is he an ass, but he probably drove a lot of women out of the field and that can't be undone.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
No. They say, "Ralph, pack your stuff. You're gone." Hell, I've been laid off via a Jabber message.
That's, perhaps unintentional, misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what people worried about it mean by it. The problem with "cancel culture" is the propensity to "shoot first, ask questions later", the doling out of punishment grossly unproportional to the crime. Like in this case - ruining one's entire career for the crime of being pedantic and tactless on a semi-public mailing list[0]. Or, in another, overhearing a joke in a private conversation between two people and making a social media mess that resulted in termination of the joker.
The problem with "cancel culture" isn't the part where it aims to hold people accountable for their behavior. The problem is with the mechanism, which involves setting off a chain reaction. There's the wronged or felt-offended party and initial outrage, which gets amplified as the stories get reshared and republished, usually accruing misrepresentations and outright lies in the process, until the reaction fizzles out in a day or three, and punishment happens. You'll note here that the final impact is not correlated with the scale of the initial wrongdoing, but with how many people get outraged how fast, and how far they reshare, all of which is moderated by how misleading can the story be made and by what else is currently on the news.
I think it isn't fair to dismiss concerns of people worried that "holding people into account" - not just powerful ones, but regular ones too - increasingly often involves attempts at setting off a social equivalent of an ad-hoc, hastly-made fission bomb.
--
[0] - Yes, there's apparently patterns of worse behavior going back many years. But pulling the trigger in the middle of one of the bigger scandals in our industry, that's awfully convenient and points towards the actual reason not being related to past behavior.
The person I was discussing with agrees that Stallman's actions and history, combined, merited his resignation or removal. Yet they used the phrase "cancel culture" anyway.
Please don't blame anyone but Stallman for ruining his career. His history of pedophilia-apology, his history of acting badly, possibly to the level of harassment, around women at MIT, and recently his need to "well-acktually" statutory rape ruined his career.
> You'll note here that the final impact is not correlated with the scale of the initial wrongdoing, but with how many people get outraged how fast, and how far they reshare, all of which is moderated by how misleading can the story be made and by what else is currently on the news.
No, I don't note that. Pressure was put on MIT leadership by women at MIT, women who had historically been ignored when they raised similar issues about the same person in the past. As MIT said, this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
> that's awfully convenient and points towards the actual reason not being related to past behavior.
No it doesn't. It points to the trigger not being past behavior, with which I fully agree. It says nothing about the scale of the reaction by MIT or the FSF. Those were without a doubt informed by a pattern of behavior.
Perhaps because his resignation/removal didn't happen as a direct result of the combined history of transgressions, but only after someone took a fresh, minor offense and blew it out of proportion, so that it ended up in mass media. There's a difference between resigning (or being forced to) because of a pattern of bad behavior, and that plus having your name in the Forbes under a headline that contains a lie.
> Those were without a doubt informed by a pattern of behavior.
If this issue didn't blow up across the whole Internet, do you think they'd terminate him now?
> If as amyjess seemingly suggests that female professors at MIT repeatedly filed complaints against him and nothing happened, well then carry on Twitter mob, good job, seriously.
And add that it doesn't matter. If it takes a twitter mob to force MIT to finally act ethically and remove a person with a history of bad behavior, good thing twitter mob. The solution to your concern is simple: institutions should be more proactive about self policing. If RMS had been fired 10 years ago, this mob would have no reason to exist.
Oh my God, no. Stallman has been a problem for years. Shooting first and asking questions later is the exact opposite of the problem.
Do you really find murder to be equivalent to this?
It’s an old saying that a lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. Now it’s more like, 10 times around the world, and nobody even gives a damn what the truth ever was.
Or to put it another way, wrong-think statements can be weaponized against the speaker more effectively than ever.
There are a lot of incendiary political topics de jour where it's obvious that important voices are being silenced. See, for example, the pseudoaddiction post from SSC yesterday. Popular uprisings are often based on kernels of truth, but the conversation becomes distorted when experts or just laypeople with diverse viewpoints decide, fuck it, it's just not worth the liability of weighing in.
A couple weeks ago there was a story about a minor girl in high school charged by a prosecutor and found guilty by a judge of distributing child pornography--upheld on appeal--for texting her friends a video of herself. [1] But if it's political suicide to even try to have a conversation about how the laws on child pornography could be harming children, then it will never be fixed.
So at some point it should be acceptable for someone to stick their head out and say, "This term 'sexual assault' it doesn't really mean what most people think it means a lot of the times. It would make for much healthier discussion if we could be more specific!" Or, "These arbitrary age barriers (which change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) can catch innocent people engaging in consensual intimate acts." And it's also OK for someone else to say, "That's just not what happened in this case, because <reasons>... and you're blinded in this case by your relationship with the accused." But at the end of it, for everyone to agree that there was a conversation in good faith and everyone can decide for themselves who's right, wrong, or an imbecile trying to cover for a friend, without demanding a head on a platter.
You can take a look at what Lessig wrote about Ito [2] and likewise come away from it entirely incensed and calling for Lessig to resign, or pondering whether the story is more complex than the headline. Where in that case, the NYT took a complex issue that Lessig tangled with, and turned it into;
“It is hard to defend soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor, has been trying.”
[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/mds-top-co...
[2] - https://medium.com/@lessig/on-joi-and-mit-3cb422fe5ae7
That's why it's called the court of public opinion.
I went to see a Stallman lecture when I was at university too. They had booked the biggest lecture theatre and it was packed. But why? If my friend comes to me and says "Hey, I'm staying late today to see a talk by random spokesperson John Doe advocating free software. Wanna join?", my reaction is going to be: "Meh." You can have that any day of the week at any university that's seen as a desirable forum for public policy debate. But: "Wanna see the guy who created emacs and a billion other bits of software every one of us uses every single day? Wanna stick around afterwards for conference food and exchange a few sentences of smalltalk so that, for the rest of your life, you can tell people you ACTUALLY MET HIM?" Then "Hell yeah, count me in!"
So if you take everything a man has in life - everything he anchors his identity to - and destroy it, and leave little to no chance of regaining it, what do you think happens? Personally, I am worried.
If RMS commits suicide because his life was ruined after someone lied and spun his linguistic pedanticism as support for sexual crimes, if that happens, will you come back and say that "this is what consequences for shitty behavior look like"?
Also, his wrong is again his language pedanticism - comparing it to actual assault like you did just now is disingenuous and precisely what the crowd did to RMS.
> The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.
and
> The broadcast of pornography should be allowed on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening, according to the party. Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves.
There is a group of people on-line who like to point to the "paradox of intolerance" as a justification for Internet lynch mobs. But this paradox works both ways. What it says is that society needs to combat people who label others as undesirables, intending to remove them from said society. But if someone fighting the intolerants ends up labeling tangential people as undesirable and unleashing pitchforks on them, that person is an intolerant too, and needs to be stopped as well.
There's a difference between information being available to the general public, and putting a spotlight on that information.
Does a person or institution have to be literally owned lock, stock and barrel by the public to act in a public capacity?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
In that vein, I would see the government limiting the ability for someone to speak out against anything as a violation of their Free Speech/First Amendment rights.
A university is not a merely public place, but rather one which enjoys a charter from the state -- and numerous benefits as far as funding, taxation, access to information and research opportunities -- as an educational institution.
Source: http://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.com/2012/03/instrumental...
The first amendment is really of no use if expressing opinions outside the norm causes you to be fired by social convention. In that case, only being independently wealthy affords one any freedom.
In this case, even founding his own organization based on his own values did not protect him from being fired.
If people don't want to associate with a person who says awful things, it's not a violation of their freedom of speech to disassociate with them.
[1] - This event was started by somebody sending a copy of a discussion on a private mailing list to a third party. This third party then took social media and shared it. It fell flat, except for a handful of 'Twitter activists'. They then started spamming it off to their followers and media outlet they could find. Some of the clickiest baitiest institutions took it up along with some completely unrelated Twitter personalities. It all spun what were relatively innocuous comments into limited context outrage bait and that then caught the outrage train spot on.
Time will come there will be regulations aiming to fix that, because slander laws apparently aren't enough. And then people will come out and talk about freedom of speech, but the only answer will be, "you had it, and you misused it, and almost ripped the society apart".
Your freedom of speech doesn't trump anyone else's freedom of speech. If someone is knowingly or recklessly spreading harmful lies, you have recourse for that, but freedom of speech includes freedom of angry speech, and outside of harmful knowing and reckless lies, it included the freedom to be wrong in your speech.
McCarthyism was a direct violation of the first amendment. This does not compare.
In case anyone missed my general point there, it was:
One can be worried about the chilling effects on speech, regardless of who is doing it; dismissing such concerns "because it didn't violate a law"[1] is confused, and a kind of category error.
[1] edit: or, in your case, relying on a court for all relevant judgments about this matter
This has also been said before, but free speech specifically includes the right of others to dissociate from you because of your speech, as a central aspect of their freedom of speech, and in fact such dissociation is a central part of the concept of the marketplace of ideas supported by free speech.
> the idea that someone's livelihood is under threat due to their speech can be just as coercive as threatening a fine or jail for their speech
Yes, the fact that our society doesn't provide a minimal non-market guarantee of livelihood makes free interaction coercive economically coercive for many people. The problem is not with free interaction, however.
Neither MIT or FSF should be required to continue to associate with RMS if his views are repugnant to their organizational core.
An example of the concept being applied to quasi-public entities, with enough generality for the legal realm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
If Mr.Stallman were to be in Epstein's Island well that is whole level of any issue.
Committing Rape and Questioning the logic behind defining the "act" of rape are not the same.
Basically, looks like this situation was a long time coming.
https://stallman.org/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?path=/archives/200...
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...
But to be clear, that's still a bed of his own making.
I don't think the distinction between government and private institutions is that meaningful though. When a constitution is preventing the government from infringing upon a right it's usually a good idea if that right is protected against other people as well. In fact freedom of speech is covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly wasn't intended to only protect people against their own governments.
Consider this: were you to come to GP's office and show GP's boss a printout of them saying controversial things on HN, demanding GP's termination, GP would most likely keep their job and there would be a good chance you'd get kicked out by security. In order to get a company to fire someone, there needs to be a public mess, and those rarely happen organically. In this case, and other similar firings for wrongspeak that I can think of, a public storm was created intentionally.
Can't see it as anything else than a weaker, non-lethal form of swatting.
I'm not sure how "private conversation" should be defined. If someone wrote something on HN, is it really private? In the case of RMS, I don't know enough about this mailing list to know whether it was private or not.
I'm also not sure whether "private conversation" matters a lot. For instance, a governor of Puerto Rico was apparently sending homophobic and misogynistic messages around in a private messages. Is it less bad for being in a private conversation?
To your hypothetical: If I was so upset with someone that I felt the need to go to their employer and complain about them, that seems like my right to free speech and expression. If, after security kicked me out, I took the matter to the local newspaper and it caused an uproar, that also seems like my right.
I'm not sure either. HN, or CSAIL mailing list, are community chatrooms that sometimes spill out into the world at large, but their day-to-day activity concerns their respective communities. You do not expect to see what you wrote there aired in mainstream news.
> I'm also not sure whether "private conversation" matters a lot.
I suppose it doesn't in the case of publicly recognizable people or public officials; this sort of comes with the territory. But what private (or semi-private) conversations introduce in this picture is a "kill chain" - a chain of people or organizations involved in taking a private message and turning it into a mob forcing one's employer's hand. I think it's worth to take a closer look at that chain - especially in this case, where you can clearly witness an increasing level of misrepresentation happening. The original post, for instance, stayed just a bit shy of making accusations that could be subject of a libel lawsuit, implying but not stating a lot of things. And then the media coverage did its usual misrepresentation amplification.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for shooting the messenger - just that there should be some pressure in the society which ensures messengers are communicating their messages accurately. Ironically, the subject of this outrage is that pressure - RMS attempting to correct inaccuracies.
> If I was so upset with someone that I felt the need to go to their employer and complain about them, that seems like my right to free speech and expression. If, after security kicked me out, I took the matter to the local newspaper and it caused an uproar, that also seems like my right.
Depends on the reason for you being upset, I would hope that the paper would either pick it up and air it, or laugh you out of the room too. But you're right, it's technically your right to try. But still, I think there's something wrong with trying to end someone's career - thus causing significant, real, material harm to them - just because you personally found their speech offensive. It's like a lightweight form of swatting someone because you got angry.
> Depends on the reason for you being upset, I would hope that the paper would either pick it up and air it, or laugh you out of the room too.
Yes, absolutely.
In an ideal world, if there isn't a deeply troubling reason to be upset, a respectable media outlet should (in an ideal world) push back. And an employer should want to defend its employees against trumped up nonsense.
In this world, I fully appreciate that many media outlets love controversy and clicks, and it may be easier for a company to just fire someone than stand up for them and deal with said shit-storm.
> I think there's something wrong with trying to end someone's career - thus causing significant, real, material harm to them - just because you personally found their speech offensive. It's like a lightweight form of swatting someone because you got angry.
I agree completely that trying to end someone's career is very extreme. I take no position regarding the specific case of whether or not RMS should have resigned.
I would, though, push back against drawing an equivalence between swatting and trying to end someone's career.
I can easily imagine cases where I would try to end someone's career. For instance, if I had evidence that someone in law enforcement had a deep hatred of {women, men, gays, straights, Blacks, Whites, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, ...}, that would be deeply problematic. If I then saw them unfairly {arrest, harass, ...} someone in the hated group, it would seem very reasonable to object strongly to them continuing in their career.
I'm not standing 100% by this analogy, but the similarity is that in both cases someone, out of anger or spite, abuses a huge lever the society has to punish misbehavior just to ruin someone's day, but the lever has a good chance of ruining someone's life. This works for both "SWAT team" and "virality on social networks" as values of "lever".
> I can easily imagine cases where I would try to end someone's career.
In your example, it would be reasonable to object strongly - given that you had evidence that someone in law enforcement had a deep hatred, like if you "saw them unfairly {arrest, harass, ...} someone in the hated group". I'd still hope you'd try the proper channels first, but if they fail, this is a matter of public importance. But the kind of thing we saw here - in this RMS story and other public outrage stories - doesn't meet the standard of evidence you described.
(Also, law enforcement is a somewhat special case, because it's a position of privilege and power, when one acts with authority of the state. You definitely want to police people wielding this power aggressively, but you shouldn't apply the same aggressiveness to random folks doing regular jobs, like scientists or plumbers or programmers. Former is preventing abuse of power; latter is just destroying someone's livelihood through vigilante mob justice.)
So what I'm saying isn't "don't ever go after one's career", just don't do it if your reasons are that you are offended by something you read. Ruining someone's livelihood like this is one of the most extreme form of damage you can legally do to another human being; it's thoroughly aggressive act, and it should only be done in circumstances justifying it. Words alone almost never are.
If grouping up people does cause them to lose that right, perhaps that characteristics of rights kicks into effect when dealing with sufficiently large institutions, especially ones who have significant tie in with government far beyond some small mom and pop employer.
There are clearly mob reactions to things, but there are also clearly inappropriate speech that should have consequences.
What he said here wasn’t in isolation as some idle musing. context matters. He wasn’t talking about the theoretical of a 19 year old. He was talking about this in context of Minsky being a 74 year old man with a 17 year old girl. Maybe he wasn’t aware of the impact of his words, but that shouldn’t get him a free pass.
That's what Joe McCarthy and the House Committee for Un-American Activities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) said to leftists, union organizers, communists, and others in the 1950s. Is that the kind of company progressives prefer to keep, intellectually speaking?
Apparently the only difference between progressives and conservatives is which sacred cows that they're willing to mob you for for insulting. Fellow liberals, I beg of you, take heed; progressives are not our friends.
"Take action", my, my, what a genteel phrase to describe ruining people's careers and personal lives. Very civilized of you. One wonders whether those crowds who stoned unbelievers in an earlier era would have simply described themselves as "taking action" as well?
The answer to bad speech is good speech, period.
I don't like using the word "emergence", but there is a phenomenon here that's much more than a sum of its parts, and maybe should be considered differently. There's also the element of intent.
It probably wouldn't be okay. She was coerced and trafficked, and many laws exist to make having sex with those people illegal.
In some places it's illegal even if you don't know they were coerced or trafficked.
I agree with this statement.
Stallman has been a problematic person for a long time. I'm no fan of his. If after a while the university had said, "Enough is enough, Richard, you need to shape up or get out." I would have understood that.
However, that's not what I think happened. What happened was he shared an opinion on a hot-button issue, pedantic and maybe gross, and unfortunately had that go viral and was so hounded out of his position.
If Stallman's position is wrong, we should be able to rationally come to that conclusion as a society. He should be allowed to be wrong. If his opinion is so problematic that it makes him a real liability for the university, his removal should come after a period of deliberation, not after a flash of public outrage.
I can understand arguments that Stallman's position is a questionable hill to die on regarding the Epstein revelations, that even choosing to weigh in on this makes it seem like his priorities are out of order. I can also understand the argument that the email list he was arguing on was the wrong location to voice his opinions and he was making students uncomfortable. I also understand the idea that he should have been corrected by the university, either for this event or for his past behavior.
But what I don't understand, is this idea that firing people in response to media shit-storms is somehow something to be applauded.
He's clearly a freethinker, and we have all gotten a lot of advantages from his courage doing his thing and making his vision for FOSS a reality.
Now he's said his thoughts on this too... it's legitimate for him to do so and "problematic" everyone is in a huge panic to punish him in case the mob should get set on them.
He was a terrible human being, and surely not very aware of how to treat other humans. He had no place in a research institution, or getting paid to pretend to be relevant on free software.
Good riddance, whatever reason we can find in his statements (yeah sure, I was 18 when my wife was 17, it wasn't rape, surely... but is that really the point people were making about his nice friend of Epstein ?).
People aren't for free speech, at all and anywhere: they are for people having the same opinion as them or follow an official line. He didn't do either, now he pays. For a genius like him, it should have been easy to understand you have to adapt if you want to lead, or you shut up if you see you can't lead.
He’s had decades to listen to people telling him that his behaviour was unacceptable. The fact that he hasn’t changed at all is on him.
I mean, you know he´s going to be monothematic about his beliefs, but I heard nothing besides that.
- First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.
- Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.
- Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
- Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me.
That holds very true to this day in America. I really vehemently disagree with Stallman's views in many ways. So it's easy to not say anything, yet I do believe he has a right to say the things he does without getting depersoned. In any case I'd much rather the people that do abide his views do so publicly rather than in secret.
But beyond this, I think he chose a reasonable hill to die on. He undoubtedly knew his comments would spark a mob in the zeitgeist of today, but they really are about as tepid as you could get. He was saying it was a bad idea for terms, even if legally accurate, to be used in general speech when they mislead people as to the nature of a situation. If that's the new standard for moving from words to 'let's get rid of this guy', we may not even have a standard. And I think that's a point that will resonate for more and more people. Even if these people might be afraid to speak out for fear of becoming the mobs' next target, it helps bring about a positive change in society.
An analogy I love to consider is Lincoln. Did Lincoln end slavery and direct society accordingly or did society reach a point such that the creation of a Lincoln was, sooner or later, inevitable - even if by another name? And I think things like this bring us ever closer to creating our Lincoln because solving the problems of social media is not something that's going to be done in a clean fashion.
I'm not defending what he said but this is a really backwards way to look at things. There are plenty of manipulative CEOs and public figures who are very careful with their speech while doing harm in their actions. Stallman turned down money for decades to do something good for the sake of public interest. There really aren't many people like that, in this industry or even on this site. It sucks he conflated his movement like this, but jumping to that conclusion based on something so shallow seems just as stupid.
This just isn't true. Sure I want every one to respect my opinion but I don't want them to be a slave to it. I mean think about it if every one thought the same life would be boring as fuck.
Firing someone is not taking their life from them.
Also, firing someone is taking their livelihood from them. rms might be more comfortable than the average worker, but part of the reason there are special rules around work is in society today people need to work to survive. rms might be wealthy and have a cushion, I have no idea and so this might not apply to him. On the other hand however, free software has been his life's work, and he is being forced out of the organizations he started in order to further that cause. He probably will be hampered from ever contributing to free software moving forward. It might not be on the level of a walmart worker living paycheck to paycheck (which sure is a larger problem) but it is a wrong, at some level, to him if he is not offered a better deal or a chance to change.
In America at least, we have an entire social safety net intended to avoid that scenario. Doesn't always work as intended, but there are too many counter examples to that simple description to accepted it at face value.
What people often do need work for is self-actualization, money for non-essentials, or to feel like they're making meaningful contributions to society. I don't see anything about RMS stepping down from the FSF that precludes him from submitting patches to whatever open source project he would like, or precludes him from publishing his own thoughts and research on his own website.
https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
You may not like the source, but they link to actual examples.
It's the leader's responsibility to create an environment that others feel safe joining.
He did a shit job at that.
I'm in a group he had been fine towards, but I've never found him someone I'd like to follow.
His bad behavior is not new, it's been going on for a very long time, why does he need more time to change? His statement on why he left makes it pretty clear he feels like he didn't say anything problematic.
In order to ward off his advances, women faculty at MIT have taken to taking advantage of his phobia of plants. They decorate their offices with as many plants as they can and have even taken to wearing plants just to keep him from hitting on them.
This is not and should never be acceptable behavior.
A while back some friends and I came up with his super-villain name. Batman had The Riddler, but Epstein would be... drum roll... The Diddler! Now roll that into one of those old campy Batman episodes from the 60s and you'd have a hell of a skit.
All I can do is laugh at this stuff sometimes. The alternative is to get depressed about the lack of judgement that seems to be routinely shown by otherwise very bright people who should know better. People seem to be such suckers for these charismatic psychopath types and their "energy."
I hope he never has the occurence to disguise as Poison Lenny in the next halloween, My poor heart couldn't afford more jump-scares.
> They decorate their offices with as many plants as they can and have even taken to wearing plants just to keep him from hitting on them.
I used to live and work around MIT and I'm trying to decide if this equals or exceeds the ludicrous batshit insane ass clowning that I witnessed. I'm not sure.
My stories don't involve Stallman, but... well... I'll just say "tech weenie weenie" and anyone around MIT who knows will know.
Mahketing mahketing! (maniacal clap)
In any case I'm not at all surprised that someone like Epstein would be sleazing around MIT.
I need to shut up now.
Taking in mind that there are dozens, maybe thousands of photos of him on internet smiling near flowers, pots, pots over tables, cut flowers, taking photos of wild flowers, or posing relaxed on several jungles and forests, my congratulations to Mr Stallman for having overcomed his botagnuphobia so well.
This is not what you would expect from a real phobic person IMHO, so I wouldn't discard still that is just another stupid rumour (or perhaps some female students are overreacting badly to a rumour?).
Did anyone ever report this behavior to law enforcement? Did anyone try to obtain a restraining order against him?
It is not illegal to invite (adult) people to have sex with you, orally or in writing, so there is nothing for law enforcement to do.
> Did anyone try to obtain a restraining order against him?
Offering sex to other adults isn't illegal, so there would be no basis for a restraining order.
No we don't. Your vague unspecified second-hand stories aren't any kind of evidence or argument. Come with specifics or this is just slander.
Whether or not specifics are provided is irrelevant as to whether or not it's slander.
Specifics may be relevant to whether you personally believe it, but that's also not relevant to whether it is factually slander.
> a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.
According to the Register, this is the position of both the SFC and GNOME
> On Monday, the Software Freedom Conservancy called for his resignation. "When considered with other reprehensible comments he has published over the years, these incidents form a pattern of behavior that is incompatible with the goals of the free software movement," the group said in a blog post. "We call for Stallman to step down from positions of leadership in our movement."
> So did the GNOME Foundation's executive director Neil McGovern, who said Stallman's Minksy defense email was "the straw that broke the camel’s back."
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in...
You're right that this isn't new, but at some point the camel's back breaks and the idea that it's so implausible that what he said happened to, y'know, really upset people when they read it and that they'd had enough--well, it's a pretty cheap charge on your part.
I didn't know that GNOME has had issues with Stallman before, though I do believe it now and can certainly imagine it; I learned a few new, bad things about his behavior that I didn't know prior to today. Still, my point is - if they wanted to get rid of him for a list of valid reasons, they could've done it earlier, or they could've waited for the current storm to blow over and do it then. They picked this moment, and unless I'm grossly misunderstanding the timeline, they must've known it'll get carried by the media. So for better or worse, out of all possible opportunities, they picked the one where RMS is a subject of borderline-libelous and utterly nonsense shitstorm. Sure, people got upset when the news broke, but that's the thing with Internet witch hunts - people get upset over lies, and react without thinking, further fueling the avalanche.
While it was known to not be isolated beforehand, it's pretty clear to me that a number of people have felt safe to tell their own stories in the couple days since this broke. I live near MIT but did not attend, and so I am not in any particularly privileged circles; despite that, this incident prompted a lot of people to speak up about RMS's consistent bad personal behavior as well as his bad public behavior. These sorts of things have a way of providing courage to people who have felt suppressed--someone is brave enough to kick one rock and dozens more come with. I would submit that if a nobody like me is hearing that stuff it is a near-certainty that people with hire-and-fire authority at MIT, and in decision-making roles at the FSF and GNOME, are hearing it and likely more.
This is what makes most of the protestations in this thread (not, I stress, the ones that you're laying out) so disheartening. On one hand you've got people adjusting their pince-nez and going "well, really, don't we need to have a conversation about statutory rape?" (we don't), while you've got another contingent who are all about clapping for pedophiles to "own the libs". It's just...really gross, and it's not about "free thinking" or "free speech" at all. (And it never really is.)
I might be biased otherwise (RMS lost a lot in my eyes due to new information I learned in this thread), and my initial introduction was the Medium post that started the media storm, but reading RMS's writing, I saw him explicitly not absolving Minsky from wrongdoing, but getting pedantic about the language, in an attempt to ensure the accusations being flung around are as close to what (he believed) could be made with available information. I immediately thought, "man, this is about the worst time to be pedantic, people will eat you for this alive", but honestly, trying to make the accusations wielded against a deceased friend accurate is laudable.
Much like I'm disgusted by some of the things I've learned today, I still feel that the original Medium post and the latter media reporting based on it are essentially character assassination performed to push a cause and (in the case of the media reporting) push ads. That's why I called it utterly nonsense.
I agree that things come in waves once you open the floodgates; RMS being criticized for one instance of bad behavior gives a reason to air other (perhaps less known) stories from the past. From my point of view, given that I consider this particular outrage over this particular misbehavior grossly overblown and based on mischaracterization, I'm just disappointed the camel broke its back immediately, legitimizing the current outrage. Even if getting rid of him for all the past transgressions, I would feel much better if they waited a few days.
I share this frustration, unfortunately with many HN discussions as well.
When someone states a position that the majority finds repugnant, IMHO the most productive (long-term) approach is this:
Step 1. Identify where the minority and majority views diverge in terms of logical justification. With majority-repugnant views, this may require going back to very basic assumptions. E.g., rape is morally wrong, it's appropriate public policy to prevent moral wrongs, etc.
Step 2. Starting from there, try to understand why the views diverge, and debate which side (if either) has better justification.
I think this approach fails at least half the times I try it, though. A few guesses why:
- During Step 1, people jump to the assumption that I'm advocating the majority-repugnant position, rather than working within this two-step process. Once my character / motives are impugned, reasoned discussion seems to end.
- Many people are unable to engage in logical debate regarding ethics. And in frustration, or to subconsciously avoid having to accept that gaps exist in their ability to logically debate some topics, they are unwilling to engage in proper debate.
- Something in my mannerism is off-putting, or I'm in a forum where few people are willing to engage in a debate lasting more than several minutes :(
The point of this is that as people start to integrate political views into themselves (as opposed to just a view - something that's subject to change as the evidence does) it makes debate difficult. In many ways we're becoming more akin to religious nations. You're unlikely to find a nice healthy debate about the value, worth, and viability of Islam in most Islamic Nations. It is because such values have been integrated into the individuals themselves instead of being kept at arm's length.
And as a tangent one thing I would add is that it obviously was not always this way. During the Islamic Golden Age Islamic nations were world leaders in learning, education, and the collection of wisdom. We still retain fragments of this time in our language today. For instance Algebra, from the title of Ilm al-jabr wa'l-muḳābala by al-Khwarizmi around 800AD. During this time of growth and learning all things were open to question, including Islam itself. And then along came a lovely man by the name of Al-Ghazali [2].
In response to religious skepticism, which Al-Ghazali was unable to effectively combat on direct logical grounds, he chose to develop a new philosophy. And in his new philosophy he preempted skepticism by suggesting that there were no natural laws at all. When a leaf catches fire it is not because it was exposed to a fire or because it reached a certain level of heat but because, and only because, God willed it happen at that exact moment. And so the study of 'natural laws' is nonsensical, as detailed in his work 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers.'
And that idea, enabling one to revoke all logic and criticism and simply adopt the dogma without question or concern, was met with resounding praise and endorsement. That was 900 years ago, but this ideology remains a key component of Islam to this day. At the same time this was happening a lust for learning was just starting to take off in Europe... Kind of interesting to imagine that we could be on another precipice of change when 200 years from now e.g. China has become the world leader in education and people ponder the decline of the anglosphere.
Or this could be little more than the regular waxing and waning of insanity that in 20 years, perhaps sooner, will feel as distant as parachute pants.
[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/17/is...
TBH I wouldn't expect that if they did for it to be public knowledge. In fact I'd assume that has happened.
1. RMS wasn't just some random guy in the foundation, he was supposed to be a leader which means he should be held to a higher standard. Firing someone who doesn't meet that standard means your organisation has integrity which is important and should be applauded.
2. The downsides for keeping him around, especially since RMS didn't seem to be all that apologetic, are also important. The goals of the FSF are not advanced by being pushed into this media storm.
If FSF didn't do something, they would have been forced to answer alot of questions in the media about how they actually feel about age of consent laws, whether they took any money from Epstein and/or Minsky, how they felt about Epstein and/or Minsky, etc., and would then have had to give a number of awkward statements about this mess. Then they would have also had to answer many of those same questions from their donors. And likely if the controversy gained traction, their largest donors may have then been forced to answer their own set of awkward questions from the media about this whole mess. Especially if those donors also had ties to MIT. At some point, many of them would have also reconsidered whether they wanted to donate money to FSF, which would also be bad for the organisation.
All of which is to say that it's not about free speech, it's about protecting the organisation.
You are free to say what you like, but the rest of us are free to take actions in response to that so long as those actions don't violate your constitutional rights.
There's no constitutional right to a job or a board membership.
Now if he was a pedophile, he should be in jail. But he is not, he is exersizing free speech, no matter how disgusting it is, he is entitled to it. Should Nabokov have been made unemployable too for writing Lolita?
The man has no understanding of the concept of consent, and why a child is unable to grant it. He can have whatever opinions he wants, but as a spokesperson for the FSF, he sure as shit shouldn't be broadcasting that one.
This isn't some rando who works for an organization being punished for airing their opinion. This is someone whose job is public speaking, speaking in a way that actively harms any organization he is associated with.
I generally don't see the hacker community jump to the defense of someone who has so colossally mucked up at his one job, but here we are, turning ourselves in knots in the defense of the right of a public speaker to remain employed when his speech is actively harming his employer.
It should also be noted, without the faintest shred of irony that the man consented to resign. I don't see why everyone is making such a big deal out of it...
First, "lynch mob" is inappropriate and irrelevant. Given Stallman's statements, in the forum in which they were made, many reasonable employers would have fired him, with or without some "lynch mob."
Second, Stallman didn't express his views in private conversation, but rather in a forum where those views would have made it very hard for colleagues to continue working with him. If I'm X and you tell me or to Y in private conversation, "X is an idiot" or something of the sort, then that's one thing. If you say so in a forum where others can read it, then you're showing public disrespect towards colleagues, which is a fireable offense.
Here's what he could have said instead: "Have we seen evidence that Minsky himself engaged in illegal activity?" That's it. It would have expressed his point just as well, and would not have shown disrespect toward colleagues.
Media are trash. Cancel culture steamrolls everything, there is no way to avoid being their target other than complete submission. You can word what you say as carefully as you like, but if they perceive that you're a good target, it won't matter one bit.
It's not about what is said, this is simply a war.
But I agree it's a war. It's a war that's been waged for centuries and even millennia between the hegemony and the margins, and it's a war we'll win, because we always have (well, it's complicated, but if you want to speak in those terms, that's fine by me).
> about a mob is sure to place me among the pitchfork bearers
Who is the we and the them?
Since it was the “alt-right” Cernovich who took down Epstein and the “alt-right” who has been making noise about him for the better part of a decade I’m guessing you are “alt-right”? But what faction does that make doubleunplussed?
In my center-left country (by European standards - so “far-left” by American standards) a normal worker couldn’t be fired for making the comments Stallman made but a spokesman of the organisation probably could be?
> between the hegemony and the margins, and it's a war we'll win
Which side do you support? From an outsiders perspective it seems like Richard Stallman is in the margin of the margins?
I'm not saying I agree with Eich - far from it. Seeing as an awful lot of people on this very thread were outraged by his behaviour, it strikes me as being contrary to be more understanding towards RMS for what is arguably far more heinous simply because they admire him more. Both Gates and Jobs are/were relentlessly and repeatedly pilloried for their "immoral" approach to business and freedom, but to question what constitutes rape or a suggestion that paedophilia is harmless is forgiven readily, because the individual "likes" the perpetrator is abhorrent.
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
However, as a university it still seems like dangerous territory. I think communists are just as sickening, in light of the horrors of the twentieth century. Should I fire them if I'm making those decisions at MIT. Like if a professor said the gulags are a worthwhile evil on the road to socialist utopia? Is it really necessary to end a person's career when you disagree with them on matters unrelated to their work?
It looks like it was just an ignorant thought from a decade ago that had long since been corrected. Not a strongly-held viewpoint.
It looks like it was just an ignorant thought from a decade ago that had long since been corrected. Not a strongly-held viewpoint.
But it wasn't outside of his work. It was on an email list whose recipients included 17- and 18-year old undergraduates.
Brendan Eich is a shill controlled by Google and US goverment agencies. The social media mob attack on him was actually a planned marketing campaign with aim to create an image of an independent, anti-establishment and alternative leader.
His actual goal is to create a "controlled opposition" for Google Chrome and a replacement for Tor Browser. Brave project is needed by Google in order to avoid antitrust charges from the EU when Chrome reaches ~90% market share. It will be still selling user data to Google and it will contain TOR backdoors known only to the US agencies (which will be easier to hide in proprietary browser).
The “selling user data” line betrays ignorance of how data is valued. Google doesn’t sell bulk data to advertisers, it gives API access to ad exchange operations that leak data but not the whole user profile, especially not the valuable correlations, brand loyalties, and shopping searches that run for weeks in case of cars or other major purchases.
Brave builds client only alternatives for anonymous donations and private ads that pay the user 70% of gross. We are making this verifiable on chain in the next stage of our BAT roadmap. If we defected and stole money or data, we would thus be caught and roasted into the ground by our lead users. This is by design.
Last thing: I am hardly an anti establishment leader. I am too busy running a startup, trying to get revenue to cross over based on flat and small/standard fees that leave the big fee to the user.
If you want to find controlled opposition, ask to see the terms of Google’s search deals with other browsers, especially the ones that have been slow and weak on tracking protection that is on by default. A Microsoft contact last year said he suspected those terms include proscription of tracking protection that is on by default, or at least that impairs Google search ads confirmation.
I'm sorry if this sounded like a disrespectful accusation. It was just my attempt to rationalize and make sense of the apparently irrational things that happened around your person. When identity politics and large capital are involved, I'm always suspecting machiavellian and cynical motives.
I wish you prove me wrong and Brave will become a real competitor for Chrome with strong focus on user privacy and security.
I can't speak for everyone, but while I strongly disagree with his (implicit) views on gay marriage (I even protested against Prop 8 leading up to it passing, though I unfortunately wasn't quite old enough to vote against it at the time), I also was - and still am - pretty harshly critical of him being pressured to resign from the organization he co-founded solely because of his political leanings. He was the right leader for Mozilla, despite his politics; while it's possible that maybe he was some raging egotist bringing down Mozilla and running counter to its mission, I've yet to see a whole lot of evidence for that.
Meanwhile, Stallman is well-documented to be abrasive, uncooperative, and egotistical even to the people who supported him, and while this specific incident was rather benign, I can understand it as a "straw that broke the camel's back" situation. His dogmatic views - while sometimes absolutely spot-on - were also often at the detriment of the free software movement (e.g. the hard stance against OpenBSD's "blobs", and the hard-line stances against non-FOSS programs on FOSS operating systems despite multiple GNU subprojects releasing supported builds for Windows).
Stallman, in other words, was to the FSF as Ballmer was to Microsoft in the sense of being both passionate about their organizations and also being the reasons why their organizations were hemorrhaging influence. Ballmer's departure allowed Microsoft to regain its footing, shake off some of its more toxic dogmas, and become actually decent(-ish; shoving ads down the throats of paying Windows users is pretty scummy, but other parts of Microsoft have actually started to be better members of the broader tech ecosystem). Hopefully Stallman's departure will have a similar effect for the FSF.
In that context, fired is more than fair. His image being linked with pedophilia (on top of the other issues he has) makes him a really bad choice for the public face of a movement/foundation.
If he was, say, a lead engineer whose work was not tied to his image, we could have an argument - but that's quite clearly not the case.
The way I look at this is through responsibility. It's like what we learned in Spiderman, "With great power, comes great responsibility."
So it's not that Stallman can't have this conversation anywhere. It's that when he has it so publicly, it makes people question whether he is wielding his power well.
Sometimes responsibility means not saying anything at all. Presumably, Stallman is at MIT for computer science and free software. Why is he speaking off topic to MIT students and alum? Presumably he could develop non-MIT relationships and have whatever crazy conversations he wanted.
More often, I think the responsibility is just to do a lot more work. If you're famous and you speak off the cuff on topics that you haven't researched, then your comments get a reach that's undeserved. It's a misapplication of your fame.
I thought that about PGs most recent luggage comments. This is something that had an answer that he could look up and share with people. Or if that's too hard, he could have gotten a thorough answer privately. Seeing him be so willfully and publicly ignorant made me question whether he deserved the power that comes with fame. Laziness like that is diminishing and eventually it gets to the point where people are so diminished that they should lose their jobs and/or positions of authority.
So is Stallman's speech in question here odious? At first glance, not really. But when you put it in context:
The entire brouhaha starts with a sexual predator whose actions are known to but ignored by associates because money (or equivalently, power). Stallman is defending an associate of his who is tainted by association with Epstein. In the kinder light, this defense is essentially pedantry (just rape, not sexual assault). In the harsher light, this defense is "there's nothing inherently wrong with the entire situation here."
In this situation, I think the harsher light is closer to RMS's intent. He has made statements in the past saying that he believes there is nothing inherently wrong with having sex with children (although he has now walked back those statements). In addition, he appears to have acquired a reputation as a sexual harasser among women at MIT over the past few decades.
With that context, it does look like Stallman shares a lot of attributes with "prominent people whose sexual harassment has been ignored because they're powerful people, and who is not sorry about it." And pushing him out of leadership positions because of those views is acceptable consequences in my opinion. More so because it appears to me that he doesn't appreciate how power differential may affect the ability of people to give consent, he is in a position of power, and he appears to desire consent that may be unwilling.
Can you provide some examples of people who have been made "completely unemployable" by the twitter lynch mob?
There's a hundred years of history explaining why the balance point between freedom of speech and freedom from fear has been calibrated thusly.
The FSF is even worse because he's supposed to be in a position of leadership there and represents the organisation. And they shouldn't be put in a position where they have to decide whether to support some controversial statement about age of consent laws just because one of their leaders decided to stick up for one of his friends. It's just not worth it.
Just ask James Damore and his memo on a certain ideological echo chamber. I read his document, and found his view point to be sadly misinformed; yet his right to speech wasn't protected. He was fired.
That was the moment I realized free speech isn't really a thing any more if it touched certain topics. Yes constitutionally we still do, but we can easily lose everything that matters to us even if we win the court battle.
Here's a counter. You're ascribing intent to one's writing, and unless you have a special relationship with Mr. Stallman - you don't know anything.
Because of a radical, illiberal mob, Stallman's life's work has been taken from him.
Few years ago I had had a Junior engineer on my team begin telling me how he finds certain speech so intolerable that he feels he has the right to assault someone for saying it. This is the reasoning behind these kinds of mob justices.
So now I see a mob hurting yet another life, not because of real-world conduct, but because of speech. I see real-world destruction wrought because of speech.
What never occurred to this young man was that there exist people who find the suppression of speech to be what is truly intolerable in this world. That this form of group-think is truly destructive, that actions are of consequence, not speech.
Do pray the pendulum never swings in your direction.
Supposing intent behind them isn't necessary.
What they say is damning regardless of intent.
And the intent was pretty obvious.
I yell fire in a crowded theatre, that’s ok it wasn’t my intent to cause panic.
Posting opinions about current events on a message board is not likely to cause physical harm.
The "fire in a crowded theater" analogy was coined by justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenck v. United States.[1] Holmes used that analogy to send a Schenck to prison for protesting the draft in WWI.
This isn't a one-time thing where he never did a bad thing in his life and now is suddenly attacked by a mob. He has been an awful person for a long, long time, and now he is suddenly facing actual consequences.
The fact that you think you can makes me wonder about what you consider normal.
This 100% doesn't make any SENSE, and I read it five times. Can you please clarify?
I prefer to think that Stallman finds this utterly hilarious and encourages the behavior.
Women have been complaining. For a long time. He is a big problem. He has been a big problem for a long time.
A simple google search shows how dubious this is: https://www.google.com/search?q=richard+stallman+plants&safe... . Here's one where he's up a tree: https://www.lepoint.fr/technologie/richard-stallman-les-anon...
The whole plant thing seems obviously false so I wouldn't put too much faith in the other claims.
Eventually the body of evidence is so huge people can't avoid taking action any longer.
We see this with Crosby, we see it with Epstein, we see it with Weinstein. Those people were monsters yet it took years for anything to happen.
RMS is clearly nothing at all like those men, but the denial of his abusive behaviours is the same.
Generally both are judged.
You can have the intent to commit murder, but if you bungle it and the person is still living (i.e., no impact), then you're still in trouble.
If impact caused harm then that’s another story.
There are laws for libel, slander, harassment, threat. Let’s use those laws and prosecute people.
Fortunately there are legal thresholds for workplace harassment that are designed to protect people. They aren’t perfect by a long stretch, but it’s one way to differentiate between harm and perceived harm.
No workplace should be a hostile environment and it’s messed up if women feel unwelcome. The challenge is in differentiating from harmful behaviors and behaviors that are interpreted as harmful. I have no idea how to do that and one of the reasons why I think HR is a really hard job.
But there’s lots of scenarios where someone may feel unwelcome that doesn’t result from any ill will or poor action on the part of another. For example, I had an employee who was really hurt because a staff member didn’t prebrief her on meetings she was invited to. She was really upset and it hurt her. She though her coworker was withholding information from her and wanted her to do poorly at work. Eventually I had to confront the other and the other was surprised and had no idea. The other wasn’t withholding info but my staffer was requesting to attend as an optional on the meeting at the last minute and the other agreed but didn’t spend any time describing the meeting. The other assumed my staffer would read the agenda and material and review the participants. The resolution was my staffer understanding no ill will.
There’s many situations where I get upset about something that is me interpreting things and not a flaw in others that should be changed. Hostile work environments need to have the actual problems addressed and the individual perceived problems resolved efficiently, I think.
So, yeah, now it's catching up to him, for something nobody in his right mind every does in a corporate environment: giving his opinion on the moral definition of rape. Fucking come on man, how can you defend this moron, who does that ?
You see yourself tomorrow, in charge of the education of students, writing around to your colleagues about what is or is not a rape, for all to record and copy paste to newspapers ? At least do it on skype and add a smiley...
Most people feel this way. Not with nearly as much speech as your junior did, but there are certain forms of speech we are so against we have written exceptions into law and the Supreme Court even used concepts such as obscenity to empower these laws to ignore even the First Amendment.
Is it really surprising a generation or two later people are now seeking to have even more speech fall under such bans?
Should we highly value the idea of free speech? I believe we should. But we should also recognize that there's no such thing as "just speech". What we say matters, particularly if, like Dr. Stallman in this case, we are public figures speaking in what (given the number and types of people involved) is a semi-public forum.
There are two well know aphorisms: "the pen is mightier than the sword" and "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword". But if one recalls the last is derived from a line in the Bible that says in whole: “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Sometimes, we should put the pen back in its place, lest we kill or die by it in our hubris.
> "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."
Source: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in...
[and in my opinion: it's the last sentence that made his statement wildly inappropriate. It's one thing if he wanted to raise the possibility that Minsky was deceived, and while incorrect it would be excusable, but his last sentence is a belligerent assumption of bad faith, and it is highly inappropriate for him to use such absolute language in denying sexual assault]
It's not plausible that an 17 year old would be propositioning old men without any external influence in this situation. I think he's strongly implying this and that's part of what got the strong reaction.
I'd suggest due to that, the statement is dodgy even before you get to the bit you highlight.
Which until a few years ago was completely legal in for example Switzerland. As long of course as no one is coerced into anything. Playing the Advocatus Diaboli, why should i view this outcry as anything different then the Saudis stance on sex before marriage? Fundamentalist puritans being opposed to self determination shaming others into conformism? Its not like the US where you cant drink until you are 21, but get to join the army with 18, where sex ed is often reduced to abstinence only, where the government does its best to infringe into womens right to get abortions, where you can be prosecuted for sexting as a minor and lets not forgett where sex workers are almost across the country criminalized has any moral high ground on the topic what so ever.
But thats besides the point. First the MIT donation and now this stuff over 3 corners. How about we focus on what actually is the problem here? How many people from both parties had connections to not a brothel owner but someone involved in human trafficking and coercing minors into sexwork? How he got away with this this despite being brought infront of a judge for it? Or why they were on that island in the first place and why Eppstein apparently invited so many people. The word compromat comes to mind. But these politicians arent so easy targets, people like Stallman or the guy at MIT are. The mob wants blood and it doesnt seem to matter whos. I would recommend checking your moral compass if you are at threat of being sued for slander after the discussion here.
It is extremely doubtful that a young woman would find herself in that situation in any other way than a long path of abuse and desperation.
Taking advantage of that young woman is immoral.
That isn't some puritanical, anti-sex philosophy that hates fun.
That is empathy to the all too common situation of young vulnerable women being used for pleasure.
Definitely morally dubious, especially in his case. It's not clear if the girl did it for money, or was more or less nudged into this by her life circumstances.
I don't imagine there are any 17 year old girls having sex with 74 year old men who see a distinction between those two things.
It's so hard to imagine the origins of the Playboy-era now. But it was dominant among the educated classes through the 80s or 90s. The change is mostly for the better. I suppose the pendulum will swing again some day, but likely not in my lifetime.
In the end its weighing off protecting people from a presumed risk against infringing on their self determination. The question is clear cut when it comes to kids as we as a society accepted that their self determination isnt that great and infringing on it is fine most of the time. They have to brush their teeth, they dont get to drink alcohol and they cant work in a brothel.
The question here is does the same rule for a 8 year old apply for a 17 year old. Most European societies see a huge difference when it comes to age and that the ways in which the self determination of a 17 year old can be restricted are a lot more limited. In the end infringing on someones self determination is just too grave of a violation to do it unless its absolutely necessary.
What is instead illegal is not the action of the person presumed to be needing protection but make sure that exploiting that person is illegal. The Switzerland example still had it illegal to encourage or coerce girls to work in a brothel, which in practice means there was no one willing to risk running such a brothel.
And again, this discussion misses the point. Its not why did Eppstein run a brothel on an island but how come he was able to engage in sex trafficking, coercing of minors and all of that under the nose of quite a lot of politicians.
The only issue here is the age of the girl involved.
This idea is counter-intuitive to me. When I was 17 my religious convictions prevented me from having sex with anyone, but I imagine that without those beliefs I would have at least put _some_ dollar figure on the price for me having sex with a 74 year old woman, and I certainly didn't have any history of abuse or desperation.
Anyone who can read my comment above can see clearly that you are putting words in my mouth.
> The law, precedent, and public opinion all disagree with you.
Except for all the places where law, precedent, and public opinion agree with an age of consent of 17?
The whole point is that there is not one single hard and fast rule that defines the boundaries of ethics in prostitution. So many of the comments here (including yours) portray a complicated situation as clearly black and white. Of course it doesn't help that in this particular case many folks are talking past each other because we're all intermingling various interrelated topics:
* Stallman's remarks and forced resignation
* The age of consent
* The specific case of Epstein's island
* Prostitution
I suspect that if we were to explicitly comment specifically on one point or the other that we'd all find we agree much more that we appear to.
It's really fucking creepy.
How about, if the old person would be mick jagger? I could imagine, he still has his charms to some. Also I have seen young attractive women aproaching old yoga gurus for example ..
But yeah, the old guy wasn't mick jagger, nor a yoga master and at best he did assume the girl was a 18+ old prostitue doing it willingly for money and power.
Yes, it was rape and trafficking - that's terrible enough as it is, no need to make it look worse than it is. This is essentially diluting the most terrible crime of abusing young children.
That is: it's hard to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not someone is old enough to give informed consent if there's no actually consistent definition of what "old enough" actually means.
I personally consider 20 to be that age (with some lenience for situations where both parties were/are underage at the start of the intimate relationship), but that's based more on the typical "half plus 7" rule than anything particularly concrete.
A lot of the Epstein drama seems to be driven by two pieces, political connections to Trump and Clinton (so it touches "both" sides if you will) and the reaction of this changing definition of childhood to the exploitation of these teens at the hand of Epstein and the perspectives of people either older or from countries with different ideas of the propriety of the sexuality of teenagers. The changing range of who is a child is why what rms said so digusting, because it is considered in kind with say, rape of a toddler or a preteen in the popular mind as the social definitions are shifting.
The problem of course is this is very US centric, and there are of course people just living in different cultures and attitudes elsewhere. I have friends abroad were actually confused about the Epstein drama when they first read about it because to them, it was salacious but not as creepy as Americans think it is.
I assume that's the whole point of the law in many US states and countries - it recognizes the biological reality that teens will have sex.
I've also seen that some EU countries allow teens to sext with each-other (boyfriend/girlfriend exception) without having them fall afoul of the otherwise clear laws against child pornography. This is unlike the US and also seems sensible.
That's about 20 years out of date. Teen pregnancies are less common than 20 years ago, and age of first sexual activity has been going up.
My point is that social mores in the US are moving faster than current laws. I'm also not really sure whether teenage sexuality is a hard biological reality as, well, social pressures have an ability to change minds. Years ago, 13 year olds were expected to take up work on the farm. Today, 13 year olds are children most definitely. Perhaps there are limits to how much social conditions can condition individuals but at the very least, the whole changing definitions of childhood (or what was called "adolescence" for teens being pushed into the early 20's) is happening and whether it's conditioning or not.
You are free to disagree with the law as it’s written. You are even free to break the laws if you disagree strongly enough. But you should not expect to be free from the consequences.
No one does. its not about not prosecuting anyone for what happened on that Island. Its about Stallmans response to the allegations against someone else. Did you respond to the wrong comment by any chance?
I also dont see where you made the jump to the legal/illegal argument. Since we are talking about Stallmans speech, we are clearly not discussing illegal behavior but free speech. Or is what Stallman said illegal by now?
What is this trying to say?
OP mentioned after the part that I quoted that
>This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it.
I think you could make the argument that what he said wasnt that "inappropriate", but only in the frame of reference of a rather puritanical American society. Hence the reference to a more far out frame of reference in form of Saudi Arabia.
His original quote is
>The word ‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. 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.
That might not make him a great person, but you can make that argument. That the equivalence of assault and prostitution is a rather American one and not universally. And that the distinction in the form of the age of consent of a 17 year old isnt universally either.
In what insane hypothetical does a 17 year old girl have consensual sex with a 74 year old man on a billionaire's island? At best it's prostitution, c'mon.
I'm with you on prostitution in general, but Epstein was a sleazebag and we know exactly what sort of girls he was grooming. There is no moral avenue that leads to sex with a 17 year old prostitute.
I am also not talking about justifications for Epstein, i mentioned how unrelated Stallman is to the real problem here namely Epstein and his visitors.
I for myself think i will run less of a risk of being a staunch supporter of ethnic cleansings without knowing it if I instead stick to the rule that as long as you arent hurting anyone else, you are good to go. And no, hurt feelings from arguments dont count, or we rob our self of ever evolving our compass further. Without free speech and open discussions we are cementing the status quo. So if he wants, Stallman can be as socially incompetent and offensive as he wants. He has to live with being seen as a weirdo, but i dont think he has a problem with that.
But then again, I know that I dont know much on the topic.
This is highly contestable
There's something beyond slavery and prostitution, there's willing exploitation of the old guy for money, beyond the sexual service. If it was a young stud with an old lady, you'd think twice before saying the old lady is a dirty pervert, right :D
But that's never been the point: the point is you and me can debate to no end about bullshit like that with half information and no legal culture, but Stallman, as a member of faculty, has 0 legitimacy doing it on faculty mail.
Are you saying that this kind of legal and cultural discussion should not take place in academia?
More to the point of this thread: since I'm arguing that there's no effective difference between a 17yo and an 18yo prostitute (much like Stallman), should my professional life be ruined as well?
This was just the straw that broke the camel's back. RMS has done a lot of great things, but he's also done a lot of bone headed things and some of his colleagues understandably don't want to be associated with him anymore.
Still my argument is that he should not be excised from society from having what the hivemind decided was the wrong kind of opinion. It's ok to discuss things and I'd even argue that all discussions should be had.
I just don't want to live in a place where expressing my opinion on some controversial issue, entirely lawfully, might have me excluded from society.
That said, I don't think it's reasonable to have this discussion about RMS in a bubble, pretending as if he's never done anything else to contribute to what happened.
I don't either, but that doesn't mean we need to have an absolutist position on speech. I don't view defending pedophilia or making apologies for the rape of a sex trafficking victim to be merely "controversial."
In a country where the current president was elected on a platform of "grab them by the pussy"? Ha.
So what? Lawyers do this all the time. Is it really important that the person accused was Stallman's friend?
Also, what's exactly wrong with an argument that one should not conflate "having sex with Bob" with "sexually assaulting Bob"?
That said, I don't really see how this is grounds for termination. Again, I am not defending the guy or his utterly bizarre opinion on the matter. He had a disagreeable personal opinion and wrote it out load... so what? He wasn't advocating for harm of any person, persons, or group.
People are way too sensitive and we are giving away far too much to save face among people who aren't worth the effort. If I were king for a day and ran some kind of public facing organization here is how I would manage these things:
1. Anybody who communicates or advocates harm to any person, persons, or group gets a naughty warning. On the second offense they are permanently banned, terminated, or what ever.
2. Anybody who communicates offense or defensive language (cry babies) gets their post flagged (suppressed and locked). Sad people feed trolls. They are not hostile, but they are still part of the problem. I am sure they have all kinds of wonderful justifications, but I don't care.
This would allow people to disagree within bounds of acceptable behavior while also preventing mass hysteria and echo chamber insanity.
In my opinion, you are conflating inappropriate statements with statements to which you disagree.
The university campus is where minds should go to get challenged by different and somewhat uncomfortable opinions. RMS presents different and uncomfortable opinions in spades. But he does not present them in an inappropriate way. The thread RMS was responding to was explicitly political and opinion based. It was absolutely fair game for his response.
As an example, when I attended university, I took a class (Anthro 2A) where the material presented pedophilia as normal behavior in the context of certain cultural customs. I personally disagree with that research, but I didn't call for the instructor to be fired. Cultural relativism is an important concept that should be thought about even if one disagrees.
But the actual Stallman/MIT kerfluffle is actually not that big a deal IMO.
The bigger deal is the mob acting on deceptive reporting by Vice & DailyBeast. It's one thing to say that Stallman's factual statements on Minsky were inappropriate. It's another to conflate them with statements on Epstein. The vast majority of the outrage is based on the reporting that makes Stallman appear sympathetic to Epstein which is a complete fabrication. It is literally 'fake news'.
The discussion is between free speech and appropriate speech. Which is both sides have tribes supporting them Libertarian vs SJW. You might not see the divide but every one else does and you can see that.
> The prevalence of comments trying to turn this against "SJW"s or whatever "other"
You might not agree with or recognise the tribes but they exist.
> This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired.
MIT is a university its a public place where adults go to seek truth, if this is an inappropriate place for adults to discuss adult subjects then where is?
I get the argument it's not "public" because the land is privately owned but it is a place where the public gather. While I frequently see this argument it is never accompanied with what would be an appropriate public venue for adults to discuss inappropriate things.
Many people, including you, have lost their grasp for the concept of different moral attitudes. The above is just your opinion, not mine. I do not agree with it and find it irritating that you consider your moral judgement an argument that requires to be countered.
It's the accused that is the problem with this. He isn't defending the proven actions of a pervert, he is defending the memory of a dead friend, suggesting that his friend was incapable of the crime of which he is accused. If defending an accused friend is now itself punishable by excision from society, then the effect of an accusation alone becomes immediate isolation. The presumption of innocence, not only in court, but in public discourse, is a vital component of a genuinely free society. I will not support people who reject it.
There are good reasons that our legal systems favor the accused -- ones that I _fully_ support -- but it is an unreasonably high epistemic standard for us to operate under in our daily lives.
If I don't want to associate with someone because they're an asshole, I'm under no obligation to prove so beyond a reasonable doubt. My freedom of association is more fundamental.
He was defending statutory rape and taking advantage of vulnerable young women - it does not matter whether the actual event happened or not. RMS was defending rape in a very public forum and got fired.
There is another aspect of his emails - he also wrote that she presented herself as willing and that was entirely misquoted as 'she was willing', which was unfair. Stallman's point was that it is a bit misleading to characterise the act as 'assault' if it was she who sought out Minsky and he was not aware of the fact that she was coerced by Epstein. This is a bit insensitive splitting hair - but the misquoting was really mean.
Now, most people would mount a defense along the lines of "I don't believe Minsky would have sex with trafficked girls". RMS, always with the innovative methods, decided "Maybe it's not so bad to have sex with trafficked underage girls".
But, like it or not, he was clearly capable of making that defense. So I don't know where "can't defend" is coming from.
"RMS was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island.
There is not a defense for what RMS was writing or how he was trying to defend Minsky. ... The firing was appropriate and reasonable, not a response to extremists, zealots, or some other kind of witch."
As if it was enough to defend someone accused of some crime to be guilty as well. This is clearly absurd - so I am trying to get the author to explain what he really meant.
RMS can (could) make his defense, nobody stopped him, sreened or censored the posts, his opinions are legal.
RMS can't (couldn't) make some of the statements he made and keep his prominent positions.
The issue at hand is not that he was defending his deceased friend. Indeed I think it is very possible that the actual situation was that Minsky was there and declined the sexual advances. That is a story which is out there, I'm not here to judge if it's true or not.
It was the way RMS was defending. Those specific statements are things you "can't" do and - qualifying here - keep a prominent public position, especially when you are making them in a prominent forum in that institution.
RMS shouldn't be charged with a crime, but he did make a whole lot of people not want to work with or be associated with him.
Who owned the island is not relevant, how much money they make is not relevant, and whether they're Stallman's friend is not relevant to either the morality or legality of the matter. Being wealthy or old is not a crime.
Stallman's controversial comment was:
> “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.”
Whether you agree or disagree that is a reasonable statement to make.
Everyone is allowed to believe anything they damn well please. They are even allowed to state it. There should not be a viewpoint holding which makes one unemployable. because as soon as that exists, there is no freedom of speech, only a caricature of it.
freedom of speech is not about saying things that everyone agrees with. It is about saying things everyone disagrees with. and yes, speech comes with consequences. But those should be doled out logically, not by an angry mob forcing an institution's hand.
The common argument that I hear is that free speech does not come free of consequences. Fine. But those should be clear and well defined. Not decided by a mob at any given moment. If you want to clearly state that you will not employ anyone who holds the following views, that is okay with me. But firing somebody because the mob demanded it, is against the very idea of freedom of speech
The issue is not voicing an opinion in private -- it's voicing it on an institutional mailing list in his capacity as a member of that institution.
Deciding post-facto smells of favoritism and can never be proven to be fair. It also creates a chilling effect since nobody ever knows what is and is not ok to say, since at any point in time AFTER the fact you might decide it is not ok.
I'm almost certain MIT has an employee handbook that reasonably covers situations like this. If anything, it's a demonstration of favoritism that he wasn't fired in the past.
The beauty of REAL freedom of speech (like we had in 1977 [1]) is that the answer to that is: none
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
Because if i can lose my job over a statement and a mob reaction, the mob makes me unemployable since they scare other employers, i lose my livelihood, and thus my life. If I have no protection from that (enshrined in a law, like california actually has), in what way is speech free? It becomes more of: "speech only as authorized by the mob-du-jour".
That they feel they cannot take on the burden of RMS's stupid comments in addition to their existing scandelous items is not surprising, and should not surprise anyone.
RMS may well have gotten away with making the comments he did, had he been posting on the UCB mailing list.
You're justifying the actions a lynch mob. Why does anyone need to provide a counter point? The onus is on you to explain why you think a mob taking justice into their own hands is okay. The only justification I can find is that he said something inappropriate. Who are you to decide what's appropriate? Are you the arbiter of morality for the entire world?
>This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it. Defending him by pointing towards people who overreact to things is a bit terrible.
Completely missing the point of the outrage.
It's the chilling effect of people silencing views they don't like that really freaks people out, pisses them off and makes them mad. The actual views in play are irrelevant - the issue is that some person was uncomfortable at something some other person said, so they silenced the man's ability to say it. Not just that, they took away his vitality and ability to support himself. Anyone with any kind of functional critical reasoning facilities can instantly understand why this is scary.
It sets a precedent that completely removes the ability to have non mainstream opinions. If you think the wrong way, the progressive mob will make you seem unemployable. Because you had the audacity to say something "inappropriate," (oh also the mob determines what's appropriate and inappropriate on the fly).
No I'm not. I also don't think the outcome had anything to do with the mob. There were plenty of people even before the mob knew anything, who took strong exception to what RMS was saying.
> Who are you to decide what's appropriate? Are you the arbiter of morality for the entire world?
I'm not. MIT decided what was appropriate for their organization and the moral behavior of its employee and associate.
I am making what I think is a pretty universal moral statement in that old men taking advantage of young women for sexual pleasure is very wrong.
> It sets a precedent that completely removes the ability to have non mainstream opinions.
These aren't just "non-mainstream opinions" he was defending actions which most western societies consider rape. This isn't some slippery slope where people can't say anything nonconformist, this is a situation where people don't want to be associated with you when you publicly defend taking advantage of vulnerable, abused young women.
He took a position in a discussion you disagree with, so you're OK with him being removed from his organizations and his name dragged through the mud. Your argument stands for a world where people deserve to be stripped of their position because they expressed an opinion you disagree with.
Even if you're completely 100% right, how do 'indefensible opinions' get challenged if they cannot be expressed? How do any of us learn or improve?
Has anyone taken a moment to think, what comes next now that he's gone? I hope for your sake and mine that the accomplishments of the GNU and FSF will be enough to keep us free.
I don’t think what he said was wildly inappropriate for the forum. It’s an open discussion forum. People not understanding and being offended is not something that RMS or a reasonable poster could predict or prevent.
I read through the entire thread and it’s not as bad as people are interpreting. I think people are inferring intent and meaning that just isn’t there.
I’m pretty disappointed in FSF.
Yes, this bashing is totally unreasonable, he expressed an opinion that the charge against Minsky is not valid. One party makes an accusation, it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do for the other party to counter it. Accusation is not the same thing as proof. There is a category of accusations these days that are just the same as a jury sentence, if you're labeled, then you're done. No evidence, witness saying this didn't happen ? Still guilty.
> Headlines say that I defended Epstein. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a "serial rapist", and said he deserved to be imprisoned.
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
I do not think this changes everything, but if this is indeed his honest opinion, then I do feel that he might have simply communicated his opinions very poorly.
I got your back: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
It's the PDF of the email thread (sigh) at the end of the article.
(Not gonna make any comments because of the mob roaming around.)
https://mobile.twitter.com/RadioVcs/status/11714435848069939...
The way this attack came suddenly out of the depths makes me suspect something coordinated. It's too similar to how Tor was seized, and how Linus was almost dethroned. There's something nasty afoot, and I don't like it one bit.
When you're talking about organizations that are CRITICAL to software freedom, I'd much rather have an incorruptible but thoroughly awkward ideologue in charge than an unknown quantity. Who comes next? Will they compromise on things that shouldn't be compromised? It's another thing to worry about.
Edit: additional stuff https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20... https://mobile.twitter.com/aprilaser/status/1173750767586426... https://twitter.com/0xabad1dea/status/1172545166953066497 https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/994010501460865025 https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267277460619265 https://mobile.twitter.com/quince/status/1172290839369773057
> https://twitter.com/0xabad1dea/status/1172545166953066497 self proclaimed SJW reposting the original medium article misrepresenting RMS words and adding nothing.
> https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/994010501460865025 Someone who make unsourced claims of having refused to contribute to anything with an open license because of RMS poor taste jokes on mailing list. I wonder if this kind of openmindedness is good to prove a point on how RMS is bad, maybe someone who does not want to contribute to software improving the world but unrelated to RMS on the sole basis that the licensing allows other freedom is not a good basis to support RMS having to be removed.
> https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267277460619265 A reply to the previous tweet from someone who was told an unsourced myth about plants in an office and making up a story about it. She said she's been shown one office with a lot of plants, told that there are many other such offices, that the reason for the plants is to ward off RMS. This piece of lore has been removed from wikipedia for lack of source[1]
>https://mobile.twitter.com/quince/status/1172290839369773057 also citing the same original medium publication misrepresenting RMS words and calling for his removal on this basis, admitting she actually never met RMS but tells how the same piece of myth was transmitted to her in form of a joke and despite not knowing tries to provide context for trying to ward off RMS: interacting with him is awkward and make them uneasy. I sincerely doubt that RMS being socially awkward is news or supporting the call for his removal in any way.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Stallman/Archive_...
@quince's comment is not first-hand about RMS personally but the damage done to the institution that makes excuses for powerful people. This is not about him being just awkward, it's that MIT will never confront him about threatening behavior or stand up for his victims.
Edit: so in other comments you've mentioned that blog post claims "this isn't about Stallman" but you're still defending specific points about Stallman. This isn't about Stallman, this is about MIT. Stallman might be "awkward" but MIT doesn't confront him or even pull him to the side to tell him he's been rude. They don't stand up for the people he's hurt, they don't protect the people he's scared off. They don't ask for independent investigations into more serious allegations. This isn't about Stallman - it's not exactly about Epstein, Minsky, Negroponte, etc either. It's about the institution, the power structure, that protects people in certain positions at the expense of everyone else.
[0]: https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1073234104311734273?lang...
Ah, so three days ago he stated that he's changed his mind and having sex with children is actually wrong. Well, glad we got that cleared up! No need to read anything he wrote about that before, it's obsolete now.
And Let's be clear, that is lawful is not necessarily moral, that which is moral is not necessarily lawful.
2. I don't find Benford credible.
3. Minsky kept taking Epstein's money and holding conferences on Epstein's island for over a full decade after the events Giuffre and Benford describe took place. Is there any benign explanation for that?
https://www.google.com/search?q=jeffrey+epstein&biw=1345&bih...
Howso? He's held back gcc development repeatedly. He regularly forbids the emacs developers and maintainers to use their own judgement. Glibc as well.
Independent of the current issue, this should have happened a long time ago.
But now that he has an audience there's nothing stopping him creating an independent non-profit to tackle these issues philosophically. There's no need anymore to be the gatekeepers of the actual code. It should be free, after all.
So that's where I'm putting my money: Stallman announces a new organization to philosophize freely, not involved directly with code, and the FSF becomes more elastic on certain topics (integrating with other toolchains, etc.).
The fact that this is a more friendly forum than the general public, and yet the majority of people who are sticking up for him here seem to be anonymous conspiracy theorists and people who want to advocate lowering the age of consent, seems to be pretty damning in itself for his prospects.
Wonder why!
Freedom of speech means that people are free to defend what other people find morally objectionable. The idea that the "leaders" should be morally pure is understandable, but ultimately very elitist.
It also reminds me of this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/neurodiver...
Stallman here was the one expressing the bad views, so he is Faurisson not Chomsky.
So if we consider "holocaust denial" to be the bad action (whether it is or not, that is for another discussion), then the analogy holds.
I've met him a few times, put him up on my sofa once. I'd say almost every 15-30 minutes in his presence I would stop myself from saying "that's not an appropriate way to behave" or "please don't say that in that way, you're being rude", for fear of insulting him. Perhaps if more people had done that rather than being in awe and reverence (and there are many people who treat him that way), or just looking for a quiet life (my excuse), we wouldn't be here now.
It is clear to me that he has very low EQ or at least empathy for other people. I have spoken to others who have interacted with him who have suggested he might be on the autistic spectrum, and whilst I am not qualified to make a diagnosis, should such a diagnosis be made it would not surprise me.
At the weekend whilst this was blowing up I suggested he needed help. I think he is genuinely completely unaware why any of these statements would cause others to question his values. Freedom of speech is not a right to be a jerk, and he is unaware that he is seen as a jerk by a lot of people because of the many things he has said and done over many years.
It seems there are many people here who likewise are blind-sided as to why suggesting an underage girl would be entirely willing to have sex with an adult and presented herself willingly would be nothing more than a 'controversial opinion'. There are also people who think this is the only thing he's done that has caused problems - it's not.
I think there are deeper issues at play here, and he would benefit from counselling or therapy of some sort. Most people could even without his behaviour, so I'm definitely going to suggest it would be useful in his case. At a minimum it would help him navigate having a huge chunk of his life disappear over the last 24 hours.
I wish him well, but like almost every ex-colleague of his I've spoken to or who has been outspoken on social media about this: the FSF and MIT/CSAIL will now be a better place to be for others, and I hope that RMS gets the help he has needed for a long time.
I wish him well, but I also know that a large number of people will breathe a sigh of relief now that they can go about their work and studies without having to navigate him.
As what he said is literally presented, it is a possible interpretation of the facts: that Minsky may not have known she was coerced because of Epstein's instructions. How much of Minsky's culpability this erases if Minsky did indeed have sex with her (which is disputed itself) is open to debate.
Buuuuuuut, that's a pretty nuanced point to make. It needs to be made more carefully and respectfully to not just descend into rape apologia. Epstein's (and maybe Minsky's) victims are still alive and have feelings. And we want to create a better culture.
And if you're the guy who has already gone on record for not knowing why "voluntary pedophilia" is OK--- maybe you're not the guy to make this point. Because, after all, there's plenty of evidence that you're not so good at it, and your history taints it all.
But this is not what he said. He clearly states coerced. I think the outrage should come only after a correct reading comprehension.
Thank you for bringing the FSF into the world, Richard.
Whatever comes out of this and whatever comes next, your philosophy on software freedom has influenced us in innumerable ways.
This is not to negate your feelings of being under-appreciated or respected because of your gender, but I am genuinely curious as to why your first response in this scenario would be to fake your gender rather than not caring about it.
Yeah, here on HN you don't need to care whether I'm a man, woman, chocolate bar or UFO. In the real world when I take a CS course, go to a conference, take a job etc, having my physical form is pretty useful.
Why not go after actual occurrences of discrimination, rather than assuming anytime some speaks out in a non-PC manner, that it means they are also going to discriminate against others? This is arresting for murder before it happens. It's the canonical example of "thought crime".
If RMS had just thought this stuff in his head he'd be fine. His actions harm the community. This is the exact opposite of a "thought crime".
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
> I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
(And take a few minutes to be appalled at the quality of the arguments for that particular witch hunt.)
My personal takeaway is that it's important to understand the limitations of your own knowledge before succumbing to the urge to comment on something.
I had to scroll really deep in this page to understand some context. Because the link of this page goes just to say "Richard M. Stallman, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation, resigned as president and from its board of directors."
The discussion on this page expresses many personal opinions, many interpretations and a very small amount of facts.
I personally had to go somewhere else to understand what happened [1] (in German only), yes it is a strong opinion, but at least with references to back the claims up.
For me Richard Stallman is a hero. Through his work he made me discover a lot about IT and his life showed me that there are still people that are fighting for their cause without compromise and personal corruption and are ready to give a lot for the society. I never did and never will do as much as he did for society - and therefore I am thankful that there are people like him to be inspired.
It's time for us to defend each other, and to hold contributions above outraged crowd's size.
--
[1] "Stallman was right", countless comments here on HN, on LWN, and all over the internet
[2] "Why Hackers Must Eject the SJWs", http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
How did you manage to make this about trump what the fuck
Good point. I intended it merely as emphasis to the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish point, but apparently it ended up being more of a red herring...? I'll take extra care the next time.
>Also, this outrage culture is exactly what everyone here including you
Don't worry, this forum isn't entirely a single-minded and single-channel tribe. Albeit let's not detract further with risky subjects, shall we? :-)
Linus eventually realised that his abuse of contributors was a negative contribution and agreed to change. RMS has .. not got to that point.
I've seen the accusations against RMS. I've seen the RMS emails in the thread[1].
RMS' emails bemoan wishy-washy reporting, and are centered around calls for clarity and precision. With some insensitive words.
In response we got even more wishy-washy reporting - weasel words were used, misleading summaries instead of quotations[2], and focus was placed on how people felt outraged. People who weren't part of the discussion.
This isn't the way to build great software. This is tribes warring on social media.
>They're a negative contribution, and they contribute to driving away other contributors
Riddle me this: which drives away contributors - private email threads, or social media wars of attrition?
Is my judgement right? Maybe I am missing something big, that happens. Nonetheless I decide to side with somebody I've seen reliably exhibit the same character over decades, rather than with out-of-character accusations. I decide to side with somebody who delivered great projects[3] over decades - rather than with a social media conflict.
--
[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
[2] https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/d5a4dz/richard_stall...
[3] notably RMS delivered not only software projects, but also organizational/legal projects, and social/cultural projects
The "insensitive words" seem the issue for me, from my reading of his emails, and referring to them as just that seems an understatement.
> The announcement [...] does injustice to Marvin Minsky. The injustice is the word "assaulting". The term "sexual assault" is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation; [...] The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein's harem. [...] The word "assault" presumes that he applied force [...] but the article says no such thing.
Yes the above words are insensitive (calling such accusations "vague and slippery" by definition does a massive injustice to anyone who's ever suffered such a fate), but much more objectively, they're also blindly or wilfully false. The article he links as a reference opens with the following words:
> A victim of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein testified that she was forced to have sex with MIT professor Marvin Minsky
There is no more direct contradiction of RMS' statements than the opening words of the article he links in his email. There's absolutely no question of his communication on this being appropriate.
It doesn't contradict what RMS is saying.
> The word "assault" presumes that he applied force [...] but the article says no such thing.
"He" here means Marvin Minksy and the part of the article you cited doesn't imply that Minsky forced the victim.
Also I haven't seen sources that claim that the victim had sex with Minsky and seen at least one source that claims that he turned her down [0].
We're not debating what happened: as far as I know, Minsky is presumed innocent until any potential judgements are delivered. What RMS was debating was not whether Minsky has done anything wrong, but whether he has been accused of doing so.
Minsky was accused of having sex with a girl who was being coerced at the time. Even if one wants to split hairs about Epstein being some kind of enforcer figure of said coercion, I'm pretty surprised that people would somehow believe this would nullify Minsky's alleged act being considered sexual assault?
He may not have done it. He is still only "accused". But the act he is accused of is inarguably assault.
RMS words can not do massive injustice as they are words not judges, besides his words are actually expressing an attempt to correct a perceived injustice of misqualifying some accusation toward a dead guy that cannot defend himself.
Actually the headlines fits exactly the point RMS is making, that if she was forced, Epstein was the one not Minsky. Then again do not stop at the headline, read the whole article and read the source used for the article, there is no mention of the use of force, the only mentions of her being forced to have sex are with different persons and contradicts her earlier 2011 allegations (page 33). The part mentioning Minsky does not even confirm she actually had sex with him, only that she was sent to by Ms Maxwell (page 182). So I guess you are right there's absolutely no question here, but not in the direction that would fit your narrative and opinion.
Linus bent the knee to identitarian extremism. RMS did not and the FSF forced him out so they could bend the knee to identitarian extremism. If Linus had not bent the knee then the Linux Foundation would have forced him out.
Open Source and Free Software is being attacked on 2 fronts
Corporatism that is taking over and promoting "Open Source" Libraries and Licenses that are very restrictive to User Freedom
The Authoritarian / identitarian left that want to cancel any programmer, dev, or person in software development that does non conform to identitarian Political agenda
I came in to Free Software because it was a libertarian movement, now everyone is trying to drive out all the libertarians and it will kill the movement. Free Software and authoritarianism are not compatible
One barely known person wrote an opinion about a person who's well-known in a specific group and who is respected and has appropriate power, and suddenly all the corporate media write about it. And it happened multiple times.
I think that the biggest problem is that people in the field don't give violent resistance each time it happens. Bad actors are everywhere, you have to fight them. People don't call these people what they are - corporate prostitutes, they don't even say "Je suis Stallman/Linus, etc." They see what happens and just cowardly accept it.
It's the most plausible explanation.
Adjust your tinfoil hat, please. Jesus christ.
Neither of them seems hugely socially savvy. Perhaps someone/something helped Linus get there and RMS hasn't had a similar experience.
Edit: a list of complaints over years: https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
Edit: at the risk of targeting people for harassment by HN commentators, some personal stories from Twitter. Apparently people kept houseplants to ward off RMS: https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267630457401344
Linus was told by trusted insiders "Get your act together" and he apparently took that to heart.
And RMS is being removed as a consequence of the angry actions of a woman who didn't even know who he was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20993364
Edit: I wish you wouldn't do something that you feel puts other people at risk just to back up your point. Especially since you seem to think you have the moral high ground.
You are happy to throw other people under a bus to win an internet argument. Some angry woman who admits her screed wasn't really about RMS per se threw him under a bus. And you're fine with it. Because you seem to think that's morally acceptable if you have some kind of justification.
Social outcomes aren't about the actions of a single person. They are about the cumulative consequences of the actions of many people.
How people choose to respond to problematic behavior is part of that -- and often not in a good way.
> How people choose to respond to problematic behavior is part of that -- and often not in a good way.
Well, yes. There don't seem to be any good answers here. Handling it privately is not at all reliable and may result in the complainer getting privately blacklisted. Going public can be effective, but only if you make a major storm - the outcomes of which can no longer be controlled.
We don't know if people have tried to get RMS to get his act together. But this doesn't seem to be a first complaint out of nowhere.
IMO this was a long time coming, not some brand-new thing.
She did not correct her misrepresentation but instead went on to publish in an appendix what had been dugged and nitpicked to paint RMS in a way that fit her narrative.
the appendix is easy to debunk:
1 can be summarized as RMS has opinions, his personal opinions not being the same as the majority means they are problematic (use a reversal of burden of proof fallacy in the process). Goes on to says that institutions/companies that do not remove people with personal opinions different from the majority should be removed from the institutions otherwise it should be interpreted that the institutions themselves support those opinions. Of course totally overlooks the fact if instead of public shaming, calling for witch hunt and not talking with the person, having a fact-based conversation with the person about his/her opinion could be enough to change this opinion as had happened here: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
2 is a collection of applying today standard to 40 years old society, expectation of normal behaviour to someone in the autistic spectrum and leaving the reader to fill the holes when the reason for having a mattress in his office and being proud of it is long documented and unrelated to the sexual framing attempt. Then she presents a 1983 report pointing how it was for women is CS at MIT at the time which makes no mention of RMS in any way but is nevertheless add as charge to him.
3. Goes on to put RMS in the same bag with Epstein, and mentions #metoo as if RMS had been mentioned in it with no explanation and no evidence. Rants about MIT and calls for other institutions to go on witch hunts on threat of chaos such as the one she just caused.
4. is about her personal life and how she felt in social context trying to diminish her efforts and accomplishment, how she is desensitized and prepared for escalation from Stallman but disappointed that he did not and instead went on to apologize. Unhappy with the apology and impervious to the fact that she is responsible and the cause for the misunderstanding and the media coverage, she uses this apology as a call to other people to take her action as a model and fight the powerful people.
So as a whole this appendix is really not more evidence that the original author missed the point and further attacked a wrongly perceived threat and as a result polarized further against RMS and her.
2 -- Stop using "because autism" as an excuse. It's an insult to the many people on the spectrum who don't do and say shitty things. Also, has RMS been diagnosed? Are you a psychologist? If not, I don't think you're qualified to make that statement. I'm not sure you're even reading the same thing I am; she specifically calls out incidents and people who claim RMS specifically harassed them. If you look a bit on Twitter, there are more women coming out who have been similarly harassed. I agree that standards change over time, but when the behavior of 40 has remained consistent over the next 40 years, that's a huge problem.
3 -- It is entirely possible that a single piece can be about and triggered by the actions of one person, but then expand to be more general. Not sure why you can't see that.
4 -- So what? I mean... sure, she has flaws, but so do we all, and that has nothing to do why RMS does shitty things. Also, she _posted the verbatim contents of the emails_ (including the most relevant part, right there, a couple paragraphs into her post). It's on Vice (etc.) for not, y'know, actually reading them and reporting things factually.
I'm just not really sure why you feel the need to latch onto this single post so tightly. It was a catalyst, to be sure, and several media outlets did some incredibly irresponsible, dishonest reporting. But that doesn't change the fact that RMS has been engaging in reprehensible behavior for decades. It's feeling like you're looking at a list of 10 bad things and are saying, "wait, everything is ok because one of these things on the list was wrong!" This might be a shitty straw to break the camel's back, but the camel's back was overdue in breaking.
— Matthew Garrett (https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/52587.html)
The SJW / You Can't Say That crowd also drives away contributors, so who is more right?
And now there's good Linus, there's no RMS anymore, but we have this
https://developers.slashdot.org/story/19/08/30/1529201/npm-b...
Which world do you prefer?
Secondly: their strong leadership brought us an hacker community devoted to the product and correctness of the result, regardless of their personality, as technical leader they excelled and when they went over the line it was for the benefit of the community, never for their ego.
Now we have weaker leadership, attention has moved from being right to being popular, salaries are valued more than technical skills, corporations have infiltrated open source communities changing the meaning of `free` in free software from "free as in free speech" to "free as in free beer" and we ended up with package managers that install trojans or display ads.
If NPM leadership was made by pedantic, ruvid, sometimes assholes, the like of Linus and RMS, this would have never happened.
>I think it's much more likely you're clinging to buzzwords.
The ESR's article[1] you are referencing is so much more than just headline. I encourage you to read it, and try to re-construct the events, the thoughts, and the emotions that led ESR to post a piece that explosive. The comment section alone spans some 760 responses over four years, with people chipping in with their observations from the trenches and with their shattered dreams. While writing, ESR was in communication with several victims of then-recent social media mobs, and conveyed their woes.
The two bits of article that stood out to me:
>The hacker culture’s norm about inclusion is clear:
>anybody who can pull the freight is welcome
>We must (...)
>learn to recognize their thought-stopping jargon and kafkatraps
[1] "Why Hackers Must Eject the SJWs", http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
If I had posted this to my work mailing-list: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... then I'd have been bollocked. If I had a history of posting politics defending something that is pretty indefensible (especially in a role where I would be in loco parentis for minors)
I would have limited sympathy if this was expressed privately[1], but its not, its broadcast to all and sundry.
[1] but his position is frankly wrong. Its a big ask to justify sexual slavery.
>This has nothing to do with 'SJWs'
>I think it's much more likely you're clinging to buzzwords.
The ESR's article[1] you are referencing is so much more than just headline. I encourage you to read it, and try to re-construct the events, the thoughts, and the emotions that led ESR to post a piece that explosive. The comment section alone spans some 760 responses over four years, with people chipping in with their observations from the trenches and with their shattered dreams. While writing, ESR was in communication with several victims of then-recent social media mobs, and conveyed their woes.
The two bits of article that stood out to me:
>The hacker culture’s norm about inclusion is clear:
>anybody who can pull the freight is welcome
>We must (...)
>learn to recognize their thought-stopping jargon and kafkatraps
[1] "Why Hackers Must Eject the SJWs", http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
SJW is not an antonym of hacker. Whatever hacker culture's norm is, breaking work relationships and censorship for someone's words or actions is much older than hacker culture and is done my many more groups than 2010s American Democrat voters. Consider 1984, or Mary Whitehouse.
The bigger irony is that your comment claims that the term is used to categorically dismiss people, while simultaneously categorically dismissing the above poster's commeent.
The only alternative names that come to my mind are the "inductive inconsequential postmodernists" and the "emotional radical progressives"
But he's a freethinker, and freethinkers necessarily exist outside the mainstream. So, despite not liking him, I also don't like this turn of events.
It does seem arbitrary to me that the same sexual encounter is classified as rape in Arizona and not rape in Virginia. I suppose we have to draw that line somewhere arbitrary. But I wonder if it was a mistake to classify what is called "statutory rape" as "rape" at all. We can make it illegal without calling it rape.
That said, to me, this doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on. But then Stallman is not known for being picky about hills. People like him (or loathe him) because he's principled, and therefore no hill is too small.
I don't think he saw it as a hill worth dying on, just a random hill he happened to be shot on. It's part of a random scattering of thoughts he makes public.
Either way, I'm cancelling my FSF donations for caving into this witch hunt. It's long demise will be helmed by people that stand for nothing less they offend someone.
If the FSF experiences a drop in donations couldn't they interpret that as people trying to distance themselves with Stallman, and he's basically synonymous with the FSF?
If you know Stallman at all, you know that he sees every single hill as a hill worth dying on. It's kinda the problem.
It's also the reason we have an Open Source movement, that being the watered down and more corporately palatable version of Stallman's idealistic vision.
Yes, he's totally uncompromising, has no sense of pragmatic tradeoffs or weighing one thing against another or deciding what is a good hill to die on. That's not the way I think is best to live my life, and it's probably best that most people don't live theirs that way either. Still, there should be a place in the world for people like him to have the freedom to be able to create and run their own organization with their own ideals.
If you ever talked with Stallman, read his texts, listened to his talks, you'd know that in certain ways Stallman's views are much weaker than what most people think they are. He doesn't have any issue with corps taking over the FOSS world as long as it compiles on trisquel and comes with a free license.
That's why I'm glad that he's going away now. Hope we can get someone who actually will stand up against the issues that the FOSS world is facing now in his seat.
The attitude you describe is much more represented by Linus Torvalds, and by the BSD folks, than by the GNU / GPL folks.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ZOEKwoBnDKUFI1hLbFJH5nsUFx...
RMS did a very stupid thing here, by attempting to defend his friend as though he had had sex with her he cemented that picture in the minds of whoever reads his (RMS's) screed without questioning whether or not the event took place in the first place. It is a pity that the deposition does not allow one to resolve this once and for all.
It speaks of her being directed to have sex with but fails to ask the follow up question (which I would think is very much material) of whether it actually happened in each of those cases. Pretty bad questioning.
- Someone who is less of a hardliner: Stallman's dedication to free software is a good thing but his absolutist style of expressing it might have put a lot of people off who would otherwise not be opposed to the idea of free software
- Someone who understands the problems of free/open source software (contributors not getting paid, corporate exploitation, ...) and has progressive solutions for it
- Someone who everyone can (at least kinda) sympathize with and/or relate to: I believe Stallman generally has no bad intent but a lot of his mannerisms are just plain awkward or offensive to a lot of people. Normally that wouldn't matter but the president of the FSF (especially Stallman) is kinda "the face of free software". So showing that the world of free software is a progressive and inclusive space here might just benefit everyone.
We should still honor Stallman for what he did for free software (I mean he basically invented it) and we should IMO continue to welcome him in this space (maybe even as some kind of executive in the FSF because after all he's obviously not incompetent). But maybe he isn't the best person for the role of the president anymore these days.
I think that Stallman's hardliner stance, while it has scared away a lot of people, has also been a good thing in a lot of regards; if nothing else, it shows that there is a position to be had in the extreme copyleft.
For example, I asked him about an app that I was working on, where we were doing things with a BSD license (since the thing we released was proprietary but the core was open-source), and he suggested that we instead re-license it as GPL but with an proprietary exception for only our app.
I think this is two different issues.
I wouldn't mind a softer talker, but I would prefer for that person to be a hardliner and someone who would open our minds to alternatives in the openess direction.
There are too many "money talks"/"free market solves it all" people in the world, if the front-person of FSF is a mediator then it will grow in that direction, instead of making the world see more spectrum.
Where can I find what he said? Why is everyone talking about what he meant without quoting what he said so I can decide what makes sense for myself?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
See also:
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
BTW: I am not sure why this question is down voted. At least here in Europe this was not real news so it was an honest questions. The FSF site did not explain the why.
vice article summary: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
which has a link to this blog post (which is somehow central): https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
Doesn't anyone sleep on anything any more?
Everyone involved in open source knew about Stallman. Whether or not we think his bad behavior outweighs his personal contributions depends largely on if our name is “Richard Stallman”.
Erm... I didn't suggest that you did? I suggested that the parent comment about sleeping on things may have been directed at the blog writer.
> Everyone involved in open source knew about Stallman. Whether or not we think his bad behavior outweighs his personal contributions depends largely on if our name is “Richard Stallman”.
This here, it reads as though you are asserting that pretty much only Richard Stallman himself thinks his personal contributions outweigh his behaviour, and pretty much everyone else in open source feels the opposite. Are you really making this bold of an assertion?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
First, I admit little knowledge past what I just read. I do, however, see why people don't like what Stallman wrote.
That said, I think this went too far, and that many have misconstrued both what Stallman said and meant. I hope that's ok to say.
This situation stinks.
16 September 2019 (Resignation)
To the MIT community,
I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT. I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.
Richard StallmanTo be blunt, I’m not sure the FSF is worth having without someone as stubborn as RMS at the helm, but with any luck, they can still do a proper job of maintaining his legacy. Increasingly I find Stallman was right, and I hope he will continue to publicly do what he can to advance free software.
[1] https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/52587.html
[2] https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
What a horribly asinine point. If you’re an undergraduate student and unable to deal with uncomfortable opinions, you are too immature to be a university student. The further infantilization of college students, and worse, college staff, never ceases to amaze me.
1. It totally ignores the fact that it's possible to be highly respectable for some things and not for other things. Stallman has always been a jerk, but he's also always been trying to fight the good fight. Washington had slaves, that doesn't mean we should hate him.
2. You don't get to call out people for indicating that men are better at some things, and then point out that women are better at some things. Either you're allowed to believe in differences based on sex or you aren't.
I've never been a big fan of Stallman because I think he's a little to far into the realm of zealot. However, he is good for society as a whole because, in general, he's fighting for the right things. I don't think it's right to condemn him, throw the baby out with the bath water, because he's an idiot about some things.
Note, the headline and article body of this post contain lies to make the story more clickable, but if you scroll to the bottom there is a widget that contains the 20 page mailing list thread. The other participants’ names besides RMS were redacted. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
[1]: https://philippineslifestyle.com/wp-content/uploads/te3FQnP-...
Living in a country where the age of consent is 16, the oddest thing I find in all of this is that people can hold a straight face while saying that sleeping with a 17 year old constitutes pedophilia but seem to completely ignore that their country tries 13 year olds as adults[1] when they deem it fitting.
[0] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...
[1] https://oklahoman.com/article/5580060/13-year-old-boy-charge...
He should have thought carefully about that: no matter if one is right or wrong, talking about that stuff in public will expose an individual to remotely controllable public anger in a way that will harm all other good stuff he does through ad-hominem attacks ("he has such opinions about rape, therefore his software sucks as do his licensing model and his opinions on closed source"). I for one still think he's a kind of good extremist the IT world badly needs, I agree at least on principle with most of his ideas and recall listening to him at a conference then handshaking him about two decades ago. Still... yeah, it was stupid from him to comment on such sensitive topics; this could harm the Free Software world in many ways, regardless of him being right or wrong, and probably someone will attempt to use that weapon.
The twitter discussion[0] seemed to me to be very polarized and targeting rage with all the common traits of typical fake news/mass hysteria communication. Maybe it is just the way these things naturally come to daylight.
If you read carefully you might notice that I said it "shares common traits with". Because it does.
See https://lwn.net/Articles/757713/ for background, and https://lwn.net/Articles/759654/ for his resignation letter.
Controlling the language is key to controlling the discussion, and as usual Stallman just wanted to clarify the language. He's used to dealing with a more rational, less public crowd, and didn't realize he was poking a bed of hot coals.
It's very sad to see such backlash and support of deplatformization of someone who has done so much for us over one cluster of comments. Even if you disagree with him, surely we can be allowed more than one mistake in the public eye before the platform we helped create is ripped from our hands. This is quite the authoritarian mindset and it worries me to find it in such prevalence here on Hacker News.
That being said, the way that that happened is absolutely terrifying. Fact, that people rather crucify someone instead of argue, explain or prove him wrong is the sign of our times.
End of free speech is here. It’s free only if it doesn’t offend group powerful enough to destroy you, and it’s narrowing every single day. We’ve seen many instances of this happening both on personal, unpopular views and gossips and false accusations.
Want to keep your career? Best you can do is to steer out of the social media and don’t share your thoughts with anyone. Not only controversial ones, because what might not be controversial now, might be controversial in 10 years, and you will suffer because of it.
The rumour would be more poetic if it said he liked plants, and that he feigned having a phobia to get people to have office plants.
Edit: removed unintentional copy pasta.
Stallman:
> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
Selam G.
> [Stallman] says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.
VICE:
> Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked.
New York Post:
> MIT scientist says Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’
The government isn't telling him that he can't share these views, so take your free speech bullshit somewhere else. You're free to say things, and we as a society are free to show you the fucking door. He shared his awful views (and was an active abuser) for decades, and finally we're showing him the door.
Of course he could also just be socially inept (i.e. no excuse for failing to learn good behaviour) and he clearly isn't disabled (anyone actually dealing with autism is doing life in hard mode).
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551458/asperger-s-oxy...
Recently I have been reading Sapiens, it the book Homo Sapiens is singled out about its ability to function in groups of up to 150 people. Other humanoids were not able to do that.
I think, however, that discussing thigs on Twitter/Reddit is the same thing as discussing things with thousands and even millions of people that are gathered in a single place. Our species does have the tools to make this possible(the internet) but lacks methods to make it functional. The only thing we have is to detect an idea that somewhat sounds band and oppress it before bad things happen. That way we have some wrongfully vilified people but at the same time, we are able to stop the creation of a group of extremists(some people will not understand the discussion, mistook it for a validation of their sick ideas and if no vilification happens they will take action).
Anyway, that's why we need privacy. We should be able to discuss things in small enough groups without fear of being vilified, in a group with no outsiders we would know if someone is up to something bad or and take an appropriate action instead of overreacting and mislabeling. High-quality public discussions are beyond our capability.
No, it's not.
There have always been consequences to speech. Before social media, the traditional media would be the method of choice of stirring up people into a mob demanding resignations. It's not new.
What is new, is that it is no longer a power centralized to owners of traditional media. It is now distributed, and thanks to Twitter specifically, in a way that promotes "tyrranny by the mob" which the founding fathers themselves abhorred.
This isn't the death of free speech. Instead, view it as tech kicking itself in the balls because the people making software didn't understand how humans would leverage it at a society level scale.
It's why many of us are working of federated but social public forms of media, like the 90s and early 2000's, because that worked at scale without a "tyrranny of the mob".
All that being said, it is hard to be all "free speech is over" doom-sayer when the person in question has repeatedly (and we're talking decades) said creepy things that cumulatively sets up a pattern of behavior. This isn't Joe Shmoe hopping onto the internet the first time and losing his job. It's disingenuous to try to spin this event that way.
I think that’s the point here. RMS was always a creep who had very odd opinions on many different topics. I never liked the man nor thought much about his opinions and yet I was using software he created. He is creep, but he was tolerated.
I find 2 perspectives here. First is - am I the creep right now who is being tolerated. Maybe? I don’t know 2050 standards. Maybe I am and will be removed because I shown 2050 Toxic Behavior for years, which might be criticizing social media. No idea.
Second is - RMS is a human being. Not every one of us is pristine human being nor have luxury of being pristine and perfectly moral. Biology and past traumas do their thing. As far as I know, there aren’t any crimes he committed and if there were, he should be properly sentenced. If he was tolerated for past 30 years, shouldn’t it be more in sense of “ok dude, your time is up, here are your accolades, pack your stuff and have fun” instead of having witch hunt bringing every single piece of dirt people can find? Nah, that wouldn’t make sense, right?
Free speech is not all over, because I’m typing this right now. I am aware, though, that criticizing RMS “process” might bring consequences to my life if the mob decides to target me. If this process progresses we’ll end up in the state where I won’t discuss anything online and keep all my knowledge and experience for myself. And there was a time in history where life was just like that.
Your best bet is to only ever express entirely uncontroversial vanilla opinions and hope even that is still acceptable in the decades to come.
If you truly feel this way, you can put money where your mouth is and do actions to remove your very own words from the digital world (because you own the copyright to them if in the US, under the GDPR in the EU).
Alternatively, you can support dismantling tools that build outrage mobs (Twitter) and be a proponent of good faith arguments with conduct becoming of earnest debate. Preventing the fearful future.
I hope you can see why I think lazily lamenting some imagined dystopic future makes me sincerely question the actual genuineness of the underlying fear, and the lack of evidence makes me question the rigor with which it was dreamed up.
"We will, as always, be treated to much examination of the precise nature and mass of the last straw, with observations that it would not by itself be sufficient to cause spinal damage in camels, and is therefore utterly harmless."
I'm frankly surprised that his arguments haven't cost him his position earlier.
But this is nothing to cheer about.
Regardless of what low regard the man might be held as a person, he's being persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating for objective standards, and asking questions. These are all hallmarks of scientific inquiry.
It sets a precedent that will absolutely lead to self-censorship on a topic that really requires the disinfecting power of sunshine.
This strengthens the power of those who have no use for scientific inquiry and are more interested in inquisition.
Another variant of his invented nomenclature besides per is perse which I'd rather not be called. It sounds like a child of purse and hearse.
this is the only time to my knowledge that stallman has ever gone back on one of his fundamental positions.
Damage control at best, hard to give it much weight given the circumstances.
Minds don't change in seconds, particularly around what language to use to describe an issue; it usually takes a few days of thinking.
It might be damage control, but realistically this whole blow up is absurd for a few emails on an academic mailing list. Academic mailing lists are supposed to be the best place in the world to encounter views that will change people's minds.
The important thing is to agree on the issue at hand: software.
I fear that this has become true, but the only reason anybody gives a damn about the FSF and the only reason this is even newsworthy is because of the software and licenses produced by the FSF.
If you take the software away the FSF is nothing, so I don't understand how you can claim it's primarily a community.
Why does the community they created matter? Because they produce more software.
Most people kinda rank pedophile apologia--and, yes, I did read what he wrote, and yes, the chinstroking "most plausible scenario" is pedophile apologia--above that, though, and I would hope that you would at minimum grant that the level of understanding you seek to demand of everyone else.
Ok. You're actually right. I regret saying that software is the only important thing.
Honestly, I guess that part of my comment was a post-rationalization, but what actually bothers me is the hypocrisy of the media and society in general, because they don't apply the same rigor when an institution or person does or says much more despicable when they like those things. But that has nothing to do with this specific issue.
>the chinstroking "most plausible scenario" is pedophile apologia.
Nope, it isn't. Many of his comments actually are, but if you analyze the "most plausible scenario" quote, it has nothing to do with it.
When at work, confine it to work stuff folks. There's a genius to it. It automatically renders you incapable of things like gossip, harassment, gaffes like this, and most other trouble. The only trouble left for you to get into is saying stupid things about the work itself, which I can't help you with. But remember you're working in a complex world with different people who don't share your opinions and ideally aren't your friends and you ideally don't need them to be, because you've got a vibrant life outside of work, and you go to work, to work on work, and talk about work, and when the work's done, you leave.
In the majority of my career I've been in workplaces with colleagues, many like-minded but plenty not, to whom I felt I could say more or less whatever the fuck I want. That seems much better to me, but who knows.
I also feel like your saying whatever you want, and having it be fine, depends on certain things, like both people being okay with it. For example (and I'm not saying this is you), a lot gets said and taken for granted between white males in software, that wouldn't be okay for non-white non-males and shouldn't be taken for granted. What's normal conversation for one person might not be normal for others. That is absolutely what happened with Mr. Stallman here. Questions of right or wrong should be hashed out with people you trust and share a foundation with, and upon whom you don't depend for rent money. Because everybody else is too fucking crazy now. AND, anyway, more to my main point, ideally you're too busy getting shit done!
Edit: Again, that's until work's over, at which point you make a clean break and go do whatever else. I'm a fan of the dividing line.
'Nuther edit: This case is actually more of a gray area because the Epstein thing affects the Media Lab and the whole Institute. It's all intertwined. So, ironically, it's a quasi-work-related conversation. But you can still say that the topic was more thrust on everyone, as opposed to being and having always been a natural part of the work. In fact, whoever caused the two things to mix in the first place [Epstein's money and MIT] done fucked up. Which is what everybody's saying, obviously, but they're saying it because of the moral murk of it, whereas I'm saying, my simpler philosophy about not mixing things, also would have prevented it just as effectively. My objection can simply be that Epstein and his horseshit have nothing to do with the work and have no place at the Institute. Somebody smart could've seen that right off, of course, but they were tempted by the money. Upton Sinclair bla bla "...when his [gittin' PAID] depends on his not understanding it."
Sure, but aren't breaks necessary at some point during a full workday? It's just nice to work with people with whom it's fun to get lunch, coffee, beer. I also suspect it makes for stronger teams, because humans are naturally more inclined to go out of their way for people we're friendly with. But that's just conjecture.
As for RMS... it seems to me that his statements are being intentionally and loudly distorted, and that in itself is very concerning. But it's also beyond obvious that the FSF is better off without him. Its leader cannot be posting irrelevant stuff that they fully know will be emotionally divisive in the community. His job is to grow the free software community, not divide it. If he can't make his feelings about statutory rape subordinate to that, then he cannot be its leader.
But I don't think this extends all the way to "remain silent at work, it can only be used against you" attitude, especially among peers who respect each other and not situations with junior employees or even a public audience of thousands or millions.
Imagine a person expresses skepticism of an idea you consider "settled." Do you:
1. demand the person be let go from his/her current position
2. provide evidence that counters the skepticism
If the correct response is (1), then you yourself are at risk of a Stallman exit. Every one of us holds at least one point of skepticism that one or more groups will be deeply offended by.
The liberal idea, under assault form all shades of the political spectrum, depends on (2) being the correct response.
Society can absolutely decide not every point of view is worth debating.
We could have decided that three hundred years ago too, in which case the divine right of kings would still be a thing.
EDIT: A lot of people seem to think that the divine right of kings would not have been a thing worth strongly defending back in the early 1700s - and certainly far more than they would have defended the rights of people in the west indies or far east to not be "raped and killed". Do you have any argument to back this up? Would bumping things to five hundred years change that?
If banning discussion of things outside the overton window wouldn't have had results you'd like then, why would it do so now? There might be reasons! But I haven't heard people bringing them up.
Just because someone sincerely believes that others are subhuman doesn't mean the conversation ends immediately. We could try providing evidence and clarifying whether they are dead-centre wrong or just dealing with a technical detail before turning to exclusionary tactics.
I mean, seriously. If the choices are (1) end the conversation, try and get someone to resign and (2) try and convince someone to take a different view through conversation over a few days then (2) is far superior. We have a lot of people working in, eg, law and the upper echelons of business who are fantastic contributors to the general good despite having extremely questionable moral stances.
Holocaust deniers used this very tactic under the banner of "skepticism".
They wrote books, they gave speeches. They participated in "academic debate" as if the authenticity of the holocaust was something to be debated.
And they caused a lot of pain to those that did live through the holocaust -- only to hear from someone making false claims that it did not, in fact, happen.
Stallman is not a serial Holocaust denier. He is a software philosopher.
And insofar as he is an agitator, on most of his pet topics time has proven him to be right rather than to be a troll.
We should always explain why something is wrong and try to convince to avoid future trouble.
Bad debate at best gives a platform for truly repugnant points of view, and at worst causes human pain as victims feel their pain dismissed.
Millions of workers labor under threat of starvation just for standing up for themselves a little bit. Expressing a straightforward opinion like “it is illegal to work off the clock” or “a 30 minute lunch break is mandatory in this state” can be enough to provoke retaliation.
Why are people so eager to spend so much energy defending a guy who, at the very least, wrote a bunch of inappropriate things in a completely inappropriate place?
What’s the slippery slope here? “If a man can’t rant about the unfairness of statutory rape laws on a computer science mailing list, then....” I don’t know how that sentence is supposed to end.
There are so many more important things to worry about. A kook is losing his platform. He’ll have to shout into the void like the rest of us. Oh, the horror!
The slippery slope is that today RMS is the kook, ejected without due process or objective standards.
Tomorrow, you'll be the kook.
When you're the head of the FSF, or any other organisation really, you can't just be some kind of agitator, throw out a bunch of controversial nonsense, and then expect it to not look bad for the people you're supposed to represent. It's not an "assault on free speech" to get kicked to the curb for making your organisation look bad, it's cause and effect.
For example:
1) Men should be dominant over women. Women should have no rights, and be little more than property.
2) Certain races are inferior and should be put back into chattel slavery.
3) Eating toddlers is fine, actually.
Would you bother trying to counter those ideas in good faith? Or should the people expressing those views maybe be fired/punished/etc.
"The literal-minded personalities we often encounter in the engineering profession are just not cognitively capable of handling leadership positions. They suffer from autism, a form of mental illness, and while they are fit for highly logical and problem solving tasks are not fit for tasks that involve social or political decision making. It's important that they be kept away from positions of influence or outward-facing communication and properly managed."
Would you call for that person's resignation? I sure as hell would.
If Stallman thought UFOs were clearly alien spacecraft or that Bigfoot was a real surviving prehistoric hominid, I don't think anyone would care. If he took some positions that were more politically charged, like denying evolution or climate change, people might get mad or call him names but I doubt they'd call for his resignation from the FSF or MIT over it.
There is no broad based "witch hunt" against divergent opinions, but there is a new-found extreme intolerance for a certain narrower set.
The opinions in question are those that denigrate other human beings or deny them equal rights or dignity, such as the choice to engage in pedantic hair splitting to defend the sexual exploitation of children.
Other well known cases of "cancel culture" follow the same pattern: Brendan Eich apparently funding campaigns to deny rights to homosexuals, a Google engineer taking the time to write a wall of text explaining why women are "on average" less suited for engineering work, and so on.
So the question becomes: do you think it's right for society or our peers to react so strongly to those kinds of opinions? Is there value in debating them?
P.S. As for the extreme reaction: sexual abuse of children and adolescents is fairly prevalent. Statistically it's pretty likely that at least a small double-digit percentage of free software authors and people involved in the free software community are victims. Seeing Stallman go out on a limb to defend or at least apologize for that kind of thing probably angered quite a few people for reasons that are entirely understandable, especially in the context of his past comments about pedophilia. Sometimes it's tough to see what the big deal is when it's not about an issue that directly relates to you, hence the artificial example I wrote up above.
Also what he said is fully public, so I don't understand what you, or he, is objecting to.
Okay sure, but you're talking about loosening a standard for accuracy of conviction... This means that you can decrease failures to convict truly guilty people—but in equal proportion you will also increase convictions of innocent people.
This does not sound like a well thought out strategy.
And, again, the facts aren't even in dispute.
That's probably because the standard of accuracy is tied to severity of punishment (they're will to pay more for a higher standard in cases where it's more damaging to be wrong). Are you arguing that someone losing their job or other position of influence is low-enough severity that we don't need a high standard? That seems reckless to me.
> Taking away someone's bodily autonomy is different than saying you can't have a prominent role at a prestigious institution.
Agreed. Putting someone in jail is more severe than taking someone's job. I don't think this is controversial.
> You don't (or shouldn't) have an inalienable right to power.
Nobody has claimed this.
> And, again, the facts aren't even in dispute.
This entire thread is a massive contradiction of that claim.
> he's being persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating for objective standards, and asking questions. These are all hallmarks of scientific inquiry.
And the reply to this is that we shouldn't have such high standards for deciding to punish people in power? If nothing else it's a non-sequitur.
Any my original comment still stands: if you do that, you're going to punish more innocent people too.
Is this a bad thing? Different courts also have different standards of proof. Are you saying that you should have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt in civil court? If your friend tells you an acquaintance said something mean to them, are you going to gather evidence and do cross-examinations before you'll believe them?
There is some optimal standard for any class of cases. (At the very least varying the standard will produce better/worse results in relation to particular classes of cases.)
So, no—
> are you going to gather evidence and do cross-examinations before you'll believe them?
—that would be a very bad choice of standard.
I have not claimed to know what the optimal choice of standard is (I will claim that no one else knows it either though), but I do think that changing the standard would have a huge societal impact, and so it shouldn't be done on the basis of a hunch that the outcome would be better. I pointed out one possible complication (convicting more innocent people), though of course the possibilities there are endless.
So to be absolutely clear: I am not advocating for a tighter standard, I'm suggesting that there are complications entailed in lowering it, so it should only be done on a much firmer grounding than some vague notions about catching more bad guys.
On the one hand, the law is very clear because there needs to be a clear line in the sand to decide if people get sent to jail or not. On the other hand, there are clearly open cultural questions about what we should get angry about. Pick any standard you like, and the majority of the world currently disagrees.
In my country of Australia we seem to be using 16. So in Australia maybe there was no crime at all. I dunno, I havn't looked in to this sort of law very deeply.
Let’s not criminalize kids being kids because of some strict morality code.
All that I really know is that I am grateful, once again, to have been a teenager in an age before the proliferation of smart phones and social media.
> Let’s not criminalize kids being kids because of some strict morality code.
A teen shared a video of her own legal sex act, convicted as child pornographer
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20854920
And it's especially horrifying because she got convicted because she wanted to try to stop someone else from spreading it all over the school. It was just supposed to be seen by a few close friends.
I think this way of describing it expresses more the position that the occurrence is unfortunate, and all else being equal, best avoided.
To say “two 14 year olds had entirely consensual sex with eachother” seems to possibly express that the occurrence described is not unfortunate.
Also, If a 12yo and a 15.5 yo did, I think we very well might say that the 15.5 yo committed rape, even though neither person was an adult, Yet if both were 12, people wouldn’t call it that.
So, I don’t think it is only if one party is an adult. Also if one party is substantially closer to being an adult.
Isn't that just a misreading though? You're applying a connotation that isn't there. Many of us don't associate "consensual" with "A-ok" (e.g. I'm anti-pornography).
Though the topic is beginning to cause me more discomfort than it was. Guess I wore through my “discuss uncomfortable topics without feeling uncomfortable” reserves.
Edit: That isn’t a complaint about what anyone else is doing though. I am merely noting my own limitations, and no one needs to do anything to accommodate them in this instance. Continue on as if I hadn’t mentioned them?
The case under discussion was a minor and some guy at least a decade older; not two minors.
> There are no subtleties. Minor's cannot consent
But, no, there are actually subtleties.
> He was trying to argue the subtleties of child rape. There are no subtleties.
Virtually everyone knows there are subtleties around statutory rape in general! But you're missing the forest for the trees here. We're not discussing statutory rape in general but the specific instance that Stallman was defending. You're technically correct in that the very last sentence of martinky24's comment was literally inaccurate, but you are wholly incorrect in your understanding of the spirit of the comment and subsequent dismissal of the rest of it.
The subjects Stallman was discussing are not ambiguous first principle pseudo-persons of nebulous or similar ages. They are an old guy and a coerced, underage girl. Period. There is no subtlety here.
Minors cannot consent because society has removed that right from them.
Now I suspect we may agree on the general outcome of these rules, but I do find these 'religious' arguments distasteful, regardless from which camp they get issued.
Agreed. And if a war, plague, or comet wipes out 80% of the population tomorrow, suddenly "minors" will be 13, and no one of these people so adamant here will bat an eye.
Here's a chance to have a reasoned debate about an important issue, where constructive conversations and solutions could be devised. But instead, the conversation devolves into a flame war.
If anyone is interested in spitballing some type of new novel restrictive grammar to enable having constructive conversations about hot-button issues, I'd love to help: https://github.com/treenotation/jtree/issues/52
To say that minors cannot consent is absolutely horrifying to me. I would have felt ‘raped’ of my free agency to choose if I had been told as a minor that I ‘cannot consent’.
I was a minor. I consented. I was a sexual being just as I was a human being. Minors have to do non sexual adult things ALL the time. I still see adults well into their 40s and 50s who are immature compared to me when I was a minor. So age is a non-factor.
While I DO acknowledge that child sexual abuse occurs as does trafficking and that paedophiles exist out there, when my thoughts and actions and consent when I was a minor is ERASED and my decisions deemed irrelevant, I don’t know how to feel about it.
Reactions in the exact order of how I felt when I read ‘Minors cannot consent’ : Confusion. Anger. Understanding. Annoyance. Anger.
Some minors do adult non sexual things and make adult non sexual decisions all the time..sometimes because they don’t have a choice. Why is it that when it comes to sexual consent, the same minor does not have any agency?
I am trying to understand. It is difficult for me to accept that I am a non-being as a minor.
Please don’t start a flame war. I really want to understand why this is so and communicate as to why the blanket ‘minors cant consent’ is disempowering and has not really made the world a better safer place.
I also want to know what is a better and more effective solution to child sexual abuse(or any kind of sexual abuse) to replace ‘minors cannot consent’.
It isn't that minors are non-beings - it is that they're not fully developed yet, so they need protections. Where we draw that line is up to the law and culture of any location, but it exists.
When we are minors, we are mentally deficient to be sexual beings. When we are adults, we are also told that we have no control or reproductive choice over what we do with bodies.
I hate to sound like this..because I don’t think of myself as a vocal feminist..I have always considered myself a rational being.
With that hat on, it seems to me that the female human being has no choice or agency and their physical bodies are mere vessels for the male of the species to fornicate, procreate and to be generally unobtrusively abiding by the rules made by the opposite gender.
That’s very upsetting to me.
I could tell a five year old that if they do something Santa will bring them gifts. That could be something completely reprehensible but they have no sense of right and wrong besides what I might tell them at that age.
At age ten, they are more capable of deciding that on their own. As you get older you become better at that and more autonomous. But at a young age the only things you know are what adults tell you is true. That's an extreme amount of power the adult has.
At some point we call people adults because we expect them to now have this responsibility and decide for themselves what they think is best for them because at a certain age we believe a majority of those young people should be autonomous. But that age is a guess and fairly arbitrary. Is it 17? 18? Probably somewhere around there. Is it 5? Nope.
So you have to draw the line somewhere. It sucks if you're an incredibly mature 16 year old, but if you are, then waiting two years to have sex with someone much older than you shouldn't be an overwhelming burden if the social benefit is greater for those less mature or in potentially abusive situations.
I see no problem at all with a rational, vocal feminist. Many people enter the latter category after considering the issue with rationality. It would be insulting towards those people to assume they didn't enter into it rationally.
Being young is not a mental deficiency. There are 17 year olds smarter than a legion of 70 year olds will ever be. Saying all young people have a mental deficiency has no bearing on reality.
I don't event want to weigh in on the age of consent debate here, I've just always hated the constant shitting on young people and their intellect just because their young. I hated it when I was young and grown adults who weren't that smart were clearly threatened by me, and I still hate it now that I'm older.
So you can say that 17 year old exceeds some adults and it may be true, but current neurological science suggests that 17 year old has not yet reached their full mental capacity.
Suddenly I remember why teenage years were so hard.
The natural next question is, "where's the line?" A 20 year old and a two year old is obviously wrong, but a 25 year old and a 75 year old seems okay, if a bit weird. And yes, not every person the same age has the same amount of experience and maturity.
But here's the thing: the law can't take that into account. The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it. And so even though there's not really a difference between 17 years 364 days vs. 18 years, one can consent to sex with an adult while the other cannot. Just like one day makes the difference between being able to vote, or drink, or get a driver's license.
> The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it.
But that isn’t true in reality for kids/adults close in age, nor is it a fixed line for every jurisdiction in the states. You actually have to know the law.
> But that isn’t true in reality for kids/adults close in age, nor is it a fixed line for every jurisdiction in the states. You actually have to know the law.
Of course you have to know the law. But the law is well-defined, and you can figure out with 100% certainty whether you'd be breaking local statutory rape laws given your age and your partner's.
I suppose it's possible that there exists an unclear statutory rape law somewhere in the world, but most laws are written to avoid ambiguity. Can you cite a U.S. statutory rape law where it would be ambiguous whether or not sex qualifies as rape given the parties' ages?
Anyways, given that the girl Minsky allegedly slept with was 17, I’m not sure why the underage argument came into play at all given what I know about federal law, at least. But then IANAL. Anyways, all the articles I’ve read about Minsky in this affair say trafficking was involved but not specifically child trafficking, so I wonder if the fed’s case was based more around the trafficking and coercion aspects and not the ages of the girls involved
Also, another thing to consider: age of consent is often different when prostitution is involved, so guy could have legal consensual sex with a 16 year old, but not if they or someone else paid for it.
If you have an example of a set of ambiguous statutory rape laws, please cite it. Otherwise, I think this conversation has reached a stalemate.
In most states, the law is not written "it's illegal to have sex with a 15-year-old PERIOD." Instead, the law is usually "it's illegal FOR AN ADULT to have sex with a 15-year-old."
You are correct that -- for states that a) don't have the "for an adult" clause and b) don't have "Romeo & Juliet" clause -- the law as written DOES imply both kids are guilty. And I'd bet the cost of a nice dinner that, in some of those jurisdictions, both kids in a case like that WERE charged.
Two common exceptions are: 1) similarity in age, and 2) sex with spouse, if married.
Exceptions can have their own exceptions. For example, if a 17 year old has sex with a 25 year old, it may be legal for an exception based on similarity in age. However, the law may also prohibit that exception if there is sex between a teacher and a student in the teacher's class.
So martinky24 was wrong in writing "Minor's cannot consent". It's an understandable wrong, as those exceptions aren't really that relevant to the topic at hand.
But jelliclesfarm is also wrong in thinking the argument is that minors are "non-beings". Minors are beings with fewer freedoms than adults. Depending on their age, they can be forced to attend school and to follow juvenile curfew laws. They can be prevented from purchasing alcohol, and from driving vehicles, or having a full-time job.
All of these remove some of their free agency. Just like restrictions on who minors are free to have sex with.
Why?
> The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it.
Why does that need a "bright and clear line"? There are plenty of things that are illegal where there is no "bright and clear line" in that same sense, and that seems to work just fine, and actually even better in many cases. Like, I dunno, tax fraud is in principle tax fraud even at a single cent, but it's absolutely not "you paid all the taxes you owed, you are fine, you under-reported one cent of your income, now you lose your job and go to jail".
> And so even though there's not really a difference between 17 years 364 days vs. 18 years, one can consent to sex with an adult while the other cannot.
Which seems to be the case. Now, why is that a good approach?
> Just like one day makes the difference between being able to vote, or drink, or get a driver's license.
So, maybe we should fix those as well? Why shouldn't you get a fractional vote starting at age 10, increasing linearly to a full vote at 18, say?
We don't give 12-year-olds a 2/3 fractional vote because a) that introduces a ton of complexity for not much gain, and because b) children are essentially legally "owned" by their parents so the odds of their compulsion to vote a certain way rise dramatically. (Some people didn't want to give women suffrage last century because they figured it would just double the exact ratio of the existing men's vote tallies. And now a century later we have wives that still vote only to please their husband.)
Some things might work -- I don't think this would fly in the US but maybe you could allow 19-year-olds to buy beer (not liquor) like in some states in the 70s.
But how does that work for kids and sex? You want to embed the "first base, second base" junior high sex metaphor into the LAW? A 19-year-old can fondle a 16-year-old's breasts but not her genitals?
Again: "bright" and "clear" have legal and common-sense context here.
Which might be true or not, but in any case does not support the claim that it is somehow inherently impossible.
> and because b) children are essentially legally "owned" by their parents so the odds of their compulsion to vote a certain way rise dramatically.
Well, no, children are not in any sense of the word owned by their parents. Compulsion should not be possible in any sane voting system, as elections are secret. What remains is that chances are that the younger a person, the more their parents tend to have influence over their decisionmaking, which might be a reason to limit their ability to vote accordingly. But you might have noticed that people don't switch from "no clue how to make an independent decision" to "completely mature and independent" on their 18th birthday? So, if your goal is to limit their political influence according to their independence/maturity, why is a hard cut-off at 18 the best solution?
> Some people didn't want to give women suffrage last century because they figured it would just double the exact ratio of the existing men's vote tallies.
Which is obviously a bullshit argument? You don't want to change who can vote because you fear that it won't change the result of the election? And the solution is to make sure that the result of the election doesn't change? Wut?
> And now a century later we have wives that still vote only to please their husband.
See above, secret ballot and all that.
> But how does that work for kids and sex?
Well, the claim was that the difference between "17 years and 364 days" and "18 years" was not a meaningful difference in reality (I would agree), but that somehow it was impossible to make a law that takes that into consideration, and so we don't have any other choice but to have a law that maps one of those to no consequences at all while the other is life-ruining. Which is obviously bullshit, as you obviously trivially can make a law that specifies that the punishment, say, linearily increases from none at 18 years to whatever the maximum is at 14 or whatever. That would be perfectly objective criteria that statistically map much better to the actual lack of maturity of the victim, without any hard cut-off where insignificant differences in the facts of the matter (and thus honest mistakes) result in massively diverging consequences.
There is absolutely a bright and clear (albeit very complicated) line for tax fraud. The IRS probably won't go after you if you underpay by a penny — but you're still breaking the law if you do it intentionally.
>> And so even though there's not really a difference between 17 years 364 days vs. 18 years, one can consent to sex with an adult while the other cannot.
> Which seems to be the case. Now, why is that a good approach?
Because — with regard to statutory rape — if I know someone's age I can be 100% sure whether or not I would be breaking the law by having sex with them.
In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line?
> The IRS probably won't go after you if you underpay by a penny — but you're still breaking the law if you do it intentionally.
In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line?
Like, you are claiming that there is, and then provide the evidence that there isn't. All you are showing is that there is something that you want to call a "bright and clear line", but then you don't show anything in reality that actually matches that description in any meaningful sense.
> Because — with regard to statutory rape — if I know someone's age I can be 100% sure whether or not I would be breaking the law by having sex with them.
OK, so suppose we were to make the rule that if you under-report your income by any amount, whether intentionally or not, whether knowingly or not, you go to jail for ten years. That would be a bright and clear line, right? If you know that you reported all your income, you can be 100% sure whether you are going to jail. Why wouldn't that be a good approach? Or would it be?
>> There is absolutely a bright and clear (albeit very complicated) line for tax fraud.
> In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line?
There is. A “bright and clear line” means a test is objective, not that it’s simple [1].
>> The IRS probably won't go after you if you underpay by a penny — but you're still breaking the law if you do it intentionally.
> In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line?
There is. Just because something is not consistently enforced doesn’t mean it’s not clearly illegal. Cops may not fine you if they see you jaywalking, but you’re still unambiguously breaking the law if you cross the street outside of the crosswalk.
> OK, so suppose we were to make the rule that if you under-report your income by any amount, whether intentionally or not, whether knowingly or not, you go to jail for ten years. That would be a bright and clear line, right? If you know that you reported all your income, you can be 100% sure whether you are going to jail. Why wouldn't that be a good approach? Or would it be?
Most crimes (although not statutory rape) require intent to be shown [2]. No justice system is perfect; innocent people get convicted and guilty people go unpunished. A good law should allow people to unambiguously know when they would break it.
Except you were obviously not using the phrase in that sense? There is absolutely no contradiction between "objective" and "taking into account many details of the individual case". There is absolutely no problem with writing a law that objectively specifies that the punishment for "17 years and 364 day" is going to be only marginally worse than for "18 years", for example, which you used as an example for why a "bright and clear line" would be necessary, and that that would mean that you have to have to have a strict cut-off point between hard punishment and no punishment at all.
> There is. Just because something is not consistently enforced doesn’t mean it’s not clearly illegal. Cops may not fine you if they see you jaywalking, but you’re still unambiguously breaking the law if you cross the street outside of the crosswalk.
In other words: There isn't. If you are breaking the law, but there are pretty reliably no consequences, in which sense are you then breaking the law that would be relevant to this discussion?
> Most crimes (although not statutory rape) require intent to be shown [2].
In other words: For most crimes, there is less of a "bright and clear line", and things generally seem to be working well, or even better. So, how is that a justificaton for having more of a "bright and clear line"?
> No justice system is perfect; innocent people get convicted and guilty people go unpunished.
Well ... sure? I am not sure why you mention that?!
> A good law should allow people to unambiguously know when they would break it.
I am not sure I would agree with that. I mean, yes, ideally, people should be able to know in advance what would constitute breaking a given law and what would not, sure. But the problem I see is that this ideal goal is in conflict with other goals of a legal system, such as being just. And "bright and clear lines" in the sense in which you are using the phrase tend to have very nasty side effects in that regard, because they massively increase the probability that honest mistakes that harm noone are punished the same as premeditated harming of another human, but also that someone intentionally doing harm that just so happens to be on the legal side of the "bright and clear line" goes unpunished.
So, I would agree that laws should be as objective as possible in describing what is illegal. But at the same time, circumstances should always be considered so as to avoid injustice that results from overly simplistic rules being applied. That doesn't mean that judges should make arbitrary decisions, though, in that there is no problem with at least attempting to codify the details of how to justly judge individual cases rather than settling for the simplest rule possible. While you might never be able to codify all the possible things to consider, that does not mean that the only other option is to make a simplistic rule.
Let me quote you:
> But here's the thing: the law can't take that into account. The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it. And so even though there's not really a difference between 17 years 364 days vs. 18 years, one can consent to sex with an adult while the other cannot.
So ... your argument was what exactly? That the law could not possibly spell out a more complicated rule than "below 18 is illegal", because ... it is impossible to do so in the English language? Or what?
As it happens, statutory rape law is already more complicated than a cutoff at 18. There are often exemptions for people who are married, or close in age. But the line is still objective — a “bright and clear line”, so to speak.
If that is what you meant to say, you really didn't explain that well in your original comment, as you explicitly claimed that the law could not take details into account, rather than that it should specifically avoid subjective criteria. After all, it is perfectly possible to take into account the fact that not all people of the same age have the same maturity without resorting to subjective criteria--such as by making the transition from legal to illegal sufficiently smooth in terms of possible punishment that the punishment statistically scales with the probability of the sexual interaction being with an immature person: While that obviously does not perfectly match the consequences to the actual maturity of each individual, it would give a much better correspondence between punishment and the abusiveness of the relationship overall than a hard cut-off, while still being based on objective criteria.
Now, you are right that the law is actually usually more complicated than a single hard cut-off, but it seems that it's often still doing a poor job due to lack of nuance.
Is a measure of puberty sufficient to give consent? I am not saying that it is..but perhaps it’s closer to a better situation.
Older societies had coming of age ceremonies and welcoming pre pubescents into young adulthood. Perhaps there was more value in the old traditions and rituals that we have given up in our modern times. It clarified to a young adult the changes that happen physically and hormonally..an opportunity to talk about things and take personal responsibility. A responsibility that means freedom as well as risk.
I am just throwing this out there..we have handed over societal bonding over to the state and legal system. It has certainly made us weak. And allowed more predation of the truly vulnerable while curtailing the freedom of those who are aware of risks and responsibilities.
> Is a measure of puberty sufficient to give consent? I am not saying that it is..but perhaps it’s closer to a better situation.
The problem is, how do we measure "sufficient"?
If we just mean people's opinions, we can be more nuanced — for example, I think a grown person who has sex with an 18 year old is just as gross as one who has sex with a 17 year old, but I don't have an exact line in my head as to when it would become okay. Everyone's exact line will differ, and that's okay too!
On the other hand, if the law is trying to measure "sufficient", then we need something objective because people need to know when they would be breaking it. "Puberty" is pretty squishy — for example, do we count when a boy's voice deepens? When he starts growing facial hair? Whereas if we measure an objective fact like age, then if I know that fact I can be 100% sure whether or not I'm allowed to have sex with this person.
I agree with you that age an imperfect measure of maturity, which is what we really care about. But it seems to be the best measure we can come up with that's both objective and correlated.
The bottom line is that your agency wasn't removed as a minor, you were just left with the same choice as many other minors, to obey the laws regarding drinking, smoking, pornography, etc. Or to break them in order to gain whatever you felt you were being denied. The laws were written to punish people who exploit minors, and the consequences of those crimes pretty much always fall on the adult in the situation (for good reason).
When I was 17, and unable to vote or see certain movies, or 20 and unable to legally buy alcohol, I definitely felt like my freedom was abridged, but it didn't make the laws behind those immoral, it just made them slightly unfair. And that was for some low stakes stuff compared to sex trafficking or adult exploitation of children.
1. I don’t want anyone to be ‘raped’ by ‘free agency. I was speaking of consent. Can someone be raped while being a minor? Of course. Age has nothing to do with whether one can be raped. One can be raped as a minor just as a 50 y/o ..dare I say..male can be raped. Age also has nothing to do with sexual desire or urges either. A 12 year old boy can be horny and a post menopausal woman can snap shut at the rumor of sex.
Rape should be about consent. Not age.
2. It is infantalization of young adults and taking away their instincts and consequently the ability to provide consent that is confounding to me. Biologically, sexual instinct begins way before puberty.
3. Creating ‘laws’ is a symptom of a society failing to manage itself. Shame and shunning used to work before. Every law automatically includes a legal loophole. Laws make society weaker, not stronger. It is the mass handover of power to the state..power we should have over ourselves as citizens and society.
Human beings may be holding super computers in the palms of our hands, but our instincts are still cave man instincts. The human instinct that seeks sexual pleasure also seeks justice and revenge and disgust.
How many rape victims have been screwed over by the ‘system’ that the law is supposed to uphold?
4. So something is wrong with the legal system that lets more people slip through the cracks by ‘failing’ them. I am not condoning rape.
I am just saying that it is wrong that minors should be deemed ‘mentally deficient’ to give consent.
5. When my body says that I am ready for sex and the law says no, I am being denied my right.
6. Jewish infants are circumcised without their consent. Is that sexual assault or rape? Young girls suffer genital mutilation in the same name of religion. Why doesn’t the law step in and make it illegal?
7. Voting or alcohol consumption are not biological imperatives. Children are..to an extent..property of parents until they can fend for themselves. To curtail freedom to consent by law is actually also curtailing freedom of ownership of their instincts. When did the courts and the state start taking over the role of parents?
8. Let’s take Greta Thurnberg. She is a child instructing adults. Some of us are ok with that. Others aren’t. The same girl if she had consented to have sex with a non-minor while she was a minor in the USA would have been considered ‘mentally deficient’ to give consent.
9. I am not..for even a second..condoning rape. I am just concerned that the advent of an biological instinct when it is earlier than the age of consent is a handicap to a young adult.
What are you thoughts and I hope I had clarified my position.
Your argument might well be that the age of consent is too high. That's fine, it's arbitrary. But there does need to be one to prevent all sorts of horrible things from happening.
And no, the laws don't prevent everything but that's not an argument that they shouldn't exist at all.
I am not arguing that.
I am just saying that a minor not being able to consent due to their alleged ‘mental deficiency’ due to age(as suggested by another poster above) is dodgy.
Ok. Let’s take an example of an actual ‘mentally deficient’ person...even an adult. Don’t they have sexual urges and biological needs? Are they capable of consent? What does the law say about that?
Sexual urges are no different than hunger or thirst. I want to know why sex has a more special status than food or water?
Defending the rape of trafficked children is not a "hallmark of scientific inquiry".
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
I guess I'm not up to speed and haven't read everything he said, can you quote his exact words he said on Thrusday that led you to conclude he was "Defending the rape of trafficked children"?
Stallman has just said he's having to resign after being accused over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations, is this an example of a mischaracterization of what he said or did he really say he defended raping trafficked children?
That precedent creates a stigma when discussing such topics. Let's say that you don't quite understand a particular viewpoint (doesn't have to be this - another good topic is racism & discrimination). Where do you go to learn more about the topic? Especially when you're aspiring to be a leader, this stigma incentivizes holding on to half-baked ideas that you simply can't discuss with anyone. That, in turn, creates a culture of double-speak.
So, in other words, good first-order effects, but bad second-order effects.
Where do you go to learn more? Maybe you could go to the library. You could enroll in classes. MIT is famous for technical subjects but I’m sure they have good classes about psychology, law, and ethics too. Or you could find stuff online, I’m sure there are plenty of good resources out there.
What determines whether you're advocating for scientific inquiry is whether you're arguing in good faith for positions that are in genuine need of inquiry, not whether you have the trappings of scientific research.
That said, I think Stallman's position really is fundamentally wrong and problematic.
Legally, sex with underaged people is rape regardless of consent. Morally, that stance really is justified in the most common circumstance - when the non-underaged person has more power and experience than the underaged person. In the case under discussion, you have that in spades, double spades.
The sad thing is that individuals interested in freedom, who make serious contributions to some things called free, don't notice that the massive imbalances of wealth today have produced a situation where simple "free choice" is made a mockery of.
And yeah, the thing about inquisition atmosphere, imo, is that it doesn't reveal the rot behind all the "mere" abuse of power.
It could happen if your point about power and consent was taken as a given (at least in the context of this topic).
So you have the default opinion anyone in our society will have. I'm interested in what the heretic has to say why we are wrong.
However with what has happened to Stallman I doubt I ever will. A shame because something has gone hugely wrong when half of all children are thinking of suicide.
Hardly.
1. It isn't pedophilia if the person is sexually mature. Pedophilia is sex with prepubescent children.
2. He draws a distinction between statutory rape (can't legally say yes according to the law, but otherwise willing and sexually mature) and forcible rape (when someone says no). He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if the person's birthday were slightly adjusted.
I agree with you that in the Epstein case you have a situation with a dramatic power imbalance. Stallman seems to consider Epstein a serial rapist (possibly for that fact?). He seems to be more pushing back on the pedophilia accusations.
Also - there seems to be a thread lost. It really looks like Epstein was a US Intelligence Officer filming powerful people having sex with young women (including foreign officials) to obtain leverage on them for the United States. This whole aspect of the conversation seems to have melted away in the various other controversies.
In Germany (and I find this disturbing) the legal age under which a grown up (over 21 years) can have sex with a kid is 14[1][2]. Of course a judge can find that the child or their legal representative not having been capable of giving consent in which case it's still considered child abuse.
Western societies themselves have such vastly different legal definitions of consent. To be honest I find germanies version to be the weirdest I've seen although I don't know much about the other european countries.
It is not.
The general legal age of consent in German is 16 years. § 182 (3)
The special legal age is 14 and it's only legal if the other party is under 21.
Even then there are a lot of further exemptions that would make sex with a minor illegal. Prostitution and/or pornography involving minors is always illegal.
In Germany, having sex with someone in the 14-15 range can be illegal if the other party is above the age of 21.
Relevant passage in German, from the parent's link:
"Über die Vorschriften des § 182 StGB Abs. 1 und 2 (Zwangslage, Entgelt) bezüglich des Schutzalters 18 Jahre hinaus, die auch für unter 16-jährige Opfer gelten, können sexuelle Handlungen von Erwachsenen, die über 21 Jahre alt sind, mit 14- und 15-jährigen Jugendlichen nach § 182 Abs. 3 StGB bestraft werden, falls ein gesetzlicher Vertreter des Jugendlichen Strafantrag stellt und im Strafverfahren das Gericht feststellt, dass der Erwachsene eine – etwa mit Hilfe eines Sachverständigen – festzustellende „fehlende Fähigkeit zur sexuellen Selbstbestimmung“ des Jugendlichen ausgenutzt hat. Der Bundesgerichtshof hat 1996 festgestellt, dass der bloße Hinweis auf das Alter der 14- oder 15-jährigen Person für eine Verurteilung des erwachsenen Beschuldigten nicht ausreicht."
(emphasis mine)
To summarize: Having (consensual, of course) sex with a 14 year old is always legal in Germany if you're under the age of 21 and not a teacher or some such, and can be illegal if you're over that.
That only means the court (not the defendant) will get an expert witness who in the very very vast majority of all of cases will say "well yes, not mature enough, normal/underdeveloped 14/15 yo".
The point of this is not, say the lawmakers (as can be read in the Referentenentwürfe), to give a card blanche to adults to have sex with 14-15yos, but account for the very rare case a 14-15yo actually has a far above average developmental maturity, to the point where a special protection by law is no longer necessary, thus making the age of consent less arbitrary and closer related to the actual state of development of an individual.
> That only means the court (not the defendant) will get an expert witness who in the very very vast majority of all of cases will say "well yes, not mature enough, normal/underdeveloped 14/15 yo".
The wikipedia link directly contradicts you:
"Dieser Rückgang wird in der juristischen Literatur nicht etwa so erklärt, dass die Zahl der Sexualkontakte Erwachsener mit Jugendlichen zurückgegangen sei, sondern dass solche Kontakte gegenwärtig gesellschaftlich weitgehend toleriert werden und Erziehungsberechtigte nur noch selten Strafanträge stellen.[6] Verschiedene Studien rechnen damit, dass nur jede hundertste bis zweihundertste sexuelle Beziehung einer über 21-jährigen Person mit einer 14- bis 15-jährigen Person zu einer Anzeige nach § 182 Abs. 3 StGB (in aktueller Fassung) führt.[5]"
I understand what RMS is trying to say, but this strikes me as an incredibly weak argument. All laws are arbitrary, but pointing that out isn't a meaningful defense of someone who broke one.
It's like contesting a parking ticket by saying "well if parking had been allowed on that street at that time then I wouldn't have done anything wrong."
Sometimes it's obvious which the sensible choice to make is. If you're arguing whether the GPL allows linking to a proprietary library or not, then it's the law that's more important. But if you're arguing if sex with children is OK then it's some higher moral standard that's important and appeals to the law are essentially appeals to popular opinion as support of some moral standard.
Luckily, people usually agree on what the law means, so they just have to make sure they're arguing about the same point that their opponent is actually making.
I suspect (and really really hope) RMS wouldn't have such a defense for Epstein himself.
I agree that the reporting silence on this aspect of the case is odd. The federal prosecutor who worked out Epstein's plea deal (Alexander Acosta) appears to have told the press that the deal was done because he was told "Epstein belonged to intelligence". This was widely reported in July (https://www.google.com/search?q=acosta+epstein+intelligence), and then this revelation was almost completely dropped when Acosta resigned from his position as Secretary of Labor due to fallout from his involvement with the plea deal.
I'll note though that Acosta did not explicitly claim that Epstein was working for the US intelligence services...
The federal prosecutor was not in a position to be able to verify that claim.
No other evidence for it has come forth, making it hard to accept your view that "it really looks like" that's the case.
I didn't use those words, the parent poster did.
Personally, I think the possibility that Epstein was working for a government agency (domestic or foreign) merits further investigation, but is far from a certainty. I agree that Acosta might have been lying. But if this is the case, I find it doubly odd that there has been so little follow up reporting.
Suppose Acosta started the lie, and refuses to talk about it. What would the follow-up reporting look like?
"I contacted 16 US intelligence agencies. 9 of them denied that Epstein worked for them, and the rest would neither confirm or deny that Epstein worked for them."?
Would you have seen that sort of reporting? Would it be convincing? How many relevant intelligence agencies are there in the US?
The reporting I'd like to see would probably focus on finance and connections. How did Epstein make his money? Who were his clients? What did his business associates know about the sexual allegations? Who does Acosta claim told him? What were Epstein's internal motives?
I haven't seen any major news outlets focussing on these aspects. The simple explanation is that they fear that any explanation of Epstein other than "he's a monster" would reflect badly on them to the public. The more conspiratorial explanation is that the answers would reflect badly on people who have power over them.
But answering your questions: Yes, I probably would have seen that reporting if it existed; No, it wouldn't be convincing; I don't think the number of agencies matters, the connections he does have seem to lead to the CIA or Mossad.
Here are some major news outlets which have tried. None have succeeded.
New York Magazine - http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/how-did-jeffrey-epste... - "How Jeffrey Epstein Made His Money: Four Wild Theories"
Vanity Fair back in 2003 trying to figure out the mystery - https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/03/jeffrey-epstein-2003...
Business Insider - https://www.businessinsider.com/how-financier-jeffrey-epstei...
Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-08/the-myste...
You ask "What did his business associates know about the sexual allegations?"
The only known business associate is Wexner. He has declined to comment, says Bloomberg.
You ask "Who does Acosta claim told him?" He has declined to comment. Eg, the Miami Herald at https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html says "Acosta did not respond to numerous requests for an interview or answer queries through email."
"The simple explanation" is that it was hidden well, protected by powerful people, and had not yet been figured out.
I have no doubt that "the answers would reflect badly on people who have power over them". That's how it has been squelched or diminished until now.
Other than the one comment, is there any evidence that an intelligence agency is really involved? Why can't it be a bunch of sexually abusive plutocrats supporting each other with their connections of power? Why can't the reference to "intelligence" be a convenient cover?
If it were the CIA or Mossad, do you not think that, perhaps, some time in the last 20 years they might have told him to tone down as he's going to get caught, and destroy their decades-long effort?
What are the connections between Mossad and Acosta? Any Epstein connections wouldn't affect the federal prosecutors' office, yet it was they who gave Epstein such lenient terms.
If Julie Brown, the investigative reporter who worked on the story for a long time for the Miami Herald, had been able to figure out any of these questions, do you think she would have reported it?
Wait, what? I thought he was objecting to the claim that Marvin Minsky assaulted one of Epstein's victims.
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
What's being referred to, in regards to his opinion of Epstein, is this piece from April: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_201...
One can draw a distinction between rape by physical force and rape by coercion, manipulation and deception - but it's kind of undesirable to push any kind of line that a lack of force makes this a automatically a different kind of crime. For example, sex with police officer or prison guard when someone is in custody is in many jurisdictions automatically considered to be rape because the circumstances mean a person can't really consent - and that's entirely logical. In this sense, "statutory rape" and forcible rape aren't entirely different.
Maybe one might find situations where under-aged sex isn't rape by manipulation - where you can argue consent could reasonably given (an eighteen year old with sixteen year in the same High school is hard to argue against). But the Epstein situation is clearly the wrong place to look for this.
My ex-girlfriend dated Prince Andrew (she was in her late 20s). I’ve been around some of these people in South Florida and LA. A lot of allegedly good people will ignore red flags but people openly targeting underage girls seems to be isolated to only one or two principals.
Of course, all of this is wrong —- even this concept of pleasure parties where young (over 18) girls are brought to billionaire parties often by younger guys. Turning regular girls into “sugar babies” or prostitutes is a major problem.
Ah, Dershowitz. The one who says, yes, he got a massage at Epstein's Palm Beach place, but it was from a 52-year-old woman named Olga and he kept his pants on the whole time.
I'm sure we'll see his exculpatory evidence any day now.
But is it reasonable for someone to be essentially fired for having an incorrect opinion?
Yes. There are laws against workplace harassment. Harassment may include repeated voicing of discriminatory opinions. The harasser may be fired to prevent the workplace from being a 'hostile environment'.
Even when the law does not require action, someone may be fired even after a single conversation with incorrect opinions (and I mean 'incorrect' in the factual sense here). Take Jimmy Snyder, a.k.a. "Jimmy the Greek". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Snyder_(sports_commentat... .
> On January 16, 1988, Snyder was fired by the CBS network (where he had been a regular on NFL Today since 1976) after making several questionable comments about African Americans during a lunchtime interview on January 15, 1988 with Ed Hotaling ...
More directly, if it's the 1950s and I call my stridently anti-Soviet Union boss "a pinko Commie" to his face, that's voicing an incorrect opinion -- and I might easily be fired for it. (It's not hard to come up with modern-day examples, but I felt it best to use phrases which no longer have the emotional power they once did.)
None of these apply to what happened with Stallman. I instead wanted to address your broader topic of being fired for expressing an opinion.
That’s the point. If it were harassment, false accusation of a colleague, etc, it would not be merely expressing a bad opinion. But as you say, none of those apply.
And I think it’s clear I was not raising an issue of what is legal, but of what is right and just, and desirable for a university, for a workplace, for a society.
But you asked a much broader question.
I gave two examples, one real ("Jimmy the Greek"), and one hypothetical ("pinko Commie"). Do you really want to get into a discussion of how it was not "right and just" to fire Jimmy the Greek for his racist comments?
Whether or not this case crosses it there clearly is a line where expressing an opinion isn't okay. If he was spouting off racist stuff you would have very few people defending him being fired.
[edit] seems the resignation is due to the comments and I’m living under a rock
Yes and no. With a 17 year old, in some jurisdictions, it's rape in such and such degree, but in other jurisdictions, it's a separate crime, and in other jurisdictions it's not a crime at all. I think the stronger argument is that it's illegal/immoral, rather than getting stuck on a single word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe
Stallman has a point, even though he should've steered clear of this by 100 miles. People who don't travel internationally probably have a huge blind spot on this issue...
I'm not so sure. "Free choice" today as defined by those on the left is "free to make choices independent of constraints imposed by personal capacity or personal resources", whereas it has historically been interpreted as "free to make choices independent of constraints imposed by other humans".
The problem with the former definition of free choice is that it requires encroaching on the latter definition of free choice.
If you have two people that are equally poor, both are equal in terms of having free choice under both definitions.
If one of those people becomes wealthy, they continue to be equal under the latter definition of free choice, but are unequal under the former definition even though nothing has changed in the circumstances of the one that became neither richer nor poorer than he was previously.
Yes, but how do you understand the wide age variations for "consent" worldwide?
There are many jurisdictions where this is not the case.
Many people will acknowledge the value of Stallman's stubborn, iconoclastic opinions. I'd count myself among them, and it's a little sad to see Stallman go from his pulpits. But on the other hand, I'm relieved: it might be in Stallman's constitution to be at all times a rational reasoning machine, impervious to emotion and sentiment, but this is not how most people are, and on many occasions Stallman has shown that he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about this. There are times when one should refrain from saying something that is merely correct because of the symbolic meaning it would have, or the emotional responses it would elicit.
You qualify this, but that is basically the core of what Stallman supporters are looking at.
Saying something that is literally true, in an industry which is known to be stuffed with some very literal minded people, should not be grounds for anyone resigning. It should be grounds for doing nothing, apologising or clarifying depending on what was said.
It is risky to punish people for what they did not literally say. Particularly if they are the sort of person who is well known for striving to be literally correct.
You also lend Stallman more weight than he deserves. His resignation will go unnoticed by all outside of our specific tech sphere and certainly will not "set a precedent that will absolutely lead to self-censorship" (???).
Should we cheer his resignation? It's undoubtedly a sad moment for him and his supporters, but Stallman's behavior quite likely has held back the FSF for some time. He's an ideologue, not a leader.
I expressed no opinion either way on that topic. I don't even consider the topic relevant to my position, which is that once we agree that merely asking some questions will result in harsh punishments, we're hosed as a society.
Today, it's the question you hate that gets punished. Tomorrow it will be the question you hold most dear.
So your premise is flawed and thus your position is (ironically) irrelevant to the topic.
As far as I can tell, the discussion was on-topic given that a former professor, Minsky, was being accused of "assault." Stallman's questions and statements revolved around the use of that term and the trouble that its lack of specificity brings.
The university is (ideally) full of scholars holding controversial views, asking uncomfortable questions, and being accused of all manner of crimes. If one of them (Minsky) can be tarred and feathered without a trial, any of them could be.
If their views are banal, then there is likely nothing novel academically coming out of them. That’s literally the opposite point of professorship, tenure, and academic inquiry.
I recommend you look up the definition of “banal” because you either used it wrong or you don’t know what the point of tenure is.
Imagine a person emails a large distribution group at their office with the following question: "I notice we have many black employees: does anything think it might be beneficial if we return to chattel slavery and own them? Could lower our bottom line"
Would that person be fired? Should that person be fired? Are there questions that shouldn't be asked? Is everything fair game?
2. Stallman's argument was simply to call a spade a spade, and not a defense of Epstein or Minsky. If you told 10 people (each unaware of any of the facts alleged) that Minsky sexually assaulted a girl, and then asked them to describe what they imagine occurred after hearing he sexually assaulted some, many might assume he violently assaulted someone. The degree of differences in guesses that you might receive makes the word functionally prone to tarnishing someone with a reputation for a different crime than the one they committed.
Stallman therefore asked for the incident to be described in unambiguous terms; for example, that Minsky had sex with a sex trafficked 17-year old 50 years his junior on Epstein's island. That does not mean he defends that scenario -- you can still view it as reprehensible, and condemn it, but at least you are not engaging in "accusation inflation", where you are condemning someone for a potentially worse crime than they committed.
3. I agree that Stallman is unnoticed outside this sphere, but this is part of a continued trend of threatening people's reputations and livelihoods for stating an opinion. I created a throwaway for the first time ever simply for this comment (which I think is relatively benign), so yes, I think this trend will continue to lead to self-censorship.
Rather than blaming the laws which define sexual assault this way, Stallman chose to blame the people who wrote a perfectly accurate description.
He is just trying to create public conversation about clarification of the term "sexual assault" when it comes to murky areas of consent. If it came out tomorrow that Minsky indeed raped an underage child, Stallman wouldn't deny the truth. The truth is all he's after.
There are two issues here, one being Stallman's hesitance regarding the use of the word "child" depending on which country this all took place in, and two being Stallman's comment that there may have not been any coercion at all.
While it's vanishingly unlikely the latter was the case, to vilify Stallman for these statements instead of making scientific inquiry is absurdly reactionary and unempathetic towards someone who is very naturally trying to make rationalizations towards the behavior of someone whom they hold in high regard, as is typical in during the doubting stage of grief.
34 U.S. Code § 12291 (29) - "The term “sexual assault” means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent." - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/12291#a_27 . It does not require 'force or violence', as Stallman implies.
Stallman stated: "Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism."
How is "sexual assault" not the specific term for sex with a coerced minor? Where is the moral vagueness in the accusation?
Do you believe it has any merit? His emails suggest that he doesn't have an idea of what the existing laws regarding consent actually is - even the ones which are not ambiguous.
> considering the globally varying age of consent
That's why it must be a merit-less argument. 1) It's a distraction because age-of-consent isn't the issue here, it's the inability of minor coerced into sex work to give consent, and 2) there are regional differences in just about every crime, so if Stallman's argument has merit then it means almost no laws are moral, so talking about the morality of laws isn't that meaningful in the first place.
> He was just advocating stricter language around the issue.
He did not demonstrate that the term was used incorrectly for this case.
He made up his own definition, which requires 'force or violence', then asserted that it is "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation" ... when people are using the term correctly, in its strict legal definition.
Why do you think the use of "sexual assault" for this case is not the correct strict language?
BTW, Stallman doesn't seem to know that "no coercion given his past with Minsky" may be irrelevant to the question of if sexual assault occurred. Some sexual assault laws have strict liability. If 73-year-old Prof. X has sex with a seemingly willing person under the age of consent, with no coercion on X's part, then it doesn't matter if X truly believes the underage person is of the age of consent. In most US jurisdiction, "I honestly thought she was old enough" is not a way to avoid a statutory rape conviction.
For Stallman's argument about coercion to be effective, he needs either 1) to demonstrate that the the laws regarding the Minsky situation require knowledge on Minsky's part that the sex was coerced - and I don't know the relevant laws, or 2) present a strong argument for why strict liability is wrong for that case. He didn't.
I assert it's because he didn't know the basic issues on the topic, but is only arguing what he feels should be the case. Which is not a good basis for complaining that others are being insufficiently strict in their language.
(BTW, why does at 73-year old Minsky think that a young woman wants to have sex with him? Did he consider it might be part of a blackmail plot? Or does he thinks he's so famous that of course a teenager wants to have sex with him? We'll never know.)
The legal definition is wide enough to encompass a broad range of acts that people have differing moral intuitions about (even if they are all bad acts, some are markedly more heinous in a lot of people's minds). That leads to moral vagueness. Pointing to a legal definition doesn't change that.
If I went around calling you a killer, because you kill insects, or a criminal, because you had an alcoholic drink when underage, or a producer of child pornography, because you sexted your girlfriend a photo of yourself when you were 17, and then pointed to a dictionary or legal definition to show that I was technically correct, would you not still object that I'm using terms that are overly vague as to the morality of what you have done?
By that logic, every law leads to moral vagueness. What's "child abuse"? If you spank your child, in some jurisdictions that's fine. In others it's illegal. For all I know, there may be some where it's okay so long as you don't leave bruises. Does that prevent us from making justified accustations of child abuse?
What's spousal rape? In some jurisdictions there is no such crime. In others it is a crime.
What's copyright infringement? Again, the details differ by jurisdiction. Different jurisdictions recognize different fair use or fair dealing considerations, and have different lengths of time for copyright protection.
> calling you a killer, because you kill insects
If I killed someone, and you call me a killer because of that, by pointing to the dictionary and legal definitions, can my friends defend me by saying that the definition is overly vague?
FWIW, I am a killer of insects - Killer is a not-uncommon nickname, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_(nickname) - I am a criminal because I've been ticketed several times for breaking traffic laws, I believe there is a strong argument against defining sexting as the production of child pornography, similar to the argument allowing some minors to have sex with adults of similar age.
I do not believe there is a strong argument in saying that sex with someone who is unable to grant consent is not sexual abuse.
How does it not? I was abused as a child, physically and psychologically tormented and coerced into taking drugs and participating in weird religious things I wanted no part of, and many people I've encountered, including my own mother, don't view what I've been through as abuse. I consider it child abuse but even the multitude of police who visited my dwellings growing up in rural Louisiana sided with my abusers.
This is an example of the independence and often disparity between objective morality and law. Law wants to emulate morality, but it never will. And thus we cannot use law as a roadmap for morality. That is what people are doing in this case, clinging to the arbitrary laws defined in their section of the earth instead of only making safe moral assumptions based on scientific inquiry.
Stallman has just lost a position that he has spent his whole life working towards in a misplaced attempt to play the devil's advocate for a friend whom he has trouble imagining a dark side of. For what, so we can be morally vindicated? After everything which Stallman has helped give us? What kind of purist authoritarian hyper-reactive world are we living in? Without Stallman the two of us wouldn't even be able to have this discussion.
Stallman's position appears to be that you absolutely cannot call what happened to you "child abuse."
Stallman doesn't seem willing to learn what others mean by "sexual assault" before making up his own definition and claiming that's the definition they were using.
Stallman has also spent his adult life as a sexual creep. This is an open secret. Your moral calculus appears to be that people are free to creep on others so long as the good they do outweighs the creep, and Stallman's good means he can be as creepy as he wants to, with no direct consequences?
If after 30 years the free software movement can't survive and thrive without Stallman then the movement has failed. The indirect consequences include all the people who left or never joined the movement because of his creepiness. Is that in your calculus?
> Stallman has also spent his adult life as a sexual creep. This is an open secret.
Oh brother... want to share some sauce on that instead of making wildly uncited claims? You're on some next level shit here.
Stallman gave the wrong definition of "sexual assault".
He chastised people for using the wrong phrase.
Legally speaking, it's the right phrase.
If the argument is really about "objective morality" and "absolutes" then those cannot be decided, so your interpretation of Stallman's text would also have Stallman object to calling Epstein a pedophile - something he rejects. Therefore your interpretation must be wrong.
Are you paying any attention to any of the cited claims in the last few days? It's not like these deep dark secrets. Searching HN for "Stallman creep", for example, finds:
"There are many valid criticisms of Richard Stallman: ... he has creeped out some women by making passes at them (or so they tell me). - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2327849 (2011)
I also know a woman who worked down the hall from Stallman, and she found him to be a creep this way.
Then there's all the people on Twitter saying the same thing, and not just recently. Here's are a few from 2018, https://twitter.com/suzanne_hillman/status/99459683376166092... :
> He flirts with anyone who is female, even if they are underage. He is creepy in person, in a way that I cannot adequately describe. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he kept women out of open source and free software, and many of his ideas stayed even after he left.
and https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267277460619265 :
> I remember being walked around campus by an upperclassman getting advice during my freshman year at MIT. "Look at all the plants in her office," referring to a professor. "All the women CSAIL professors keep massive amounts of foliage" s/he said. "Stallman really hates plants."
Or elsewhere, like https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/09/17/rms-resig... :
> rms was in the whisper network as a creep when I was in undergrad late last millennium, and I wasn’t even at MIT.
If you were both under the age of consent, as is often the case, in many jurisdictions [0], neither of you were able to give consent, and your sex act was technically non-consensual on both sides. This is not just theoretical -- there are many cases of prosecutors charging consensual underage couples with statutory rape, or with child pornography charges for sexting a picture of themselves to their boyfriend/girlfriend, and often using these laws in unjust ways (e.g. charging only the black boyfriend with statutory rape, but not equally charging the white girlfriend).
Let's assume you and your first love grew up in California, had sex for the first time just days prior to your 18 birthdays (when you both became legal), and are now 30 and have been happily married for 10-years. By your definition, you both committed violent sexual assault, and I'd be correct to go around your workplace saying things like "oh zzzeek? you know he's committed violent sexual assault. Some sort of rape. I don't know the details, but just wanted you to know."
This is a contrived example, and I'm in no way equating this with Minsky or Epstein. I'm not defending either of their actions whatsoever. But I think that Stallman is correct that using words in this type of manner, deliberately ignoring such qualitative differences in degrees, is unfair. It doesn't matter what the legal or dictionary definition might be -- it's creating a misleading impression in someone else's mind as to what you are guilty of, rather than simply stating in clear terms what you did and letting that person decide for themselves how culpable or abhorrent you are.
[0] https://www.wklaw.com/sex-between-teenagers-can-lead-to-a-co...
> Let's assume you and your first love grew up in California, had sex for the first time just days prior to your 18 birthdays (when you both became legal), and are now 30 and have been happily married for 10-years. By your definition, you both committed violent sexual assault, and I'd be correct to go around your workplace saying things like "oh zzzeek? you know he's committed violent sexual assault. Some sort of rape. I don't know the details, but just wanted you to know."
Minsky was not even close to the age of the victim, though. You're creating a false equivalence, and you're even stating this yourself at the last paragraph, so why even talk about these things?
> I think you should be aware that all non-consensual sex is sexual assault, and all sexual assault is violence. Sexual assaulters have committed violent crime.
...irrespective to Minsky.
On this last point, We have to agree to disagree. His firm and unwavering stance on many issues is a flag planted in the sand - "This is how things should be" (whether or not its practical). It is a point of reference which countless engineers, designer, entrepreneurs in tech (including in big companies in FAANG, etc.) have been influenced by (whether or not they were able to live upto his ideal) when building their systems and companies.
Everyday, living in the dystopian nightmare that the modern world (both real and virtual) is becoming, oftentimes enabled by OSS, 'Stallman was right' is something that keeps coming back. Its not just a glib meme.
> “I think 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.”
Is this really a topic that "requires the disinfecting power of sunshine"? Do we really think we've gotten the topic of statutory rape so wrong that we need to rethink it from first principles?
To extend on what I think he is saying, he thinks it should be possible to say a thing was morally wrong regardless of which country it happened in.
If we're discussing if we think a person did something morally wrong, I'd rather talk about why we think that rather than pointing out there is a law against it (especially when the laws are different in different places).
We pretty conclusively decided that race based chattel slavery was wrong a while ago. But why? Can we keep expressing ideas and demanding proof of these claims? Can we do it forever? Can we do it while holding positions of power at institutions that are attended by black students?
Obviously yes? How else would we know that we are right?
Unfortunate that you should use this example since slavery was finally abolished precisely because people kept "asking questions" contrary to the prevailing zeitgeist about why slaves did not enjoy the same rights as other humans.
Never has then been a clearer demonstration of why the "stop asking questions" stance advocated by progressives is intellectually bankrupt.
Why?
Because the abolition of slavery is one of the greatest achievements of our civilization.
New generations of humans are constantly being born, and until we teach them, they don't know why this is. They don't know why slavery was such a black mark on our history. They don't understand what it does not just to the people involved, but to a society. They don't know why it proliferated so easily (and this is still very relevant today; when our society turns a blind eye to illegal immigrant labor, it's an echo of the same economics that made slavery easy for past generations to accept).
You should be able to sit down with a 9th grader and explain to them, this is what slavery was, this is how common it was for most of history. This is why it was so tempting and these are the benefits people reaped from it. But this is how we realized that the costs outweighed the benefits, and how we created a better world at a great cost to many people.
Crucially, it's important to explain to someone how slavery would be bad for them and their community, even if they themselves were not a slave.
It's important to teach all of this to the new humans we raise. "It was bad, end of story" is not enough. The best way for them to learn is to reason through the arguments on both sides, explore the history, see how we got to where we are, and draw their own conclusions. Because you can't force a belief on someone. They need to get there themselves.
If you ban the discussion they are going to reach their beliefs without guidance. And the isolated, the lonely, the angry will end up with some very dark beliefs. It's happening now as a direct response to censorship culture.
I completely understand that slavery is a difficult and very personal topic for a lot of people. These are hard conversations to have. But for the sake of future generations we need to have them. Beliefs are stronger when they're justified. They are strongest when they are challenged, defended, and the challenges are defeated. We should never stop doing that.
Not only does this distract from productive intellectual discussion, it carries an implied threat that if a historically oppressed population ever slips up and fails to defend themselves that they'll be forced back into oppression.
Inevitably, that requires you to play devil's advocate. I agree, it's callous, insensitive, and unproductive if someone runs around telling other people that he has the right to own them. I don't think we should encourage that. But how can you understand a point of view if you're not allowed to state it?
That's exactly the ability we've lost as a society. The single most powerful thing you can do to bury the practice of slavery and everything like it is to sit someone down and tell them to write an essay explaining an argument in favor of slavery, then to defend it.
Slavery has been justified with many arguments. Some race based, some economic, some paternalistic. But what they all have in common is that when you explore them in depth and you see where they lead, you end up in a dark place. A place you realize you personally don't want to live in, that feels fundamentally wrong and detrimental to all the best things a human being can be.
That experience is personal, it's transformative and it's how a person develops a fundamental sense of justice which they then carry with them for the rest of their lives.
I think there is a lot of really bad discourse out there about controversial and sensitive issues (for instance, very little good comes out of having this type of discussion on Twitter, where everything is a reaction and people rarely think before they tweet). No that stuff is not productive, but there is a way to have these discussions which makes us better people. They used to be the subject matter of high school Civics until they were deemed too insensitive. We have moved backwards as a society by moving them to Twitter.
Also, even if I’m willing to accept that precision is the reason he made that point (and I’m not), it adds nothing and at best serves to show how smart he is.
Like I mean honestly what changes once you realize it’s technically hebephilia and not pedophilia?
True, I'm not sure I really agree with that either. Pedophilia or any other sexual attraction isn't something you can control, as far as I'm aware, so as long as you don't actually act on it, they are not really better or worse than another.
> Like I mean honestly what changes once you realize it’s technically hebephilia and not pedophilia?
Actually, I had forgotten which term meant what, I was thinking of ephebophilia.
If not, then here's what changes: if you tell me someone is a pedophile, I'm going to assume that their primary sexual interest is pre-pubescent children. That's the definition of the word, and I tend to generally assume that people mean what they say. It bothers me when you use the wrong word here, because it conveys the wrong impression. It's not about showcasing intelligence. It's about calling things what they are, to facilitate accurate communication. RMS is by all accounts even more pedantic about words than I am, so it's hardly surprising to me that he would make this distinction.
But hey, even if you don't believe in a difference in severity, there's still a difference between saying "this guy is sexually interested in pre-pubescent children" and "this guy is sexually interested in teenagers". Even if both are deemed equally offensive they are just flat out different --- and one is mis-information.
Demanding a certain level of precision when the loose terminology isn't being used in bad faith comes off as an attempt to exert control over the terms of the conversation like a teacher or debate judge. It's insensitive at best and obnoxious at worst.
Obviously if the conversation is an actual legal or scientific debate precision and rigorous consistency are more acceptable, but that's by mutual agreement of all participants.
This incident doesn't change anything since much more chilling precedents have been set so many times before. RMS's position is way too extreme here, 99.9% of people would probably find it despicable. Meanwhile, lives (including at least one Nobel laureate's) have been destroyed for contentious, merely politically incorrect statements (or less). The ship has long sailed, RMS just didn't get the memo, maybe due to the peculiar way he uses the Internet.
Your not wrong, but in this case he is 2 degrees of separation away from someone that we know was guilty. It feels like the witch hunting has moved onto those who are guilty by association.
> RMS's position is way too extreme here, 99.9% of people would probably find it despicable.
Quite a lot of us live in a world where what Minsky did would not be considered statutory rape, so presumably they wouldn't find it despicable (if we ignore potential sex trafficking): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#/media/File:Age...
RMS's de facto role in the FSF has been spokesperson and public figure. This isn't the first time he's put his foot in his mouth [1][2][3] (figuratively or literally, according to some accounts). That's simply not a role to which he is suited, and that at least should be an argument most can agree with, if reluctantly.
We all make allowances for bad behavior from our favorite people, as long as that bad behavior isn't too repugnant or doesn't undermine the role we appreciate them for.
In RMS's case, at the very least his behavior keeps distracting people from the issues that the FSF was formed to address.
Let RMS return to roles for which he is better suited, and like Eric S Raymond's frequent bouts of insanity, we can all go back to appreciating that at least he manages to stay out of the news cycle.
[1]: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/10/10/1227229/richard-sta...
[2]: https://www.datamation.com/osrc/article.php/3830651/Richard-...
[3]: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...
> The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” The injustice is in the word “assaulting”.
Saying that sexual assault isn't assault is scientific inquiry?
"So much depends on your reputation. Guard it with your life."
The situation with Brendan Eich shows that if you have the wrong political views, you are not considered fit to serve as the leader of any open-source organization or project. especially not one with corporate backing. It's too much of a risk of PR disaster.
So be careful. Coraline Ada Ehmke and Sage Sharp are watching you. They will find and expose your crimes.
Linus is probably next.
If you were talking about Eich, he should be free as a private citizen to support the political causes he chooses to, even if those causes are disagreeable. He did not interfere with gay members of the Mozilla community, nor make his anti-gay-marriage contributions in a capacity of representing the Mozilla Foundation. He was literally as low-key about it as he could possibly be.
It must be nice to imagine the rules of society don’t apply to you, but eventually society disagrees. If you are bad at your job, you might be fired from it, and “not making the entire industry a more hostile place” was at last part of the job description of an MIT professor.
Also note that there are actual laws about it in the USA, so not only is it part of the job description, it is a legally required part of the job description.
And even if he were opposed to gay marriage, if you cannot imagine how someone can philosophically oppose something, even if they are wrong, and yet still practice tolerance for that thing in their own life, then you cannot be reasoned with and should probably delete your account.
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
I am dumbfounded anew every time I see a smart and analytical person twist themselves around to the point that they become too smart to believe in analysis. Saying Stallman was persecuted for "expressing ideas" is about as sophisticated as "my program crashed because the electrons were in the wrong place". You wouldn't be satisfied with an understanding that shallow in any other circumstance.
Meaning. Words have it. Questions have it. Ideas have it. "Etsy for houseplants" is an idea, as is "figuring out your home address from information available online and breaking in to your house tonight while you're sleeping". Why is one of them creepier than the other? I can't believe I'm being persecuted for just having ideas!
The meaning of Stallman's argument is that he doesn't think Minsky did anything wrong. Why doesn't he think Minsky did anything wrong? Probably because he was a friend, a good guy, a peer, who knows. Because of these entirely scientific feelings, he makes a series of arguments:
1. She only said she was directed to have sex with Minsky, not that she actually did
2. Even if she did say she had sex with Minsky, she may have been confused and answering the wrong question
3. Even if she did actually have sex with Minsky, she probably made it appear consensual
4. Even if she was not legally capable of consent, that is not morally equivalent to rape
5. Thus, it is "injustice" and "wrong" to say Minsky is accused of sexual assault
Is this your science? Is this the altar of rationality you're worried will be torn down by the rabid inquisitors of the new dark age? Because to me it sounds a lot more like The Dragon in My Garage. How far must our credulity stretch to believe that Minsky foresaw most of modern AI, only to fall for "hot willing 17-year-olds in your area"?
And how does a man like Stallman look at open source and see politics, look at dynamic linking and see politics, look at javascript and see politics – and look at science and see nothing but science? Like you, I do not believe Stallman is malicious. I believe he is naive. That is a fine quality in a revolutionary, but not in a leader.
He did say 3.
He did say 4, but (perhaps I misunderstand?) you seem to have colored it. Epstein as a coercer remains a factor; the assertion is that this cannot be morally on Minsky if one assumes he didn't know about it.
4.2 He also argues that, morally speaking, rape is rape, and not-rape is not-rape, irrespective of location and whether a girl was 17 or 18. This is also not part of his primary argument; it was a response to someone else (a student, I've heard?) bringing these exact legal details to the table.
5. The thing is, depending on whether you say that "Minsky is accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims", and "Minsky is accused of having sex with a 17-year old victim of Epstein's sex trafficking", or even some other title besides, people are going to have different reactions. Some people might have the same reaction to both, but other people might envision something different when presented with the former title, than when presented with the latter. RMS argues for a more specific title, arguing that the original is prone to accusation inflation.
> How far must our credulity stretch to believe that Minsky foresaw most of modern AI, only to fall for "hot willing 17-year-olds in your area"?
Well, I imagine the figurative advertisement was probably more like "hot willing 18-year-olds in your area", possibly coupled with an exchange of money.
I'm not saying you don't have any points. I can follow most of your reasoning. But maybe you might adjust your 1-5, then re-evaluate your position from there? Is it possible that you don't arrive at an identical conclusion?
I don't think it's quite that simple. Most likely, the real issue is he failed to know when to shut up about a sensitive topic after being basically told to shut up.
A crux of the issue is that men expect to be deferred to. They expect to have privilege and rights. They expect their views to be respected. They expect to have a right to express themselves.
And women generally cannot expect the same. Which is a foundation stone of what gets called "rape culture."
There are a lot of subtleties here and I'm sympathetic to some of Stallman's points, but I suspect the thing that people are bristling at is that his failure to shut up is a failure to genuinely respect the feelings and boundaries of women.
This is the real problem women face in life. This is the essence of the disregard that culminates in sexual harassment and rape.
Without that baseline fundamental respect, women have no choice but to quibble about bullshit details like legal age. Because it's all we've got to say "He shouldn't have done that to me" in a world that seems hell-bent on utterly ignoring baseline respect for women, especially when trying to demand it from a powerful and wealthy man.
Good luck with that sister. The exceptions are very few and far between.
The next thing that happened was that the news picked it up, but got most of the details wrong, taking the problematic statement out of context, mischaracterizing his relationship with MIT, mischaracterizing what he did exactly, etc and as a result whipping up an angry mob demanding his firing.
Now, of course many people have wanted Stallman gone for all sorts of reasons of his general unpleasantness for many years, so this seems to have been as much a convenient excuse to rally those efforts as anything else. Nevertheless, one must ask at what cost - the blade of public outrage is sharp and hard to control. At no point at no point in this process was their any room for fact finding or reasoned debate among the people aggrieved and affected by this.
We've let Stallman spam csail-related for many years to the point that it was a common joke for it to be called stallman-related in the lab ("Where'd you find your aparment?" "Oh, I posted on stallman-related - I half expected to get a moral lecture from him about the immorality of private ownership of real estate, but looks like he was busy"). Was it a mistake to let that happen so long on a list that everybody at CSAIL is automatically subscribed to, especially the new incoming students? Probably. Because of aforementioned rhetoric challenges his emails are not the best first impression of the lab community. I think banning Stallman from csail-related could have been a perfectly proportionate response here (as well as making him take down that stupid door tag). This all-or-nothing witch hunt, deeply concerns me.
Found the word I was looking for: DISGUSTED.
I think that's a fair definition.
He also argues that 17 years old has ability to consent.
Since I'm from a country of consent age of 13 years, I agree.
RMS don't encourage to violate the law, merely presenting the opinion. This opinion isn't blaming certain group like James Watson and his comment on race and intelligence.
I guess some people aren't civil enough to discuss theoretical problems.
We are not talking just about sex with a 17 year old.
> Looking through the article again reportedly points to the deposition itself. I visited that URL and got a blank window. It is on Google Drive, which demands running nonfree software in order to see it. See https://gnu.org/philos2phy/javascript-trap.html > > Would you (not anyone else!) like to email me a copy of the part that pertains to Minsky? say "not anyone else" to avoid getting 20 copies.
Lol even in the middle of this discussion he sneaks some JavaScript hatred in there!
And on top of all that, he quite literally voluntarily resigned, it's in the title.
I myself was sexually assaulted some time ago. I was in an ordinary nightclub, I went to the mens room, and on walking out of the mens room some a-hole decided to slap my ass on the way out. I gave him a dirty look, maybe I should have had him kicked out of the club, but I don't think it was necessary to have him fired from his job or ruin his career.
EDIT: I think this covers it all? https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8b47/two-researchers-re...
Stallman:
> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
Selam G.
> [Stallman] says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.
VICE:
> Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked.
Conflating "slap on the ass" with "sex slavery" is bad.
Conflating "sex with an apparently legal, willing partner who later turned out to have not been either legal or willing" with "coercing a child to have sex with you" is bad.
Because that's what it's about: he said, "But is it really?" — literally, in fact — about something which, for legal purposes, his opinion is irrelevant. To wit:
> Does it really? I think 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.
Stallman said that. He went there. He quibbled over whether something constituted rape, as if the Virgin Islands cares one whit what rms thinks of their laws. That's where he screwed up, and people in the thread said so at the time, too. So people now can try to make this shit-show about his being quoted out of context about "entirely willing" — which, again, it was — as much as they want, but that just won't make it so.
This is entirely about Stallman having quibbled over rape, not whether he was selectively quoted in the course of quibbling over rape.
EDIT: Phrasing
Hell yes he did. Wouldn't you? If I made my own country where "rape" was defined as "sex without first doing twenty jumping jacks," wouldn't you "quibble"?
>everyone admits knowingly slept with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that constituted rape.
So what? I drove 37 in a 35 today, who cares? You can't outsource your morality to the legal system like that.
If Minsky did something bad, say he did something bad. But don't launder your outrage through the VI's laws.
You're going to make a moral comparison between a minor traffic violation (not even a primary offense!) and having sex with a coerced child?
EDIT: And I would submit the offered example illustrates that. Doing two miles per hour over the posted speed limit may not be legal, but it's hardly immoral. Similarly, lying to someone to sway their opinions in an argument isn't illegal, but I don't think that's particularly moral, is it?
Don't be so reductive.
It's hard for anyone to do that because virtually everything on this is speculation. The whole thing about Minsky stems from a single sentence in a recently unsealed enormous deposition ( https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/1159946492871938048 ) where one of Epstein's victims included Minsky in a list of people that epstein's assistant directed her to have sex with. She wasn't asked if sex actually happened with Minsky, and didn't claim it did, she was asked about the dates and couldn't recall.
A witness who claims to be present reported Minsky turning her down and complaining about the advance, additionally on the date that conference was held-- in 2002, Epstein's victim was 18. ( https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ )
But since there are essentially no facts, not even concrete allegations-- people seem to feel free to make up their own version of events which are exactly as awful or harmless as they want them to be.
.... God save you if your imagination comes out different from the angry mob's and you dare share it with others.
Because Minksky has been dead for a few years there doesn't seem to be much interest in actually setting the facts straight, but there seems to be a lot of interest in using it as an excuse to be abusive to fellow humans.
This is where you jump to conclusions and become a part of this charade. All we have are unsubstantiated allegations that do not even say definitively that sex took place. And just based on that, your and the mob's conclusion is "we have reason to believe" ?
I agree with Stallman and everyone else who is extremely skeptical and advises caution. Alas, the mob is out for blood.
That said, and this is key, none of this is about whether or not Minsky did anything. Assuming he did, it isn't even about whether it was with a minor, or a woman of legal age. It's about Stallman having decided that was a prudent moment and subject about which to "Well actually..." at the world. The whole point is Stallman's behavior, not Minsky's.
In all seriousness: what the actual fuck does Richard Stallman's opinion on what does or doesn't constitute rape matter? Why would he think that was a point that needed his quibbling? Maybe that's the judgement under question.
This is a man who commiserated someone for having a baby because it would distract them from emacs development. He has been playing social minesweeper for decades and finally lost.
P.S.: Sorry, but I couldn't help being sarcastic...
I mean he didn't just jump in with it out of nowhere. Discussion had already been started, and someone brought up both her age and the location, and declared it as therefore rape (__rape__, with emphasis). This communication was directed at RMS himself, as a rebuttal (bordering on dismissal) to his stance; RMS responded to it, each point in turn.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions...
A woman, testified that Epstein told her to offer sex to Minsky.
What it DIDN'T said:
That Minsky accepted the offer.
Also there are a witness (someone that was present, Greg Benford) that claims that Minsky didn't accepted the offer.
But this is a good move for FSF. RMS must have realized (or been made to realize) that he is now a net-negative contribution to FSF.
I wonder what this means for the influence of the FSF in general. And will RMS stop working on emacs and other software?
Has he still been contributing code? My impression was always that he wrote the first versions of emacs,gcc,... many years ago, and many other people have taken over in the intervening decades. I'm quite confident he isn't working on gcc anymore.
Did he have mainly a supervisory role at the FSF or was he just giving talks lately and no longer actively contributing?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
Things we take for granted today wouldn't exist without this man. To name just one thing, gcc. Yet people are more eager to punish him for what he said than to praise him for what he did.
Mine is just a particular case, but as a mathematician I was attracted to computer science (as a legitimate field with important real-world effects) thanks to a talk that RMS gave in my university. First I liked his personality and sincerity in the way he explained the printer driver story; then I listened and read everything else he said (especially "the right to read") and it ressonated with my thoughts very powerfully. I guees the same thing happens to many people.
Surely there's an ideal-driven programmer iconoclast out there who doesn't pick stuff off his feet in the middle of a Q&A and then eat it.
There is a high chance that FSF will be taken over by some people-pleaser that compromises FSF into oblivion.
There aren't that many people out there who would take as strong and opinionated stances.
People will seriously have to reconsider these arbitrary rules when every single word we all say is recorded from birth. That day is not far away.
How Orwellian the situation we have built for ourselves.
The person Sarah Mei seems to be leading this fight against Stallman even going so far as renouncing the concept of free software and the GPL because of the association with Stallman.
This is entirely wrongheaded, you can agree with the concept of free software and the GPL and disagree with the political views of Stallman. Personally I don't agree with Stallman's political views but he is right on the issues of software freedom and without that I don't think we would be where we are today, having legally protected operating systems, compilers and so forth free for anyone to use, study, or improve upon.
It's an utterly disproportionate consequence for Richard's missteps which amount to nothing more than a discussion in a mailing list.
- Minsky is accused, by a credible victim of a non-credible, convicted pedophile, of receiving sexual contact with a woman who was underage at the time, and who was dispatched to him as part of her employment.
- RMS says the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to Minsky as entirely willing. He also says that the difference between 17 and 18 is a minor detail and it's an injustice to refer to it as a sexual assault.
- RMS fails to understand that an adult with a teenager is unacceptable creeping due to the imbalance of power in several different ways, in this context he's right that 17/18 is a minor detail because both are unacceptable. But 17 is also illegal. What if he didn't know she was 17? Irrelevant because he surely knew she was a very young woman, and by implication relished the power imbalance rather than properly backing away. In fact, Minsky should never have accepted friendship with Epstein who was clearly creeping on teenagers in a completely overt way. And RMS shouldn't be defending it.
- RMS also fails to understand how the employer-employee relationship compounds this with yet another axis of undue power, and how these together make the presentation of being "entirely willing" impossible to tell apart from having no choice. This impossibility is why age of consent laws exist even though teenagers can speak and express their opinion. They don't have the structural power to speak freely. To be honest, 18-year-olds don't either. When someone has sexual contact with someone who has no power to say no, that's sexual assault, or it's rape.
- By taking the side of a man he knows, who was doing wrong, over a woman who was vulnerable, and by brushing off the implied possibility of coercion, RMS shows that he is part of the systemic problem of sexist, exploiter-friendly men in tech which the Epstein scandal has uncovered.
There are various few occasions that you see RMS bending. Like plane travels (which require IDs), that he just does when he needs to cross oceans. So to him, a person that dd something because of a power relation with an employer is just weird.
You know what happens to people who "won't bend" and must? They break and die. So people in dire circumstances learn to bend.
Not personally being in dire circumstance is the luck of the draw. Not considering them, or playing "I wouldn't bend" and belittling them, is a refusal to care.
…Remove everyone, if we must, and let something much better be built from the ashes.
Salem, Robotics student who started Remove Stallman campaign
If this isn't literally "revolution [of free speech and thought in cyberspace] devouring its' children", then I don't know, what it is.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
Someone tried to intimidate him saying this exchange will be leaked to the press. Stallman answered people at MIT should seek the truth without being afraid.
What sad times we live in! First Linus, now Stallman...
I've read the email chain that's been circulated but it does not go back far enough. It's the "comments about comments" discussion.
actual source email thread embedded at the bottom of the vice article
The concern for me is has been the accounts of far more directly-relevant behaviour, such as (iirc):
* repeated phone calls to someone from different phone numbers
* leering
* breaking the ground rules for an event, and justifying it on the basis that he's personally exempt from any rules
* singling out a teenage girl attending one of his talks (as in "oh wow, a GIRL")
* single her out again while telling his questionable 'EMACS virgins' joke
* saying in an interview that he didn't know any women who have contributed to GCC, when there had been at least 4
Personally, I think this is a good thing, and I'm glad that he's made the decision to step aside (even if under pressure) rather than fight bitterly and see the community divide along these lines.
It also seems like a good opportunity for him to pass the torch and see what happens, or at least take a long hiatus to get some caring advice and to sort himself out, like Linus did last year. The FSF will eventually need to become an institution that can carry on its mission without him, and this will be a good test of that. If things go off the rails, he can pen another manifesto and I'm sure a bunch of us will read it.
I also think the FSF will be hugely better off without him around, and it's insane that it took this long.
We should be all concerned that media witch hunts like this can in act such results. It is abhorrent that any discussion that triggers a progressive dominated media can destroy people's lives.
There was some irrelevant quibbling about how accusations are worded.
Then there was the speculation that the seventeen year old girl who is accusing his 73 year old friend of a sex crime would have appeared willing in the exchange with the implication that this apparent willingness made the situation not Minsky's fault.
Doesn't matter if it didn't happen, defending statutory rape like that is really inappropriate, and with a ~60 year ago gap it doesn't really matter about the details. It was a very creepy situation and indefensible.
Stallman was defending it, it wasn't just some intellectual problem with the wording of accusations.
Not a witch hunt, not a victimization of an innocent intellectually curious man, it was a measured and reasonable response to a very inappropriate conversation.
See, the thing about statutory rape is that it is illegal, and sexual assault is also illegal, but (surprisingly!) that does not mean that they are the same thing. (It is left as an exercise for the reader to see if this applies to other pairings like, say, "public drunkenness" and "murder in the first degree.")
Stallman was not "defending statutory rape": he was saying, "Words mean things, and the words "sexual assault" suggest an image of 75-yr-old Marvin holding girls down and raping them, and that it is unlikely that that, you know, actually happened."
>It was a very creepy situation and indefensible.
Oooh, so creepy! Too creepy to think about, even! Nazis were pretty creepy: let's accuse them of violating the CFAA, before there were computers! Anyone defending them against this is defending Nazis, and worse, creepy Nazis! They are likely creepy as well! This creepy stuff seems to be contagious...
Since it can't be made too visible, Stallman's actual comments: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
It is in their best interest to polarize the society, ideally along some bullshit problem or identity (e.g. men vs women, old vs young, white vs non-white). This way people can release their anger and waste their time on pointless discussions (while consuming ads) instead of realizing the system is rigged and they are actually being screwed by the wealthy oligarchs.
> our movement will only be successful if it includes everyone. With these as our values and goals > We call for Stallman to step down
[0] https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-spea...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him.
In response to a student pointing out that Giuffre was 17 when she was forced to have sex with Minsky in the Virgin Islands, Stallman said “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.”
>>Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it in the Virgin Islands.
>Does it really? I think 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'.
>I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term "sexual assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone.
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
For what it's worth, I think it is a tragedy.
The man is an idealist who has stubbornly managed to hold on and thrive in a pragmatist's world.
There are too many claims to which he is a shining counterexample to the assertion that "Nobody really does that!"
So what if he's a bit of an odd duck? Show me a good programmer who doesn't have quirks! MIT is, in fact, famous for their tradition of living with, and embracing unconventional behavior, while still furthering the State-of-the-Art.
The Free Software Foundation, which has accrued greater and greater entrenchment and influence by non-free software makers and projects alike has always owed to Stallman at least a degree of toleration and begrudging due considering the movement basically started with him last I checked.
I read through the email chain in the Verge articles. It's enough even redacted to give me a solid enough basis from which to say there was nothing untoward about Stallman's posts. I got out of it a caution to read only into what was actually written down, and to avoid letting an unproven narrative whisk the entirety of a man's career away until all the facts were in. At a later point he even states he's read that poster's sources and was unable to locate any evidence conclusively saying that Minsky did anything against her knowingly, and if anything happened, while still being a crime, characterizing it as assault adds a layer of meaning to the accusation that is not immediately obvious from the presented evidence. He's even open to the possibility he hasn't seen something the emailed had, tried to find it, and asked if they'd be willing to send him a copy due to hos commitment to not trafficking services dependent on abusive practices.
If that gets you foisted on the stake these days, I think the Spirit of Salem must be blowing through Massachusets, and it's discovered the fires of the Internet burn hotter than any mere log.
I do not see a malicious intent or an attempt to defend/justify what may have happened to those women. Only an exhortation to not get ahead of what results the System has actually managed to discover as fact.
As the last poster in the email thread the Verge decided to post mentions, as Scientists, we must ask those pesky inconvenient questions which seem to so stifle the actions and catharsis of following our passions, and seek only to know the truth.
And from what I was able to read in the minutes I can dedicate,it is far from a sure thing, but misrepresentation off the character and context of the conversation has already spread like wildfire.
I hesitate to even post this, because to be honest, if people can turn Stallman of all people into a Pariah over just those two emails, heavens above, I'm not sure there are many others behind the cause who can say as honestly to have practiced what they preach to the degrees he has. What chance do the rest of us have? That is exactly the type of chilling effect that this type of behavior and manufactured outrage, combined with the uncertainty of knowing from whence it may come is so adept at propagating.
There is a point where hysteria, and the flames of the passions must stop. Ruining a person's life and reputation for anything more than what can be proven is one of them. That doesn't mean I'm trying to cover up harm, or protect pedophiles. It means I'm committed to the System, due process, and the tenets of rational scientific inquiry.
It is not appropriate that any person should be hung by any segment of the population for endorsing letting the chips fall where they will, or asking to have more compelling physical evidence provided.
The world post 1980 has seen more than anyone would like of wrongdoings not punished as thoroughly as they may needs be, but it is not in anyone's interest that the System be any looser in the Standard of Evidence to be met before officially taking action against someone. No one should want to let slip the Dogs of War in that regard, especially given the number of lives that have been given in ensuring a country existed where that was explicitly prevented at great effort from being possible.
Good luck, Richard. I pray you and the movement survive this without irreparable damage...but I'm not even sure the damage isn't already done.
I may agree with his political positions regarding free software, but his talents are otherwise rather run of the mill at this point.
This is the free market. Thanks for your contributions. But you’ve since lost first mover advantage.
If the aim of HN is to run a better forum for discussion then lying in a defamatory way about people should not be tolerated as part of civil discourse.
He did not transfer the guilt to the victim nor defended anything wrong that Minsky may have done.
This scenario seems entirely plausible for me. The deceased is not here to defend himself, so I guess it's up to his friends/family/coworkers to defend his reputation.
Also, about the age of consent, I find it ludicrous that a number of people do not know the age of consent on most of the western world is usually 16 or less. Some are even saying "some european countries still have 16 or 14 y/o as age of consent..." as if the age of consent is going to increase in the short term.
Spoiler alert: USA is the odd one out, and it's more in line with Turkey than Western Europe. Let this information sink in for a moment.
I have a hard time even imagining how you reach the conclusion that he might be evil. Even the worst out of context headlines on his recent quotes just put him in the "gross" category.
I say this, and I'm very glad he stepped down. I've argued for years that he should have stepped down a long time ago.
In your reply here, you're describing sociopathy. I wouldn't describe Stallman as a sociopath but I could definitely see the arguments for it. But even the most repulsive things I've seen this man say/do never got me to think "Yeah, this dude wants others to suffer".
Edit: And no, I don't think he has a difficult time "figuring out what the problem is".
A psychologist assigned to the Nuremberg trials put it better than I ever could. “In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949) I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
What he does lack, IMHO, is a huge amount of basic, day-to-day understanding of how the world works. Such as the power dynamics of teenagers in the modern world. Things he's completely incapable of understanding because he chooses to isolate himself and live in an absurdly eccentric way. For fucks sake, have you seen how he browses the internet? [1]
He chooses to live that way because, for him, every single issue seems to be a hill he's ready to die on. It was only a matter of time until the hill was bad enough for this to happen.
Still, I maintain he's not evil, neither by your definition nor mine.
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.
By my book, it's okay to call that evil.
>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.
This is an excerpt from the CSAIL mailing list archive, so start at the bottom and work your way up. All names aside from RMS have been redacted.
Some people are also bringing up this post from April, so here is that text: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_201...
But the main content is the mailing list.
Not saying it is or is not true. But these are powerful claims to be marking with no sources.
it seems I'm not alone in my assertion: https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/d5a4dz/_/f0l50w4/?co...
"Here's an article"
"I'm skeptical. Also lots of people don't like that messenger. And I don't like the tone of the article. Also I found someone who agrees with me."
Would you care to address the points raised in the article rather than dismissing it because you don't like the source?
We do not take for granted that every website is 100% truth or fact. And when presented with something that has only emotion and no fact then we are right to dismiss it. This is why we do not link to things like Obama’s tan suit being Marxist and meaning it[0].
I read into it more, I saw only emotive language and some women who called rms creepy 20 years ago, nothing else. And, yes, I find rms creepy (toe skin eating, anyone?). It is not valid reason to persecute. However, I’m totally open to the idea that this man has horrible ideas and opinions about women and paedophilia. But this is not a compelling citation unless you’re swayed by the kind of language the author uses.
For what it’s worth there are good comments on this article here that indicate something rms previously said about the age of consent in the Netherlands being lowered to 12, and he later changed his opinion on that. It’s a troubling opinion that he had, but I, personally can’t get too bent out of shape if someone changes their mind from something problematic when presented with evidence.
[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/28/tan-suit-sc...
If a 66 year old man tells you that contrary to everything he's written on the matter, he has recently learned that having sex with children is wrong, is that a moment where you wouldn't personally get too bent out of shape about it?
I mean, yes we all change our minds about things. But is there no nuance to it at all? Do you erase someone's entire past as soon as he says "I've changed my mind, child rape is wrong"?
I think it’s soulless to never allow a person to grow or change when presented new information no matter what age they are.
Or, are only young people allowed to change their minds? Or is nobody?
I mean I’ve had pretty stupid ideas about things ranging from communism as a good political ideology to believing that the UK would be better outside of the EU. But when presented with new information I changed my opinion. I would hope people don’t treat me as a communist or a brexiter.
I think I've made it clear that my position is that absolutely no one should ever be allowed to change their minds. Again, thank you for being civil.
In fact I find it worrying that you do. To each their own I guess.
Thank you for being civil. :)
First on the list: This guy: https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relations...
The FSF could use a shakeup.
About time, man!
I just don't think we can discuss this issue sensibly, even on HN.
Yay for throwaway accounts, I guess.
Start at the bottom.
Some sources with the backstory:
Nowadays most developers seem to prefer permissive licenses and distributing proprietary software for android/ios. They couldn't care less about RMS.
Just look at how little response Purism Librem 5 update threads get on HN. They're practically dead, and this device is the only modernish GNU/GNOME/Linux smartphone to speak of.
Only a "nut job" would make a choice like that.
Joan of Arc was also a "nut job." She was an illiterate teenaged girl who felt compelled by hearing voices to put an end to The Hundred Years War and play handmaiden to the birth of modern France.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
RMS is a great man but sadly has difficulties communicating with the wider world. This has been true of many great minds throughout history. It's sad to see it happen to one of my own heroes but I believe history will do him justice if we continue to fight for free software.
I wish somebody would have simply advised him not to speak on such matters because nothing good could become of it. Maybe he needed a PR manager. That sounds awful, but apparently this is what the world wants: carefully filtered speech that doesn't stray far from what people already agree with.
The world needs everyone to speak about every topic. If we all self censor then only the extremists will be speaking.
Let's never forget that famous G.B. Shaw quotation, always appropriate in such situations. http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/692.html
I don't want to live in a world where everyone has to take great care all the time to fulfil the FotM expectations of certain noisy people who believe they're a majority.
actually stallman was one of the extremists and he wasn't happy if somebody with the middle ground spoke about free software/open source software.
That is a type of extremism that is very uncomfortable when it is used against something held personally important, but it is exactly the type of extremism that we want more of.
Organisers of extra-legal justice mobs are the sort of extremists we can generally do without.
It's a hard balancing act, on the one hand people need to be able to deal with facts and reality, even if it's offensive to them. On the other hand we don't want our speech to act as sand in the machinery of communication.
Apart from a very few, every accomplished technologist have started using Twitter and their followers to attack others. This is nothing but the witch hunt from medieval times done differently.
I have interacted with RMS in Emacs developer list, he has a strong opinion and nothing more, nothing less. He is not trying to create a mob and nor is he starting an upraising. If you have an opinion, voice it and leave it. Yes, I agree RMS needed a PR to tread the land mine ridden modern life.
Overall, it is sad to see RMS and his work getting trivialized for totally unrelated reasons.
Edit:
I'm not saying the work of a person can't be good if he did bad things.
I think it's important not to glorify people.
Free software is important for all of us, but so is a stand against sexsim or the likes.
The want of keeping tech and politics appart is a political choice in itself.
Not saying one view is better or worse than the other. Simply pointing out people choose to get involved at different levels...
I argue that art always happens in context and one context is who did it. Appreating art from someone who is clearly hurting others can't have done something so important to me to still enjoy it.
If a case is made which has some very rare and difficult scenario I'm not sure what I would do.
Guess you avoid Caravaggio too, then.
At least on Wikipedia there it is stated that there is no proper source.
Also I try to. If it is very significant part of history I would try to be aware of it and still have a look.
I'm also very unsure about Alice in wonderland for the same reason.
But at least it's not someone still alive which would benefit from his/her art and being pedo right?
That would be problematic.
It is much easier for me to avoid art though.
Pretty much sums it up doesn't it.
Do yo actively avoid using technology invented or heavily influenced by problematic people?
I don't have the same reservations about using the work of problematic people, so I don't typically check for that info.
Off the top of my head, an example might be accepting opiods to manage pain, despite the tons of damage pushing the drugs has caused Americans as a whole.
Not sure why I would do that. Ghandi doesn't really affect s my life
I think theres a debate to be had over whether they should profit from those actions though.
Also keep in mind that Homosexuality was put in the same box as paedophilia and rape ( probably worse than rape). Social mores change, and are different from country to country. The girl involved was 17 as I understand it, which would be over the age of consent in my country.
My point is I could have consensual sex with a 17 year old, paint a picture and the GP would be happy to view it(?). You could have sex with a 17 year old, get arrested for paedophilia, paint a picture, and the GP would not be happy viewing it. Theres a legal line and a moral line both can change so its weird getting absolutist about it.
To be clear I wasn't aware of the sex trafficking element, I thought this was a question of statutory rape, which would seem to yield very different legal answers based on location.
Edit: 'Interestingly' I seemed to have circled around to making the same point RMS made. Except I'm not denying the rape, and I'm not a representative for another organisation.
This whole thread has gotten side tracked on statutory rape, when in reality the criminal charges hinge on sex trafficking with age only as a modifier.
As a kid, I loved Lord Byron's poetry. Later, disgusted at his personality, I stopped reading his works. Still later, now I realise that flawed human beings can create beautiful works. Such is life.
My interpretation:
You think people are criticizing Stallman because you think they misread his statement (She wanted it anyway)
I think people are criticizing Stallman because he believed Minsky was tricked (She didn't want but people made here act like it), which sounds dubious to me.
secondly, it's hilarious that it seems you are now assuming that I am claiming that "she wanted it". This just goes to show you are here for blood and not justice.
thirdly, what stallman said: The word ‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way,” Stallman wrote in the email, “but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.” and to paraphrase "It seems probable that she presented herself as entirely willing and that minsky did not know she was underage"
lastly, as far as I can tell, in the deposition it's not clear that they did have sex, only that she went to the island for the purpose of having sex with minsky under orders from epstein, presumably as part of his blackmail/entrapment scheme
And I started thinking of the kids Michael had sharing his bed and realized that, until then, I had had sympathy for them only in an abstract. Now I think about those kids whenever one of his songs comes on, and you know, I no longer enjoy listening to it.
Oh the horrors if people growing up think that rape is reprehensible.
From the article:
"The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X. The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...) Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. 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. I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation. Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism."
I say yes and that it isn't even an opinion. If you disagree with me, you are helping defend such abhorrent behavior. You wouldn't do that, would you?
Why? Because such neutrality allowed the creation of a space where people could express anything to everyone at a cost that was practically free. If the creators had been more politically engaged - that never would have happened. It would have been locked down from the start.
Now - if you go looking for it - you'll find studies that observe what happens when human group sizes increase. More "punisher" type personalities emerge, applying greater social costs on expression in an attempt to enforce hegemony. I would cite - but feeling lazy.
In response to the ever increasing social costs imposed by such punishers - the ones who created the free for all in the first place, turn more desperately to their stated neutrality... largely as a means to avoid punishment.
The punisher types won't accept this - because they want to root out dissenters hiding in their neutrality... so begin punishing those who don't proactively state their right minded political stances in every space. They apply such punishment for example - by statements of "deep disgust"... as though this hyperbolic reaction is not hyperbole at all; as though the mere act of not engaging is the worst of moral failings.
I would be terrified of such people... I would be terrified of you - if it weren't for the aforementioned irony with which I opened. You just do it cause game theoretically you are predicted to do so - because of the system brought into being by exactly the sort of people you hate.
We deserve you.
Kinda like how the AI in the Matrix deserve the mathematical anomaly called Neo. They can't get rid of it. But they created it... This thing that wars against them, under the heroic illusion of its own agency and righteous purpose.
I have the feeling the state of mind wasn't really neutral in the past, so there wasn't a neutral time that created all this.
There was much more gate-keeping going on in the past. I think this cost us much more innovation and new technology.
My impression is as following:
I don't think we move from non-political to political and from "free for all" to "only the good are allowed".
We are moving from one political strucuture that prevented some kind of people to cobtribute to another.
I'm not sure if this will yield better results, but I certainly hope so.
Also, I think the good tech/ideas of the past shoudn't be thrown away, because if we throw them away the people who created them did bad stuff to other people, the victims did suffer in vain.
But we should strife for creating things in the future with less suffering.
Is it surprising? How many people here work for horrible companies, and justify it to themselves by simply following directions? In a similar discussion the other day, a user literally wrote that they would have to be paid substantially well to report wrong-doings their company is involved with so as not to interrupt their lifestyle.
Disgusting, yes.
There's nothing disgusting about this, assuming that the wrong-doings are really bad and this would all go public. Society does not treat whistleblowers well. They generally lose their livelihoods when they go public with what they know. So yes, they should be paid substantially well to report wrong-doings, because they're usually ending their careers when they do this. If society isn't willing to stop ruining their careers when they "do the right thing", then society has no standing to call them "disgusting" for not willingly sacrificing their lives for the sake of truth.
>then society has no standing to call them "disgusting" for not willingly sacrificing their lives for the sake of truth.
A tad over dramatic. We aren't talking about Snowden here; hundreds of HN users work for the major companies doing morally ambiguous things. They aren't going to be blacklisted for spilling the beans on Facebook. In fact, in this political climate they might even benefit greatly.
If you're willing to harm other people in order to avoid potential harm to yourself, it's disgusting, and no amount of "but what about me?" will convince me otherwise.
Do you also think every single person working at an oil company is a criminal too, or should quit or else be morally wrong in your view?
>hundreds of HN users work for the major companies doing morally ambiguous things.
Just about every company in America does morally ambiguous things.
Is that unrelated, trivial behavior that should be ignored?
This isn't a witch hunt, what he did was wildly inappropriate and the number of people defending his behavior because he's quirky and did great things is a little disgusting.
As for 17, as someone in my 40's, I couldn't tell you the difference between someone who is 17, and someone who is 18, without them telling me or asking to look at their (hopefully non-forged) ID. If she lied (under coersion from Epstein), how could anyone have been able to tell?
But the coercion is very true, and hence my explicit callout. The question becomes did Minsky know that? Did he have any reason to suspect it?
Would they tell you?
If morality is relative, only the legal framework is something that we can evaluate. Laws are crafted from the relative morality in that jurisdiction.
Ignoring those morals which are dependent on location, today's american applies the same set of morals against those on american soil as well as those on chinese soil.
They also apply those morals across time, such judgment on Ancient Greek behavior.
In the same fashion, we do not alter our moral judgement based on the jurisdiction the event takes place in. At least, we do not do so naturally, without additional effort. If this occurred in the open seas, would we hold our tongue? In a country where no such laws exist?
Legality is also hardly a strict mapping of morals to rules, with complete coverage of what we're trying to express -- if it were, there would be no need for judges; we could simply feed the evidence into an algorithm and spit out the result. And the arbitrary flip from legal to illegal, by virtue of a day, is hardly the concept we're trying to morally express through the law. But for practicality, a strict deadline was given.
Hell, what's your argument? That because morals are relative, there cannot be any discussion of it? Morality precedes the law; You don't make a moral judgement by referring to the law.
China is a great example where the morals are very different. Barring a few extra territorial laws (corruption, child prostitution for Americans), the jurisdictions are disjoint.
It is valid, and normal, to discuss morality of actions occurring in different places, without including the morality of that place itself; in this case, stallman isn’t talking about the remote island’s morals, but the morals of where he is and how it applies to events elsewhere
I suggest you turn down any offers from billionaire convicted sex traffickers to go to their private island and meet young women then.
To be honest, you should probably turn down that sort of offer even if you're really good at telling how old people are.
For me, it would be too much like romancing my nieces, so I doubt I would take up the offer. In 30 years, who knows.
The crux of Stallman's argument is that in that case you would be unable to tell if the woman was lying because Epstein would have coerced her. You can't trust what she says.
However, where you and Stallman differ is that you're suggesting is that Minsky probably said yes and did sleep with the woman, and therefore broke the law.
And he shouldn't even be held morally wrong in this case either, if we assume that he did his due diligence and had what he viewed to be legal and consensual sex.
I don't know Minsky, I don't care about Minsky. All I'm really trying to do is re-inforce how and why Stallman's exploration is reasonable and rational. And, since it's brought up repeatedly in this exploration, why even the courts consider the spirit of the law alongside the letter of the law.
And Stallman being his usual amicable self he managed to do so in a way that a reaction was inevitable. If he wanted to do right by his friend he should have pointed out the flaws in the accusation, not to try to find some contorted way to argue that assuming it was true his friend should have walked without consequences.
Lessig falls into exactly the same trap, the fact that it is your friend who does something stupid or despicable does not make it any less so and in cases like that your friends would be better friends if they pointed this out to you. Preferably at a time that it would still make a difference.
Minsky may not be guilty of anything, and Stallman has shifted the debate over whether what he assumes Minsky has done should be legal or not (it shouldn't, let's be 100% clear on that) over whether or not it happened in the first place. And that is not helping at all.
Rape is a crime that carries strict liability (under US law); ignorance is not a valid defence.
I've stated elsewhere I wouldn't be interested, but (not speaking of the Epstein/Minsky debate for a moment) who am I to judge someone for their consensual activities?
I've seen this same argument like 4-5 times now in this thread.
I agree, being able to tell the difference between 17 and 18 is difficult, however a line must be drawn and it seems that 18 is that line.
If a girl is 18 years and 1 day old, vs a girl who is 17 and 364, is there a big difference? No, however that is where society has drawn this line.
If you use the argument 18 looks like 17, then eventually people may say 17 looks like 16, 16 looks like 15 etc and is a slippery slope.
Also chances are the girls in question were most likely sex trafficked (Modern day slave trade by another name).
It's quite rare that someone who did due dilligance and were criminally mislead to are charged for the crime.
The women in question (those in contact with Epstein) were, in no way, a representation of chattel slavery, which is (i presume) what you mean by "modern day slave trade". They were neither 'owned' nor 'inheritable', they were also (by all reports) paid. Slaves are not paid.
The phrase "Modern Day Slave Trade" as it refers to sex work denigrates those who were forced into slavery by men with guns, as well as the subset of women and men who chose to participate in the sex work economy willingly, whether full-time or on-the-side.
1. As long as women or men are adult deemed by society (for example: 18 years old), anything is fine, even if 18 year old woman paired with 74 year old man. Age of consent rule.
2. A man should not date a woman younger than his age / 2 + 7. So a 74 year old can only date the youngest woman with 44 years age. Creepiness rule.
3. A man should not date a woman younger than 25 year old because the brain is not fully formed until 25 years age. Unless the man is more or less 25 year old himself. So a 74 year old man can only date the youngest woman with 25 years age. Brain fully formed rule.
Of course there are edgy case rule. We call it Romeo-Juliet rule (no more than 4 years difference). 16 year old woman should not pair with 74 year old man but if the man is 18 year old, that should be fine.
If someone had told me that we'd be violating this ridiculous American "creepiness" rules of yours, I'd have missed out on a lot of fun.
I've seen many patently stupid things coming from the US lately, but this is certainly the most idiotic US witch hunt I've ever witnessed in my life.
I also prefer weirdos to Pearl Clutchers. A segment of the world may want homogeneity, but I don’t. I don’t particularly like Stallman, but I also appreciate his weirdness.
I very much prefer this, too, so long as they show they know what they did wrong and are clear that they'll work to do better in the future.
No... he needed a PR manager desperately and I'm very surprised that the FSF or MIT never even considered nor assigned one to him. I know he's a grown man and is responsible for what he says, but he is, was, whatever, a figure to the CS community and as such should have had his public comments vetted more.
You think he would have cooperated? I can't imagine Stallman being happy with having a filter for the things he wants to say or being told to not say something.
Yeah... How happy do you think he is now??? I can guarantee he is sitting at home right now replaying the last week over in his head wishing he would have kept his mouth shut. What is next for this dude? He will NEVER be able to get a job ANYWHERE cause no one will want to be associated with him. I HIGHLY doubt he made enough money to just retire... So really... What's next for him?
Everyone thinks filters are control and evil, however, sometimes they are there for your protection.
“I’m always happy when I’m protesting.”
— Richard Stallman
You underestimate the level RMS operates at. Somebody who dedicates his life to an ideal is not going to cry about the occasional setback.
> He will NEVER be able to get a job ANYWHERE
You really underestimate RMS. There is a world beyond the US, that doesn't really care that much about PC culture. Roman Polanski never stopped working, and he actually did have sex with a minor.
I wonder if the terminus "public relations" should be renamed to "press relations", since I doubt milking the click money is representing public opinion anymore, just the most judgmental individuals instead.
PR messages by definition are as always devoid of significant meaning. I cannot really relate to people that crave more of this.
No, I think the suggestion was that he should have had a PR screen in front of him long ago to avoid the current situation.
Stallman:
> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
Selam G.
> [Stallman] says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.
VICE:
> Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked.
New York Post:
> MIT scientist says Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’
It could be true.
I'm not saying I agree with him or that I would have said the same things (I'm no Stallman, nobody cares about what I say anyway) but what he said was just the result of logical reasoning
For example if you look at the titles it's easy to dismiss RMS as someone who favours rapists, but in the article he's always quoted in full and the things he said are a bit different
For example quoting the VICE article
> RMS: “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.”
And he's not entirely wrong.
Rape in rape even in space at the age of 93.
And that's absurd.
Do we all agree on this?
for different reasons
- 17 years 364 days is any different from 18 years old 0 days?
- Stallman was talking (at the time) about consensual sex, not rape
- Stallman said he found absurd that rape was defined in terms of `minor details` not that rape does not exists. He's not wrong.
> still American moral and culture norms apply.
In USA people should be horrified by Facebook spying kids[1], not about what Stallman thinks
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/
Rape is always illegal.
Sex is not.
> Just like drinking with 21 and 20.99 years is not the same, because
they're American.
We start at 18, no problems here, no mass shootings, no one selling out to older people to buy alcohol for them.
> So by applying your logic to that, 13 and 364 days would be OK too?
So by your logic 14 and 1 days is ok?
Or, as Stallman said, rape cannot be defined by minor things such as the place where it happened or the age when it happened?
> How do you feel about that, not entirely comfortable right?
Completely.
It's your country that allows older people have sex with baby girls, not mine.
> Because you're used mentally to 18 years being the line,
Don't assume we are all like you.
I'm mentally used to being normal at 15-16...
Because that's the age when people around me started, when I was their age.
> But all the laws are like that
Not even those about rape are all black and white.
Even statutory rape is usually treated differently if the minor is just around the age of consent or not.
> If 18 is the legal age, you just don't mess with minors, how complicated is that really?
That's exactly what Stallman did.
He never messed with minors.
What upset you so much?
- If person is 18 and sex is consensual it's not a rape. - If person is 17y 354 days old it doesn't matter what the minor person acted like, because law treats it as a non-consensual sex, so it's statutory rape.
> So by your logic 14 and 1 days is ok?
If both persons involved are living in Serbia it is OK. Unusual thing nowadays and to many here (me included) not seen as something morally positive, but some minorities have a different customs than mainstream Serbian culture, so it's fully legal. Most of Europe has the age of consent at 16, which in my own eyes makes more appropriate age than 14, but law is what matters.
> That's exactly what Stallman did. He never messed with minors.
No one said he did. But he, completely uncalled for, defended someone who did - who broke the law in a very obvious way - and he did it by trying to put the blame on a victim, although her being a minor makes her behavior completely irrelevant from the legal point of view. And that sucks.
That's why USA are the motherland of mass shootings then...
I'm 18 today, my girlfriend is one day younger than me, it's rape.
What a lovely country.
> If both persons involved are living in Serbia it is OK
But is it OK for you?
Because you implied that I was ok with it...
I'm curious now.
> No one said he did. But he, completely uncalled fo
Like he always did?
Did someone called him to invent the GPL?
> defended someone who did
But he did not.
That's utterly false.
> and he did it by trying to put the blame on a victim
He was arguing that it wasn't not pedophilia but statutory rape.
I don't know why you people love so much to put words in the mouth of RMS, he's perfectly capable of shooting himself in the foot.
It won't be the last time.
It still does not make him someone who argues in favour of rape.
I guess it’d make sense to base it on brain development.
I have no idea what the best windows would be to promote the greatest reduction in false positive rape cases.
The biggest thing we as a society really need is a culture where the raped feel more comfortable speaking up. It’d probably be a decent thing to fund testing the massive backlog of rape kits piling up at the nation’s police forces as well.
No solution will ever be perfect so you can only attempt to do the least harm and help the most people in these awful situations.
Improving sexual education across some of our more religiously oriented states would be a positive as well.
Hopefully we keep moving forward. And what would be really nice is if some of these awful people Epstein trafficked these girls to went to prison.
It’s high time the rich and powerful started being held accountable for their absolutely atrocious behavior, whether it’s selling enough oxycontin to hook huge swathes of the population on heroin (the Sacklers certainly seem to be getting a better treatment than your average crack dealer), raping underage sex slaves, or leaking hundreds of millions of Americans social security numbers the rich and powerful seem to laugh and shrug it off.
That’s gotta stop.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/clp/faq.html
Legal drafting always leads to absurdities. It is not possible to draft laws that don't; the practical need for unambiguous rules combined with complex reality means there are always edge cases.
Illustrating this general fact with the highly specific case of old rich men screwing young, powerless kids is going to cause other people to wonder about why it seems like you're only interested arguing about legal absurdities in this specific context. After all, you could illustrate your point with, say, the catch 22s inherent in the modern debt peonage systems in the US, or how pro-bono plaintiffs are regularly abused for not following rules they have no access to see, or a nearly endless parade of other examples.
Let's just say that if defending rich old men screwing young kids is apparently your hill to die on, a lot of folks are going to be less focused on your nuanced legal argumentation.
Agree, and that's exactly the kind of absurd RMS was talking about.
That's it, just that.
He can't concive that something is illogical.
Does he deserve the blame for it?
> let's just say that if defending rich old men screwing young kids is apparently your hill to die on
It never happened though.
That's the point: in court you could be charged for saying it.
If someone has a history of complaining about absurd legal results, it would not be surprising to hear them use this situation as an example while beating that drum. (It may be a tacky example to use, but that's a different question.)
On the other hand, if someone has a history of doing and saying things that other people take indicative of treating women as less than fully equal, and, having never before shown any interest in a particular legal argument, trots it out to defend (and yes, that exactly what it was) abhorrent behavior, people are going to take it differently.
> That's the point: in court you could be charged for saying it.
You lost me here. Do you mean to say someone could claim I libeled them? Well sure. In the US, people can sue over anything they like. But if that's what you meant, I still have no idea what "charges" you're talking about.
that's a big IF
and BTW Stallman notoriously complained about absurd legal result, that's his real life achievement: a legal framework for free software!
that's his bread and butter.
> if someone has a history of doing and saying things that other people take indicative of treating women as less than fully equal,
that's false premise
> You lost me here. Do you mean to say someone could claim I libeled them?
Yes.
Because "defending rich old men screwing young kids" never happened.
It's a fabricated lie.
My reasoning is: rape victims are victims regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, time and space.
But it's not Twitter crowd that decides if it is rape or not.
Well, it's not Richard Stallman who decides either, but he tried to do exactly that... and that's why people are pissed at him
He expressed an opinion as single individual person, he didn't ask for support or rioting against someone or something.
And he didn't ask for nobody to be fired in the first place.
> and that's why people are pissed at him
No, they are pissed because people suck.
They've been also pissed at Terry Davis, another troubled man (more troubled than RMS for sure), that didn't harm anybody in his life, except himself.
I tend to agree, and I suspect most people would, including Stallman.
> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing but that she was coerced into doing so?
Nor does RMS have an excuse for what he said and now we're finally seeing that the aloof misanthrope schtick only goes so far. Good riddance.
> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
stop. stop and think about this. you’re telling me that some random person on the internet can sit there and claim, with a straight face, decades removed from the event, and completely unaware of what went down in that room, that “the most plausible scenario” is that she was willing? are you kidding me? how do you know? he wasn’t there. he doesn’t know this person. and why is this so plausible? on what actual basis here is he making this statement? oh, that’s right, nothing except his own prejudices.
he doesn’t know a damned thing about what happened in that room, and for him to jump to the conclusion that, well obviously, she wanted it, is freaking absurd.
he entirely deserves to get pilloried for this statement alone. he had no business jumping into this discussion, he has absolutely no basis on which to make his judgements except his high opinion of himself, and to go out of his way to engage in a public debate about such a highly sensitive subject when he knows jack squat about it shows an incredible lack of judgement.
the media didn’t do this to RMS, he did.
No, Stallman did not say that. Selam G and the media said he said it, but he did not say it. Not in spirit, not in words.
Also, he doesn't say that she wanted it, but that she might have lied about whether or not she was there willingly (possibly being coerced into lying).
Paraphrasing "The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing": "I have a hard time imagining my late friend willingly raping someone."
Not that I think that, even in that scenario, Minsky would have displayed sound judgement by having sex with her (especially given Epstein's reputation and past conviction).
He claimed that she was unwilling, but was coerced by Epstein into pretending otherwise, and that Minsky was deceived.
That is also, technically speaking, the most plausible scenario. Epstine wouldn't have girls going up to people and reading a script like "I don't give consent, I hate you, you have to rape me now" without knowing anything about the prospect. There would have been an element of acting.
> Computer scientist Richard Stallmann, who defended Jeffrey Epstein...
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/091320191...
Very unfortunate RS decided to be pedantic here. While he never excused the behavior(AFAIR), it is a poor & insensitive time to argue legal minutiae, IMO. I am disappointed by his callousness. However, I am not ready to join the partially informed lynch mob.
I hope those who make policies in media & enforce the laws do not let side-shows & obfuscations get in the way of bringing every last monster who visited Epstein's island to justice.
PS: Google captcha to post on HN now? No thanks, henceforth.
This article explains the real events factually (letting for you to decide what you think is right or wrong) and without hyperbole: https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/?fbclid=IwA...
Everything good that came out of RMS is exactly because he didn't listen to those advising him to stay quiet.
As we know, rms is a very dear person to most of the Computer Science and programmer community.
Through the years, he's said many shocking things. We've often disagreed with him. He's been extremely stubborn.
At some points it's been comical.
Yet we still see him as a technology treasure, and we should keep this in mind before judging him harshly based on a single e-mail.
rms is actually reacting logically here, yet also emotionally as he's wanting to protect his friend - the late Marvin Minsky. Seemingly by letting go of common sense, and sure enough this is just cause for harsh criticism.
But by simply removing a living legend from his position because he's not able to be politically correct, is far worse in my opinion. (I assume he was asked to leave).
This same lack of political correctness also happens to be one of his strengths. It built his character. It's not perfect.
I don't know what more to write at this point. It's ridiculous and turning into a witch hunt against someone we actually owe a great deal of gratitude.
Is that a matter of diverse thinking?
If you think so, I'm interested to know your reasoning.
That is what he was defending. The intellectual quibbles about this and that he was bringing up are irrelevant when faced with the above fact.
That isn't about political correctness, it isn't a "witch hunt". RMS did something incredibly inappropriate in an incredibly inappropriate place and was fired. He deserved it.
The thing about accusations is that being accused of something doesn't mean the thing happened. There is a pretty plausible line of evidence that Minsky kept his hands to himself when confronted by a 17 year old on a private island. It is an excellent time to try and defend a dead friend when such doubts are present.
And as a particularly important point - there are no charges so horrible that people shouldn't be defended against them. That is one of the best principles we have in the Western intellectual tradition. "He's defending someone from something serious" is not a respectable counter; you should rethink your arguments.
The issue was him defending statutory rape by saying the victim would have seemed willing.
The cirumstances around that hypothetical (17, 73, billionare's island) solidify the problem.
It isn't intellectual disagreement. It's defending rape, real or imagined, by saying the victim seemed willing.
(1) They have committed statutory rape
(2) Their position is morally defensible, although a bit creepy for an old man.
He probably didn't know she was 17. Why on earth would Minsky be risking the law by sleeping with a 17 year old girl when he could just sleep with an 18 or 19 year old? Presumably Epstein had all sorts on tap. It is very likely he wasn't told she was 17 and quite likely that if asked she had been coerced into lying. Stallman has a point here.
And to top it off even if he is wrong it is not such a critical fact that he needs to resign over it. Even if I accept tomorrow that everything I typed today so far was wrong; this is still not an important enough point to resign over anything. It is a moral hypothetical. It is no relevant to my, or Stallman's, daily personal or professional life.
RMS also defended the view that declaring every sexual act of an adult with a 17 year old as statutory rape is morally questionable. That's a legitimate viewpoint that has been discussed extensively by lawmakers and legal scholars. Again, whether you like his opinion or not is not important. What's important is that it is ridiculous to insinuate in any way that discussing these matters is somehow morally reprehensible, especially when they concern accusations of a good friend who - for all you know and believe - is innocent.
You are being very dishonest in your posts by distorting the actual situation and what actually happened. I've personally met a guy who lost his job and all of his reputation for a similar matter - every single accusation was ruled out and disproved in court, even with direct video evidence contradicting the accuser's testimony, yet his life remains in shambles.
You can only hope that you will never become the victim of such a witch hunt yourself.
Finally, your use of the word "rape" is wrong anyway. Having sex with a minor isn't "rape", it's "statutory rape", and that's only in the US. US laws do not apply worldwide. The age of consent varies from place to place, and according to UK residents on this forum, it's only 15 or 16 there. So are you going to tell me that everyone in the UK that has sex with someone that young is a "rapist"? Sorry, no.
“Statutory rape” isn't usually the term in the law, it's a common-language hedge to indicate that it was (at the time the term was coined) literally rape under a particular set of criminal statutes, but not what some people consider “real” rape.
In some statutory schemes it is exactly rape still, in others it has different formal names (“unlawful sexual intercourse” [Penal Code 261.5] in California law, for instance.)
"Unlawful sexual intercourse" like in your California example is fine: that's a good way to word sexual activity that's illegal without conflating it with violence.
Generally, that meaning is sex without legal consent. Most state rape laws include sex with adults lacking capability for consent (due to intoxication, disability, etc.), even if they happen to carve out lack of legal capacity to consent due to age to a separate section of law, and do not require violence beyond the violence inherent in sex without consent, though they certainly include nonconsentual sex acheived through violence.
So, while it may or may not be carved out for organizational or other reasons in particular criminal codes, there is no reason that “statutory rape” does not fit conceptually within the space of “rape”. (The phrase “forcible rape” already exists for the subset you seem to want to limit “rape” to identify.)
RMS has been a force that has driven people away for a long time. He may be good as a thinker and coder, but he is fucking awful at being in a leadership position.
His statement was that we should use proper names for crimes.
If I were to accuse Epstein of genocide and you reply "That is not genocide, he was a sex-trafficking pedophile that used minors as blackmailing pawns and more" would that be a defense? It does not look like a defense to me.
But he was wrong about English usage and about legal usage of the word "assault".
When we're talking about a child who has been trafficked and coerced into sex it's weird to "well actually, is it really assault?" into the conversation, especially if that's based on his misunderstanding of what the word means.
And the effect of his interject was to defend Minsky. When hundreds of people misinterpret him the blame lies with his poor communication, not their lack of comprehension.
According to the quote I read of RMS (I did not read the original email fully) the salient part is his discussion where he claims that "sexual assault" as an expression (at least colloquially) implies the use of force/violence/aggression/intimidation/coercion/etc. by Minsky.
He claims that given the official report as true and taking the the claim of the victim as correct none of those (force/violence/aggression/intimidation/coercion/etc.) were likely.
This is independent on whether Minsky committed a crime or not. This is simply trying to properly understand what the accusations are. I honestly have no idea whether this would constitute rape/statutory rape/assault or any other crime, taking in goodwill what I have read it is likely that whatever happened (other witnesses claim to have seen Minsky decline the advances and the report does not claim any sexual encounter, "just" that Epstein instructed her to) Minsky did not use violence.
I actually believe I misrepresented RMS words here, as he truly only said that the violence implied by the word assault was unlikely.
(Also given that by other reports one of Epstein tactics was to lure guests into having sex with minors to blackmail them)
In this case the dataset would not be big enough to draw statistical conclusions, but this site (like most forums) slightly suffer from the duality of US-based and international, as it cannot be truly both at the same time.
I can see many reason to never implement something like a geographical indication of which countries upvoted/downvoted (especially as it would contradict the spirit of this site), but in contentious topics it would allow some useful insights.
For example, people will call it "rape" when it's someone underage no matter the circumstance. Having willful sex with someone underage vs. physical forcing them to have sex with you are two very different things. Yet in (most?) people's minds they just call it rape, under the context that someone underage can't properly consent. Ok, but physical forcing yourself on someone vs willingly are still different things. I don't know what to call them, but calling them the same thing is completely disingenuous to the crime.
I'm guessing this is what he was going after? Maybe because when we think of "assault" we generally think it's the physical act of assault, not an emotional or control one...
Where I live (the UK), that is perfectly legal and I believe any man would jump at the chance to do the same with a willing 17 year old.
Your repetitive statements of fact in this thread look like nothing more than jealousy to me.
I have a soft spot for RMS like other people do but I don't want to donate to the FSF while he is talking this way as its president.
Maybe he is also a victim of his success. Free software has come so far in the past few decades that it's not as important as other social issues in computing at this point in time.
Imagining his (incorrect, head canon-fueled) pedanticism is “logical” is an insult to logic.
There is a new religion forming among those who have largely rejected religions of the past and Stallman is guilty of blasphemy. If he only loses his job he will be far luckier than others who are guilty of similar blasphemy.
I think that's blasphemy to anyone with an once of reason and compassion in this world.
It is not zealotry of some new paranoid movement that drove RMS failure. It was reason and good judgement.
But look past that into what was happening.
Stallman was trying to defend Minsky who had sex with someone, a teenager, nearly 60 years younger than him on a billionaire's private island. There isn't an imaginable circumstance where what happened there was not, even in the best possible light, incredibly creepy.
His intellectual arguments were understandable in a way, but in the context of defending Minsky and in the venue they were wildly inappropriate and indefensible.
It doesn't matter how "great" you are or how socially awkward, any institution should fire you for doing something like that.
Comments here seem to mostly equate this situation to a Cancel Culture outcry over an isolated remark. That's not what happened here. rms has had decades of inexcusable behavior for any individual, much less someone affiliated with MIT and heading something as large as FSF. He had to answer for this eventually.
I sincerely appreciate his contributions to this world. But I also sincerely feel that we can't give people free passes for their behavior (see: courtesy cards at conferences) just because they've done well in other respects. We need to end the acceptance of Brilliant Jerks.
I hate this morality police sweeping in saying that he simply can’t talk about this because it is forbidden, wrong, etc. The majority should not decide what is ok speech or thought, we should judge him by what he has actually done, and challenge his thoughts directly with reasoned argument rather than immediately dismiss and denounce anything that isn’t in the moral majority.
Freedom of association is just as important at freedom of speech.
He made a choice to say some words and based on those words people felt they would be better off without him in their workplace. Seems fair to me, people have been fired for much less.
He was in two roles that were largely about PR and put him in positions of power over young women. I certainly am willing to condemn people to no longer holding positions of power they have demonstrated they will abuse, and if your job is as a figurehead a big part of that job is not being so gross people avoid the institution. He got fired because a significant part of his job was ensuring the fsf could raise funds and he was being bad at his job.
1st, you're assuming his relative power based on claims in an article by a young woman who didn't know about him, and still hasn't met him.
2nd, the least old of these claims was written 13 years ago.
3rd, for god's sake... he wasn't defending pedophilia. there's no reason to say that! why on earth do people keep repeating it? it's clearly inaccurate.
Suppose you're an employer. Would you want to hire a neo-Nazi who has visible swastika and Hitler tattoos? Would you put this guy in front of your customers? Probably not; your business wouldn't do too well. So when you decline to hire such a person, you're exercising your freedom of association, but also helping to condemn the neo-Nazi to homelessness and poverty. In some countries, he might be able to get some social assistance so he doesn't turn to crime, but it'll probably still be poverty-level.
Societies aren't just a bunch of people all doing and saying whatever the heck they want. There's consequences to your actions and your speech. If people like you more, you get better jobs and do better socially. If people don't like you, then you become an outcast. This can be good or bad: if the overall attitude is something awful, such as the idea that some people should be enslaved, then you get a society where lots of people are horribly oppressed. If the overall attitude however is that oppression is bad, then people who promote oppression (like neo-Nazis) are punished by being ostracized, and ideas like that are made unpopular and kept from spreading too much.
All i'm seeing is people pointing out that statutes are different around the globe, and that it was rms' point that the variety of these rules is the exact reason not to refer to minsky's behavior (whatever it was) as "assault".
Is my dad a rapist?
All acts of pedophilia would be statutory rape, but not all statutory rape would be acts of pedophilia. If the minor isn't a pre-pubescent child, it really isn't pedophilia.
Is your problem with the person who had the sex, or the person defending them? The former I agree is a huge problem, the latter seems highly dangerous and I very much disagree with you. It would be impossible to get any sort of due process or fair trial if even defending you makes you toxic, unemployable, and evil. What if you are innocent? Imagine trying to find a lawyer...
What about me? I'm not defending RMS' behavior, but I could see how someone would think I was. Do I deserve to be able to work? Do my kids deserve a home and food on the table?
In whose mind does this comment even start to make any sense? Are people supposed to only point out facts that contradict what a righteous Twitter mob is inventing if they are in the presence of a judge?
This is because court procedures are complicated and idiosyncratic and most people would not be expected to have the skills to defend themselves. The state is trying to take away a person's freedom so part of the social contract is that it has an obligation to provide them with independent help to navigate the process.
As far as I'm aware, Minsky had no legal case to answer and Stallman was not his defence lawyer. So while Stallman certainly has the right to defend him, in doing so he was risking his own reputation in a way that a criminal defence advocate (even when their client is found guilty of the most heinous crime imaginable) does not.
Some people like Greg Benford claimed the sex didn't happen. I think that's a better way to go about it. Say you were present at the time and provide counter-claim.
Now, there doesn't seem to be proof either way.
I get that the concept of assumption of innocence is something long-forgotten on the Internet, but can we at least discern between correcting the language to ensure that mob accusations are accurate, and wholesale defense of a (presumed) act?
Thanks for putting it so succintly
This Guardian article makes me think that he has been unfairly treated. Even though I think that he is completely wrong to assume that an elderly man could reasonably expect that a very young person is having sex with them for any reason other than either direct coercion (violence, mental-abuse/gaslighting) or the indirect violence of capitalism (need to support self or family [1]).
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/17/mit-scient...
I think it is quite clear that he was explicitly NOT claiming that the accusor was willing, but that she was coerced into appearing willing. I think it is quite clear that he also calls for more care and clarity in the language around this and the post on Medium gets it completely wrong, as does your last phrase.
1. This can include drug dependency, can also include the need to pay for "luxuries" like going to college: it's pretty much all the same to me -- these things are withheld due to force in our society. The picture is even clearer in the extreme case of "voluntary" sex work by people in developing countries.
There are a lot of similarly coerced situations in our capitalist societies. You want to eat? Go down the mine.
are you even thinking about what you're writing? it seems like you're just attacking for the sake of it.
you've spammed this conversation with your input... what, 20 different times?
We don’t need to worry about his entire life. That’s his job. We can say “this person clearly should not be leading an advocacy group” without figuring out a whole future career path for him.
That seems reasonable and fair.
> I agree that we need to turn around acceptance of "brilliant jerks" but the Law of Unintended Consequence here in many cases seems way worse than the original problem we were trying to solve.
Which is... what exactly? You're appealing to a slippery slope but from my perspective we climbed UP said slope to get to holding RMS to account for years of bad behavior, and even now reprehensible folks are using awful excuses like, "They're just on the spectrum" as ammo in the "Yes but he's a powerful man" argument they've been winning for a long time.
He could try to rebuild his career, but he is 66 so unlikely he will try.
Isn’t he basically a speaker and advocate nowadays? That career is unlikely to be very successful now that all major organizations dumped him and he has fake news headlines saying he defended Epstein following him everywhere (backed up by apparently two decades of known antisocial personal behavior).
He doesn’t exactly sound like the kind of person you’d hire to work as a normal developer nor would that comport with his strange ethics of refusing to use any non-Free software.
But ultimately RMS's positon was one of political, not technical, leadership. With no more supporters, the FSF rejected him. Without the FSF, what purpose could he serve at his job?
That doesn't imply any institution of higher learning or software advocacy organization needs to grant him their imprimatur to do it.
They certainly _shouldn't_ be in a leadership position... (where that "inexcusable behavior" becomes a barrier to participation for various groups)
Then why attack him now and try to force him out of the organisation that he founded over something people misunderstood? They could just call to fire him over actual abusive behaviour instead.
That's blowing it way out of proportion. You mention one remark 13 years ago, and refer to it as decades.
You're happy to benefit from the freedoms he fought for, the free GNU, built by GCC, and GPL licensed software that runs on your computer, your car, your phone, and your TV, and all the platforms you use on the internet (including this one). But you won't accept any Brilliant Jerks! I'm sure you'll put your money where your mouth is, and boycott all of these.
And while you're at it, why don't you list your numerous noteworthy accomplishments in life, and pinky-swear that you've never said anything in public that you regretted.
RMS points out that she did not ever say that she and Minksy had sex, although the prosecutor implied it, and there was a witness account that Minsky declined and warned someone else about what happened during the event. Pointing this out should not be a problem.
So please look past the media's witch hunt and into what's actually been said.
Doesn't matter if the accused event happened or not. Defending the hypothetical in that manner gets you fired.
[1]https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/091320191...
He didn't redefine the legal term, he just (tl;dr) said it sucks and we shouldn't use it (and instead should use something more specific).
That part of my comment was overly sarcastic. I have to apologize for that.
> He said that sexual assault is a poor term, for reasons of broadness and vagueness, and that we should avoid using such terms in order to avoid ambiguity.
I would say that the term is intentionally broad and vague precisely because violence is only one of many ways to force an unwilling participant and how it was done is mostly irrelevant to the end result.
> he just (tl;dr) said it sucks and we shouldn't use it (and instead should use something more specific).
As far as I can tell he never actually brought up a more specific term and just disagreed in a rather non constructive fashion against the use of both sexual assault and rape, even when someone explicitly referred to laws.
Here for example https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist-richard...
It went from "defended Minsky", to "Victims Were ‘Entirely Willing’" to "defended Epstein".
> Stallman was trying to defend Minsky who had sex with someone
I think that he was just trying to be rational. But being rational against a lynching mob is not a good idea (and hasn't ever been in human history).
> but in the context of defending Minsky and in the venue they were wildly inappropriate and indefensible
Would you mind expanding on that? Say that someone claimed that Stalin drank the blood of his victims, would it be "inappropriate and indefensible" to try to debunk such a claim (and thus defend Stalin) in the process?
The problem is defending a man accused of statutory rape by saying his accuser appeared willing. Everything else is irrelevant.
And it wasn't a situation where there was the slightest bit of ambiguity. 17 and 73. Billionare's private island.
Defending that situation - real or hypothetical - is very problematic. It gets you fired. There might be a very narrow context in which a discussion of that nature would be appropriate. Where it happened was a million miles from there.
How is that a problem exactly?
> 17 and 73
Would her being a 18 prostitute change anything in your eyes? Because I am pretty sure that most 17 year olds can easily be confused with 18 year olds and the reverse.
> Defending that situation - real or hypothetical - is very problematic. It gets you fired.
In our current "cancel culture" society, agree.
An 18 year old prostitute is extraordinarily likely to be in that situation as a result of a lifetime of abuse and desperation. Taking advantage of that for sexual pleasure, especially at the age of 73, makes you a terrible person.
An old man taking advantage of a young woman is the issue. One year and tiny permutations of the details which change the legal situation do not change the moral situation that in any similar situation, the old man is a indefensible scumbag.
It doesn't matter if it is a hypothetical or not, defending that old man by saying the victim would have presented herself as willing, is a big issue. Not a witch hunt, not mob rule.
And it seems that it applies to prostitution at other ages too.
But a lot of sex workers would challenge that.
No one in a position to cause this outcome didn't read the original statements. Suggesting that this is all a big misunderstanding (or that this was an isolated incident of RMS's sexism, for that matter) is not only slanderous, but its profoundly disrespectful to all parties.
With what sentence?
> was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults
Legally in most places they can, legally in the place that this happened I think that they could not. Is there a problem with this statement?
> suggesting a young woman forced into sexual servitude by a monstrous sex slave merchant was "entirely willing."
Appeared entirely willing (to Minsky and to anyone else that Epstein invited in his island) != being entirely willing herself.
> RMS's sexism
Would you mind showing to me where is the sexism in anything that Stallman said regarding Epstein?
If you want to argue with someone about the definition of sexism, you should go argue with them and stop wasting my time.
Not sure what search engines have to do with the topic. I have read the two medium posts, the vice article, and the pdf.
> If you want to argue with someone about the definition of sexism
I am not doing that. You claimed that RMS was sexist in this incident. I am asking you what he said specifically to make you believe that.
> you should go argue with them and stop wasting my time
Why post in hackernews if you are not interested in discussion?
Have a nice day.
Having read many of your post in threads on similar topics and having replied to a few, I'm sorry to say that I must agree with others that your post history pretty clearly doesn't.
But seriously, firstly dependenttypes pretends not to know "which sentence" we are talking about despite the fact that my post directly references that damning sentence. He then addresses that sentence, then moves on to an outrageous statement that in "most" places children can consent to sex with adults and that it just happens to be RMS was in a place where that's not true? Where does he get that from? A few nations allow for parental permission to override this state of affairs, but in general it's tough to find a nation without laws around child rape.
Then, dependenttypes draws a distinction (on the sentence that they claim wasn't clear from context), between a woman appearing to be willing vs being willing. But this once again centers the actions of the women and suggests Minsky has no responsibility to recognize things might not be right, as I suspect a rational person might in such circumstances. It centers the women's act of presenting herself as opposed to Minsky's responsibility to not rape kids.
Finally, dependenttypes suggests that typing "stallman sexism" in google doesn't show (for me in incognito at last) four articles in the top ten results full of explanations. Similar searches on twitter reveal firsthand accounts of both sexist and profoundly inappropriate behavior.
Upon reading this, it was pretty clear to me that:
0. This person isn't here to talk. They're here to Fisk posts aggressively.
1. This person tried to imply that it was only puritanical legal technicalities that prevented what appears to be a teenage sex slave from consenting is pretty outrageous. Generally, slaves don't have a choice and Epstein was a slaver.
2. This person has a definition of sexism that does not appear to be reasonable, OR they're so completely unwilling to even examine an opposing viewpoint that they can't read the wealth of other sources on this.
3. Given these things, the subsequent claim "I have read these things and found no evidence of sexism" strongly suggests someone who will simply refuse to adopt a reasonable definition or reasonable evidence of sexism as a matter of personal belief.
Note in his posts we don't hear some sort of positive refutation. Rather we hear a negative one: "this is fine what is your problem?" We don't hear, "that isn't sexism because..." we hear, "I don't see any evidence of sexism at all."
We're well past the point where any reasonable actor could come to such a conclusion. So I concluded this person is acting in bad faith. This doesn't mean "they disagree with me." This means, "they're not here to discuss the evidence or what people are saying but rather to refute it by any means necessary."
And looking more closely at their post history, I stand by this assessment.
I can't read your mind, sorry. By "that sentence" I presumed that you meant something that I said in my post.
> He
Nice assumption you got there.
> then addresses that sentence
I guess so. Without my knowledge at least, after all as you said your post "directly references that damning sentence".
> then moves on to an outrageous statement that in "most" places children can consent to sex with adults
I said minors, not children (except if you consider a 17 year old person to be a child). Anyway, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent_-_Glo... for a "proof" of that "outrageous" statement.
> and that it just happens to be RMS was in a place where that's not true?
Not RMS, Minsky.
> A few nations allow for parental permission to override this state of affairs
A small minority, yes. In most countries to my knowledge you only need the consent of the teenager that is above the age of consent to have sex with them.
> but in general it's tough to find a nation without laws around child rape.
There wouldn't be any point to the age of consent laws if sex with a person under the allowed age wasn't considered at least as bad as statutory rape, so ofc the countries with age of consent laws also have laws around "child rape".
> But this once again centers the actions of the women
If this was the issue with what Stallman said then you should have been clear from the start, rather than attacking a misquoted version of what he said that's easier to criticize on issues that do not apply with his full quote. Anyway, Stallman used the "presented herself to him as entirely willing" in order to argue against the use of "sexual assault" that they accused Minsky of (which Stallman claims that implies force or violence on Minsky's part -- after all you do not need to use force or violence to have sex with someone who "presents themselves as entirely willing").
> Finally, dependenttypes suggests that typing "stallman sexism" in google doesn't show (for me in incognito at last) four articles in the top ten results full of explanations
I never suggested that. I asked about what sexist thing he said in this specific instance. I am not interested on being Stallman's personal defence guardian nor do I follow him blindly on everything that he has ever said.
> This person tried to imply that it was only puritanical legal technicalities that prevented what appears to be a teenage sex slave from consenting
I never tried to imply that. If you are unsure if I am trying to imply something you can just ask me.
> We don't hear, "that isn't sexism because..."
We don't hear "that isn't sexism because..." because I have no idea what you consider as sexist in this specific instance. If you decided to tell me what you consider as sexist I would gladly tell you why I consider or don't consider it as sexist.
And a quote from before:
> Suggesting that this is all a big misunderstanding ... is not only slanderous, but its profoundly disrespectful to all parties.
Since you misunderstood me multiple times during this conversation have you considered the possibility that you might have done the same (unintentionally ofc) with Stallman?
> And looking more closely at their post history, I stand by this assessment.
I would be interested in seeing what you consider as instances of malicious behaviour by me in other threads.
Stallman defends a 70 year old man having sex with a coerced child (using the same language he used to defend familial child sexual abuse or other forms of child sexual abuse) because Stallman is a sexist who has never bothered to learn about VAWG.
His "apology" just piles it on - he thinks the problem is not with what he said, but with other people's understanding. He still doesn't get the fact that people know exactly what he said, and they understood what he said.
It's an interesting point given that there actually is a certain strain of Stalin's apologists that reply to any critique of their idol with "yeah, and he also drank blood and ate little children for breakfast".
However I can’t seem to find the original documents to verify that.
And reading too much about Giuffre, my god. The list of powerful people.
Epstein must of had blackmail on everyone.
Almost like a cartel leader in their nation, he made big philanthropic donations for good press and then kept many of the world’s richest and most powerful people under his thumb.
Why the hell the Media never puts up links to direct sources is what frustrates me the most. There's been some bad cases of this lately.
The analysis and statements in the articles were often ridiculous and had little connection to the original material (even the article publishing that material) other than exaggerating someone else's article in a perverse game of telephone.
Minksy DIDN'T had the sex.
What the court documents said is:
A woman, that at the time was 17, said Epstein told her to OFFER sex to Minsky.
And another person that was present, Greg Benford, said that Minsky refused the offer.
Nowhere was stated that sex happened.
Of course not.
Then, where is the line? If not 18, then, 25? 30? I get why it would be creepy from the perspective of the woman wanting to be with an old man, but why exactly is the man himself a creep?
IMO, all adults are attracted to the younger opposite sex. Men have a biological drive to be attracted to women who will give birth to healthy babies, survive the birth, and live long enough lives to ensure that child is supported.
I'm 30 now. I hope people never regard me as a creep for masterbating when I'm 60 to the teen section of PornHub.
If he had cared about his political movement more than his dick we wouldn’t be here, but here we are.
No one really needed media sensationalism to draw a pattern of behavior unbefitting the leadership of the FSF. That some random people overstated some aspects of his Epstein thoughts isn't really why this happened.
It's also a bit ironic you've decided to call it a witch hunt. Witch hunts happened when folks decided to start blaming women for everything without even a veneer of logic or civility. And here we are with a man, having possessed a long history of specific behaviors, being called to account for exactly those behaviors. It's ironic simply because the privileges RMS was exercising are so ingrained in your worldview that demanding he stop treating women like lesser beings is–to you, at least fundamentally irrational and unfair demand.
RMS had hundreds of other controversial opinions. Uttering them did not result in this. In fact, no single act of sexism got him here either. So suggesting that this is merely society punishing a misunderstood outsider on a whim is itself pretty uncalled for.
You can decide this is punishment and it might feel that way to RMS, but I think we can all agree sexism is a bad trait to have in the most senior leadership position of an organization founded around principles of liberty in expression and action. RMS was bad for that cause, and he couldn't keep his position on pure tenure and prestige anymore.
As we all know, real liberty is when one person has power over others who object to it.
I wouldn't want a person in my team voicing sexists opinions, I would want that person removed from the team. Let alone as a figurehead and leadership figure.
That's a position with enormous rhetorical value to you. You can use that framing to turn a conversation about a man's actions over time into a philosophical question.
That way you can avoid any inconvenient particular facts.
But this is presuming that Stallman's behavior was only personal in the first place. He has a history of poor behavior at MIT and in his roles for the FSF, which definitely bleeds into the professional.
Words have consequences, and while you are free to say whatever, others are free to react to it too. You don’t get a free pass for saying ridiculous things just because free speech | difficulties communicating | you’ve done great things or whatever.
I don’t want a world where everything is filtered but I do want people to think about the impact of what they say before they say it.
He's been speaking on these topics for long enough to have heard thousands of people consoling him to stop.
No, it is sufficient already to not blurt out controversial things at bat-shit-insanely-bad timings. Similar to how people would be mad at Einstein if he pulled a non-ironic "Yeah, but to be honest he wasn't THAT great" a friends funeral.
I don't like mobs and I lament the fact that one such important figure in computing has such difficulties making himself understood. But that does not mean that the world has a problem somehow. It just happens to be a world that is not fine-tuned to Stallman-communication and that values reducing sexism higher than technical accuracy. Some people don't work that way, some people get therapy to allign themselves, some withdraw from society, some manage to get by. Stallman happened to fall on the friction side of things this time.
Funny that you evoke misogyny at this point, given how RMS is primarily a godawful human being to women, the vast majority of which your comment is ignorant of, willfully or otherwise.
This has been his godawful personality and behaviour at MIT for decades. It hasn't gone unreported. It hasn't gone unnoticed. But few appear to have ever acted on it appropriately, and the appropriate action here is removing him from any and all communities where he can do damage. It's occurring years too late, but at least it's occurring. It's sad that it took his association with a worldwide pedophilia/human trafficking ring to accomplish this, given his decades of ghastly abuse of peers/colleagues/students.
Even more sad that after this association has been revealed, communities like this one are significantly in self-defense mode.
If your response to this story is to get defensive, or to use keywords like "free speech," you have questions you need to ask yourself. Very serious questions. Questions that I guarantee your various communities want answers to before you engage with them further.
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/d59r46/richard...
"Context: In a recently unsealed deposition a woman testified that, at the age of 17, Epstein told her to have sex with Marvin Minsky. Minsky was a founder of the MIT Media Lab and pioneer in A.I. who died in 2016. Stallman argued on a mailing list (in response to a statement from a protest organizer accusing Minsky of sexual assault) that, while he condemned Epstein, Minsky likely did not know she was being coerced:
> 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.
Some SJW responded by writing a Medium post called "Remove Richard Stallman". Media outlets like Vice and The Daily Beast then lied and misquoted Stallman as saying that the woman was likely "entirely willing" and as "defending Epstein". He has now been pressured to resign from MIT
Furthermore the deposition doesn't say she had sex with Minsky, only that Epstein told her to do so, and according to physicist Greg Benford she propositioned Minsky and he turned her down:
> I know; I was there. Minsky turned her down. Told me about it. She saw us talking and didn’t approach me.
This seems like a complete validation of the distinction Stallman was making. If what Minsky knew doesn't matter, if there's no difference between "Minsky sexually assaulted a woman" and "Epstein told a 17-year-old to have sex with Minsky without his knowledge or consent", then why did he turn her down?
Edit: He has also resigned from the Free Software Foundation, which he founded. Grim news for free software, since I think true-believing purists like Stallman are vital to prevent various kinds of co-option."
source: https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/d5axzu/why_...
Counterpoint: yes it does.
Judging Washington by the standards of his time and his peers, slavery was abhorrent. Take the case of Quock Walker, who sued for his freedom in 1781, for instance. The chief justice of Massachusetts (and later Washington's own nominee for chief justice of the US) wrote:
> As to the doctrine of slavery and the right of Christians to hold Africans in perpetual servitude, and sell and treat them as we do our horses and cattle [...] nowhere is it expressly enacted or established. It has been a usage -- a usage which took its origin from the practice of some of the European nations, and the regulations of British government respecting the then Colonies, for the benefit of trade and wealth. But whatever sentiments have formerly prevailed in this particular or slid in upon us by the example of others, a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion, or shape of noses-features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this ground our Constitution of Government [...] sets out with declaring that all men are born free and equal [...] and in short is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature [...]
As recorded by Washington's contemporary James Madison, Washington's contemporary Gouverneur Morris denounced the three-fifths compromise during the 1787 constitutional convention:
> He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people, with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. [...] Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. [...] The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.
We should not so facilely dismiss the difficult challenge that Washington is seen as the father of this nation and yet owned slaves. Other founding fathers understood that the American norm of liberty was clearly incompatible with holding slavery in anything other than contempt. Other founding fathers called his behavior "repugnant" and "nefarious" - why should we shy away from criticizing him? It seems far more sensible to me to worry that Washington (along with many others) led our nation into believing a compromised, twisted view of liberty and the natural rights of man, with lasting consequences for the country which hardly ended in the Civil War.
One view you can take, which seems defensible, is that he grew to agree with the anti-slavery view late in life, yet as a calculated measure to hold the country together when half the economy was dependent on slavery, did nothing about it, and also was too weak to give up his own station in life which was similarly dependent on slavery. Yet he freed his slaves in his will, both for their own sake and in the (ultimately vain) hope that he would inspire others to do the same.
The other view is that he never actually believed it, or he would have made freeing human beings a political priority. He was embarrassed into freeing his slaves after Martha's death, but he fundamentally thought that it was more important for himself and Martha to live their last years in comfort than for his slaves to live in freedom, and that the negative peace of the new country holding together was preferable to the positive peace of meaningful liberty. And that therefore the "good" he did for this country was to set us up for the Civil War and for many more decades of viewing certain people as not fully deserving of human rights.
And relevantly to RMS and the free software movement - if Washington hadn't been there, if instead William Cushing or Gouverneur Morris had been in a similar role, what would they have done? Or even if Washington were still there but he did not use his leadership position to say, "I don't like slavery, but we have to keep it for now," what could Cushing or Morris have accomplished? Washington presided over the convention where Morris made his ultimately ineffective argument.
Washington wasn't the only founding father, nor the only skilled military leader among the revolutionary forces. In a world without him, would the US still have won and would it have been better set up to fight slavery? (Would the revolutionary forces have allowed black soldiers in earlier, and moreover had more morale among the black soldiers, thereby leading to an earlier victory?) If such a scenario is plausible, then the good he did didn't outweigh his wrongs.
I'm just certain sure his slaves felt the same way. Especially Ona Judge.
Always nice to see a few angry people on the 'net with out-sized voices manage to bring down an icon of computer science. No one should have his life ruined by a kangaroo trial in the court of public opinion. People don't make good decisions when they try to react and "do something"; it would make more sense to let things die down a little and get the facts on what actually happened. Then make a decision on how best to go forward.
the chips fly"
--Joseph Stalin
Stallman's views were a variety of American libertarianism. While there are a few good points within that tradition regarding personal freedom, it's kind of sad that he carried some of the other baggage with his obsession with age of consent laws.
It seems to be a bit of a far fetched theory to me that this guy would meet a 17 year old through Epstein and not really be aware of what Epstein was doing, but it doesn’t really seem to be a defense of sexual trafficking, pedophilia or rape.
That being said this is from my reading of the above thread so maybe I’m not getting the full picture here.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/richard-stallman-famed-mit-com...
The whole legalizing child porn and age of consent thing, oof.
And the sex might then have seemed consensual and legal to Minsky, because even now in 2019, the age of consent in Massachusetts is 16.
Seems to me it’s some of the other things Stallman has said which are more troubling.
Although he has renounced many of those prior statements at the very least.
A man of such convictions, working in tech but eschewing so much of it, not surprising he’d have some quirky or harmful views mixed in there.
Too bad since I appreciate his FSF work and hard line views against surveillance.
Stallman has been a liability as a figurehead for a long time, and software freedom deserves better standard-bearers.
I saw Stallman once at a public lecture. He was incredibly rude, but is seemingly oblivious to how obnoxious he is being (he struck me as somebody heavily on the spectrum).
I hate to think how many people have written off the cause of software freedom as a joke because of his conduct.
People around him ought to be telling him in stronger terms that his views and general manner are unacceptable.
Stallman on the other side came across as a nutjob. And it wasn’t because of his principles (which if you think about it are great and something to actually aspire to - at least in connection to software) but because of his behavior. Being antisocial or making a claim without paying attention to the social context or the setting the way he managed to do leads me to believe that he may have some sort of mental health issues. again: all respect for his work and principles when it comes to software dissolved by anti-social behavior.
> The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:
> “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])”
> The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault”is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X.
> The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...) Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
> The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.
> 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.
> I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
> Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.
You can (and we must) acknowledge Stallman's contributions to the field while not condoning his pattern of bad behavior. because if we let a leading figure in the industry act this way publicly, it reflects bad on all of us. We cannot claim to be an industry that accepts and welcomes diverse viewpoints and experiences while still holding up a man who has such a long laundry list of reprehensible behavior as a leader and respected figure in the industry.
It goes both ways - Stallman's words seem pretty accurate to me, and it's totally alien to me that you would find them reprehensible. In particular, I cannot understand how you came to the conclusion that he "victim-blames" Giuffre - even though he writes that she "was being coerced into sex" and "She was harmed".
Also tech bros: “I can’t believe RMS got forced out just for going on a crazy rant about rape on a CS mailing list. Why, any one of us could be next!”
But as soon as he dared to veer a little from the party line in one particular question, he has been unpersoned in literally couple of days, despite all apologies and attempts to explain he didn't really mean any heresy. I guess that shows who you can disagree with and who would really hurt you if they even suspect you might disagree (even though you don't).
Kicking him out of FSF and MIT seems quite excessive for somebody saying something and then apologizing for it. Whether they are Stallman, a student, or anyone really.
Do the people involved at FSF and MIT hold themselves to the same standard they're holding Stallman to? We'll surely find out because humans tend to say a lot of stupid shit over the course of their lifetime.
MIT doesn't have to give Richard Stallman a do-nothing job. The FSF doesn't have to give Richard Stallman a (nearly) do-nothing job. Everybody makes mistakes, sure. You make up for those mistakes by doing good and doing right and if Stallman wants redemption, literally nobody is stopping him from going after it. They're just not bankrolling it. There's a difference here.
Yes. Yes, it is. Are we talking about the same story? We’re talking about something Richard Stallman said. That is his offense and the reason for him being kicked out of FSF and MIT.
Since you dodged the whole point of my comment by reiterating that Stallman said something offensive, I’ll restate my point clearly as a question: In your opinion, can someone be forgiven for saying something wrong? and how do they seek that forgiveness other than apologizing and admitting they were wrong?
I’m sure like everyone you’ve said horrible shit over your lifetime, whether in public or private, whether strangers or family. If we brought out those people hurt by your words over your lifetime, wouldn’t you want to be forgiven? Don’t hold other people to a different standard than you hold yourself.
Particularly for figures with significant platforms, the way to redemption is through demonstrating that one has learned and improved, not merely quickly saying "I'm sorry!" and moving on. Perhaps a good way to start would be for RMS to spend time working with an organization dedicated to helping survivors of sexual assault, learning from that experience, and using his broad platform to discuss what he learns with people who, as this thread amply demonstrates, could sorely use the perspective.
And what kind of person are you? You’re a “good” person and Stallman a “bad” one? Stallman’s evil but you’re just ignorant? Ha!
I’m not a fan of Stallman, but your shit stinks too.
I'm not a particularly good person--but I'm working on it in a conscious way. He can, too.
On top of that he does Minsky a huge disservice:
Minsky can't defend himself anymore and RMS has now made a direct connection between Minsky and having sex with underage girls when in fact this may never have happened at all.
The deposition is unfortunately ambiguous about this fact:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ZOEKwoBnDKUFI1hLbFJH5nsUFx...
Page 204, the question is 'Where did you go to have sex with Marvin Minsky?'; then further down that Ghislaine Maxwell directed her to have sex with him but crucially never asks her whether or not it actually happened, and at least one person is on record that Minsky turned her down:
RMS is a figure in the hacker/tech community so the hacker/tech community has done most of the excusing for his behavior.
It's sad. There's room for argument in how much backlash he should receive, but if you're arguing that what said is fine, I would argue that you may be fooling yourself.
Consider some public figure you dislike (politician, celebrity, etc). Now pretend that person said these things. Would you be so forgiving? Maybe you would. But if you find the answer to be no, then you're just protecting your own. Quit that.