Somehow the former group has trouble imagining the fear of the latter group is more likely, within its demographic, to happen, and its outcome more deeply damaging, because its damage is somehow related to emotions. No emotions allowed. We're working with capital-R Reason.
—
Next time I hear about "the pipeline" on HN, I'm going to imagine something like the fish tube.[0] If only we had such a tube to pipe potential hackers into engineering and computer science, we would have a more diverse industry.
[0]: https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/the-nihilistic-eu...
I don't know what your point is, but smearing all of HN based on the fact that it is a predominantly male environment isn't some kind of constructive path forward.
I believe the default state is to be moved by what you can perceive as a more immediate danger. This doesn't stem from some underhanded camaraderie, one's mind is just more attuned to what can directly affect it.
Here, the gender split already makes HN more likely, when all comments are summed into a chaotic generalized opinion, to defend RMS by default. He's a man, he's a hacker, he's at the root of many things we take for granted.
The gender split is just some context (and not even the most important piece of context — if I had time to discuss this at length, I would posit that if HN or tech in general were evenly split, it would have the same lack of empathy, just manifested differently.) for the next paragraph, which is the real problem: pretending feelings, emotions and perceptions can be discarded. Which is what makes me resent HN sometimes, as the parent says:
> I'm not really sure why you're expressing derision towards people that don't want sexual assault trivialized. I dunno, I feel like reading these types of posts, which are prevalent in this thread, that I have less and less in common with people on Hacker News
Once emotions are discarded, you can justify even genocide as long as you can convene an outcome that is favorable to a majority.
I have no issues at all with people who disagree with RMS or myself or anyone else, and express their opinions. I have issues with people who believe that their opinions and the sensationalist claims media distort them into justify a mob crusade trying to destroy organizations, careers, friendships and so on.
> Also it's not a bad thing to want social justice,
Social justice will never arise from people who organize lynch mobs.
I'm part of the people who do not want sexual assault trivialized and for that to happen not making inconsiderate use of the term is important to not strip it of its meaning.
After having read the court documentation, I have yet to see any evidence that Minsky assaulted Giufre, heck there's not even any indication he did have sex with her, only that she was directed to by Ms. Maxwell.
Everyone includes justice. Including bad actors who shouldn't be blamed for what they didn't do. Judging everyone for they actually did is the true social justice.
No, he did not. He tried to give the word "assault" a weird meaning, ignoring both the everyday English meaning of the word and the legal meaning of the word in a discussion about having sex with a coerced child arranged by a convicted sex offender.
Is it truly an assault if Minsky didn't know what and how someone was sent to him? If someone forces a non-obviously underage girl to come to you at a bar and seduce you, should you be tried for sexual assault?
If you have sex with someone that hasn’t or can’t give consent then yes you should be at the very least charged with a crime. If someone else coerced that result then they should be charged with a crime as well. That someone else is also responsible does not absolve you of the crime.
The bottom line is that you don’t have to have sex with someone.
If someone gives you a consent because they were forced by someone else to give you a consent, who is to blame? How deep do you have to go to ensure that the consent is true consent?
If you are concerned about whether consent has been given genuinely or not I’d recommend slowing right down and doing more to establish that there is legitimate consent or not have sex with that person at all. There is no requirement to have sex.
Like if you’re in the situation as a gone to seed old guy who is approached by a teenager at a party it’s not rocket science to maybe think twice about having sex with them.
In England this is definitely illegal.
The first link describes some form of sexual offense, but is only strict liability if the person is under 13. Quoting the link:
"A person(A) commits an offense if..."
"(c)either—
(i)B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13."
The second link is an anti-prostitution offense, which does not match the theoretical example or Minsky's case, and is punishable by fine.
You don't magically get the mental tools for informed consent for sex the day you turn 18. You may get over the threshold for informed consent before, you may do so much later, and some people may not get there at all.
Classifying his opinions as fundamentally wrong is a childish view of the world. He does not advocate non-consensual sex, nor does he argue for pedophilia. He holds a much more nuanced view, which may be wrong for the current US moral compass but is not fundamentally/laws-of-nature wrong as is being painted by SJWs.