Hacker News Reader

>Stallman has pretty clearly lost (or never had) the trust of many members of the community,

He lost or never had the trust of some very small but very vocal group of the community.

> EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep".

And we must take her judgement on people as accurate? why? Also, an accusation of "creep" should not be enough to erase all his life's work. What does "creep" means anyway? Asperger? Social inept person? Modern tech were built by creeps.

>He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.

He didn't said that.

>he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before.

Why not? Software is created by "creeps" like us anyway, not by social activists. I don't see why a "creep" will not be effective as a leader.

> And we must take her judgement on people as accurate? why?

I didn't say we should. Though I trust her judgment more than, say, yours (an anonymous person on the Internet). I used it as evidence that Stallman doesn't have the trust of the community. Also "creep" is almost certainly talking about the way he reportedly treats women, nothing to do with his social graces.

> He didn't said that.

He did say that. I've posted links with evidence of that already in this thread.

> I trust her judgment more than, say, yours

Good for you, I don't. I trust Stallman.

> I used it as evidence

You used a tweet from a single person that never worked with Stallman as evidence.

>the way he reportedly treats women

Reported by who? Is there any formal accusation or lawsuit? Did he lost such lawsuit? (because anybody can file a lawsuit).

> You used a tweet from a single person that never worked with Stallman as evidence.

I used it as evidence of the fact that many prominent members of the community have a negative opinion of Stallman. Not as evidence of anything he has or hasn't done. Please slow down a little and read my comments more carefully.

You really think that she's a prominent member? Next to Stallman or Minsky?

I've never heard of her in my life up until today. And a single sample is not evidence that "many" have opinions.

So because the woman is unknown she is untrustworthy?

Lawsuits aren't free. And the result is usually to destroy the woman's career and reputation.

Especially for a popular figure where thousands will believe him no matter what. Just like you.

RMS is by no means a popular figure. He's widely considered an extremist. He is heartily loathed by Microsofties, software patent advocates and the like. Only nutters like me share his fundamentalist posture on software freedom.

I find his style of advocacy abrasive. But someone has to stake-out that corner of the Overton Window; his very rigidity is his strength, in that respect.

> Software is created by "creeps" like us anyway, not by social activists

Maybe it’s time to change things up a bit?

If the activists want to start writing software nobody is stopping them. If there are so many of these disenfranchised people just clamoring to write software why don't they just get together and do it? They don't need anyone elses permission to write code or publish it.

[1] Somehow we should conclude from that that RMS is guilty because somebody thinks he's a "creep", because apparently being called a "creep" by a bluecheck twitter user automatically makes you guilty of... well, whatever it is, it's clearly your fault. OTOH, calling people "creeps" is totally normal behavior and isn't negative, demeaning and aggressive in any way. If somebody dislikes you, obviously it's your fault.

[2] No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.

> Somehow we should conclude from that that RMS is guilty because somebody thinks he's a "creep", because apparently being called a "creep" by a bluecheck twitter user automatically makes you guilty of... well, whatever it is, it's clearly your fault.

Please re-read my comment. You're reacting emotionally and claiming that I said things I did not say. I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him, not as proof of anything he did or didn't do.

> No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.

He did say that. Find the actual email and read it. No, really, please do it. I'll even link a copy of it for you. https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/ He literally did say it.

> I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him

It's not "people in the community", it's one person calling him what people usually call socially maladjusted males who dared to exist in their vicinity. It is a bad word, demeaning, devoid of content and only expressing hate and revulsion.

> He did say that.

Nope, he did not. And I say it because not only I read the email, I actually understood it. You didn't. Not RMSs fault.

> He literally did say it.

He literally did not. As I explained below, it makes as much sense as saying something who objects to the use of the term "piracy" thinks intellectual property laws should not exist. And the word "literally" does not mean what you think it means.

You're going to have to do better than that. It really just comes across as trolling since you're making the claim that he didn't say something he very clearly seems to say, without any evidence. Abbreviated, for anyone else who can't be bothered to go read it:

>The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:

>The injustice is in the word “assaulting”.

>The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.

>We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.

So the claim is that (assuming Minsky had sex with an underage sex trafficking victim), we shouldn't say he assaulted her. Why shouldn't we say he assaulted her? Because it "presumes that he applied force". Why is it the case that he didn't apply force? Because ("plausibly") "she presented herself to him as entirely willing."

So if an underage trafficking victim presents herself as entirely willing to a man she has sex with, that man did not commit sexual assault. Because sexual assault "presumes that he applied force".

That is exactly what I've said this entire thread. My original claim, which apparently was inciting enough to cause this furor:

> He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.

So let me see if I get your definition of assault right:

It doesn't depend at all on alleged attacker's intentions or actions, it doesn't depend on alleged victim's actions, only thing that matters is if the alleged victim did it for one motivation (wanted it) or other (didn't want it, was forced to do it by some external factor).

I would say that any reasonable person disagrees with such definition.

Where, in this entire thread, do you see me define assault? I don't understand what you're responding to. My claim, through the entire mess this thread has become, was and remains that Stallman said something.

Man, I read your entire thread of comments. You are all over the place. Your insistence made me repeat my reading of the RMS email and I think you should just drop this.

The email is extremely clear, and in fact I'm not all over the place. I keep repeating myself so much precisely because no one is bothering to respond to the same, repeated point, which has never changed since my first post in this thread.

Do you have any dispute with my characterization of RMS's comments? Can you defend any alternative reading to the plain meaning of his statements, as I set them out above?

If we take "she presented herself to him as entirely willing" as a fact then we can deduce that Minsky did not rape her.

> So if an underage trafficking victim presents herself as entirely willing to a man she has sex with, that man did not commit sexual assault. Because sexual assault "presumes that he applied force".

And here is where you make the switch. The first part is where you repeat RMS argument why he thinks what Minsky presumably did should not be called by the word "assault".

The second part is where you attribute to Stallman that he said Minsky didn't do what we call "sexual assault". That's not what he said. What he said is that we shouldn't call what he did "sexual assault" because of reasons, not that he didn't commit the deed. That's different things - just as saying "if I copy Microsoft Word without paying the license this shouldn't be called piracy" is different from "if I copy Microsoft Word without paying the license it's not a crime". You start with the first one and then try to make it looks like the second one. That's where the problem is.

I didn't know this fact until you exposed this article to me: that the person who posted their opinion about RMS threatened to "burn it [MIT] to the ground."

RMS uttered some awful opinion, and this person threatened to burn MIT to the ground as a result. If true, this person, who is identified as "Salem, Robotics student who started Remove Stallman campaign" needs to be removed from MIT immediately for making this threat. Is that something that we can all agree on?

Shouldn't we be making phone calls to the Robotics department at MIT about this threat? Why has this received no media attention? "MIT student threatens to burn MIT to the ground" is certainly a headline that would capture attention.

* This person is a graduate of MIT.

* I have no immediate reason to think they are at MIT, so I don't think it's likely that they can be removed.

* "Burn it to the ground" is obviously metaphorical language, which means (as the person themselves said), that anyone and everyone at MIT who stands in the way of firing Stallman should be fired too. (Note that they didn't "threaten" to burn it to the ground, as you say, because then it wouldn't make sense as a metaphor.)

Note that I'm not defending the language or the expressed wish, so don't attack me over that. I'm only clarifying the circumstances in which that statement was made for you.

Burn it to the ground" is obviously metaphorical language

In that case everything RMS is alleged to have said was obviously metaphorical too.

Words ... have ... meanings. You can't just say something was a metaphor because you want it to be.

You literally just did do that! My point is that either everything is or nothing is. You can’t say your friends controversial statements are metaphorical while damning your enemies for the same things.

> My point is that either everything is or nothing is.

Come on, you can't seriously believe that either everything is metaphorical or nothing is. You have to be trolling me.

And these people aren't my friends.

For the record, "burn it to the ground" is a very common figure of speech on the left. For example, look at this editorial from only a month ago: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/24/austra... It's right in the subtitle!

Do you think this person wants to literally go get a torch and burn "the gender binary" to the ground? It doesn't even make sense. There's also no way you can interpret RMS as using a metaphor. He gave a defense of Minsky. How are metaphors even relevant? Are you trying to say he was joking?

For the record, "burn it to the ground" is a very common figure of speech on the left

But if a right winger says exactly the same words they are to be taken literally? Are centrists allowed to say it?

There is no reason not to take it as a threat of arson, or hate speech if you prefer. Words have meanings. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, that’s another very common figure of speech.

> But if a right winger says exactly the same words they are to be taken literally?

No. Everyone is allowed to say it, unless it's clear from the context that they are literally threatening violence. In this case, quite the opposite is true. The author of that statement says in the next paragraph that they want the powerful people at MIT turned out if necessary to get rid of Stallman.

> Remove everyone, if we must, and let something much better be built from the ashes.

I mean, come on, the person who said this was a real threat against MIT wasn't serious. Surely you can admit that.

> have described him as a "creep".

"Creep" is a description of how attractive you personally feel someone is.

By that rationale it should be okay for someone to describe her as "hot", and question her professional capacity on that assessment, e.g. "she is way too attractive to be the EFF's director of cybersecurity", that is, casting aspersions because of personal preferences.

> "Creep" is a description of how attractive you personally feel someone is.

Not really? Where did you get this definition fron?

> Some pretty responsible and knowledgeable people such as the EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep"

Seems like it's a pastime over at the EFF who can be outraged the most in the vilest manner (senior staff technologist):

https://twitter.com/cooperq/status/1173802200901939200

From their home page:

"The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation."

Maybe it's time to stop supporting the EFF until they decide to re-focus on their core mission instead of being a den of hypocricy.

Can you provide an actual link for [2]? It's a very serious allegation.

Yes. This article[1], so far as I can tell, contains the full nuance of the story. He claimed (or very strongly insinuated) that if a minor sex trafficking victim presented herself as "entirely willing", then a man who had sex with her is not guilty of sexual assault. I believe that's what I said in my comment.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...

He did not claim that and did not insinuate that. It's like saying that person that doesn't believe we should use term "piracy" to describe copying software without obtaining license, because piracy implies violent robbery, thinks that violating copyright is OK. It's a total non-sequitur and failure of reading comprehension to the point of functional illiteracy.

Which is AFAIK true in my jurisdiction. While he could be prosecuted for child abuse (if the victim is minor), but not for sexual assault or rape, as that requires mens rea, which is not here if the victim presented herself as 'entirely willing'.

It is not true where the alleged act took place.

Maybe. In many US states it's a strict liability crime.

But you'll notice that nothing about my point hinges on whether RMS was right or wrong. My claim was about what RMS said (which you seem to grant), not about whether he was correct in saying it.

If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal argument.

There are at least three levels of analysis - semantic (which are proper words describing the act), descriptive legal (whether the commited act is crime) and normative legal (whether the commited act should be crime).

Note that the law does not prescribe language (if the law defines some crime named XYZ mean it overrides common language meaning of XYZ). It is the other way - criminal law defines which classes of acts are crimes and then uses common language names for them (which may or may not fits perfectly).

Stallman first made semantic algument about 'sexual assault' and later later did semantic or perhaps normative legal argument about rape definition.

(With second reading, the rape definition comment was also clearly semantic.)

> If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal argument.

I agree! Stallman's claim was (at least mostly) semantic. Specifically, it hinges on the claim that sexual assault means something that involves coercion on the part of the assaulter. He adds to this a factual argument that (assuming Minsky did have sex with her), he was probably unaware of the fact that she did not consent. Therefore (he concludes), Minsky probably did not commit sexual assault.

But ... you'll notice that this is exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread. RMS is defending Minsky against the charge of sexual assault by saying that she probably pretended to consent (which means he probably didn't physically force her to have sex).

Maybe you want to defend this claim. I'm not here to argue for or against it. The simple statement that I made in the OP was that this is what Stallman said, and the rest of the thread has basically been trolls claiming he didn't say it with no evidence.

You are using phrases 'commit sexual assault' and 'guilty of sexual assault', which in my reading implicates legal level of analysis. Stallman does not use these phrases, and plain reading of his mail clearly expresses semantic argument.

Therefore, your original post could be read as misinterpretation of Stallman semantic argument as legal argument.

Also your original claim "While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse that removing him from his positions" would IMHO make more sense when your post is read as Stallman making (wrong) legal argument.

Everyone is entitled about per opinion on proper usage of language so it does not make sense why a semantic argument in general or this one in particular would be 'far beyond the pale', considering that his semantic argument makes (IMHO) perfect sense.

Surely any charitable reading of my comment would have to assume that I'm responding on the same frequency as Stallman? After all, RMS himself just says

> The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.

He doesn't spell it out for you that he's speaking about the semantics of "assault". In quoting / responding to Stallman, there's no reason I should have to either. I could (uncharitably) assume RMS meant the legal definition of assault too!

I don't think most of the people who have a problem with what Stallman said misunderstood him. I also don't think you're entitled to just use words however you want; semantics isn't the same thing as defining words for yourself.

Even if you really try to force that position, at best you end up with the view that Stallman thinks someone might be misled into thinking Minsky did something worse than he actually did, where what he actually did was have sex with an underage sex trafficking victim, and what you were misled into thinking he did was physically force an underage sex trafficking victim to have sex with him. He thinks the claims against Minsky are "inflated".

But ... if the former is what Minsky did, that's a really fucked up thing to do. It's assault, as the majority of people seem to understand it. Trying to diminish the nature of the assault by saying that she appeared to consent comes across at best, even under the kindest interpretation, as a really weird point to make. It's incorrect to say that you can't assault someone if they appear to consent. That's what people are upset about.

As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I'm not particularly interested in defending the wrongness of RMS's statement. (I made that point in my OP, actually.) What I'm trying to defend (and rather bemused by the responses to) is the claim that he actually said these things.

He didn't said that. But at this point, I think everyone made up their mind about the reading of the email. Here is the original email thread you can read and decide for yourself https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...

There is none; the people who keep promulgating this falsehood about Stallman say that because of one paragraph that anyone who can pass the SAT reading comprehension tests, parse standard English, or understand the basics of logical reasoning, would have understood that it is simply a wrong interpretation at the level of how 1+1 = 3 is wrong.

It is much better to accuse Stallman in that instance that he was mansplaining and contributing to workplace toxicity, and/or to accuse Stallman of a historical pattern of objectifying women. Those are better because they are closer to the truth. But people like simpler narratives, that he said this one horrible thing, when it is not even that far fetched to show using the exact same quote that he was actually arguing quite an opposite, or orthogonal, point.

The other thing about this is that people ignore the context of the speaker; in this case Stallman was talking about media abuse of terminology. To complain about media manipulation is a very standard, leftist position. So like the above, to implicitly suggest that he was using this position as a cover for his personal misogyny, has merit, but nobody cares about this angle, because again it's too complicated to sort through.

So simple that it requires so many words to explain ;)

Actually, the SAT reading comprehension questions are not that simple and trip people up. Which is really my point of analogy. They're the kind of questions where you either got the right answer or not, but explaining it to the person who got it wrong can be non trivial.

Almost an opposite of NP problems. Easy to solve, but hard to convince someone else that your solution is correct.

I think this part of his emails could be constructed as that

> We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that.

Stallmans defense of Minsky is reasoning that he could have been an unknowing participant who wasn't aware of the lack of consent.

His opinion on the age of consent is another matter:

> 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.

Source: https://pastebin.com/658yfLj5

This is not the most damning part of the email to me. I excerpted the part I thought most relevant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21089394

It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16.

I believe RMS is on record saying that he thinks the idea of a legal "age of consent" is a nonsense. It's entirely an arguable position that if two 16-year-olds have sex together, they have not necessarily raped one-another. He's saying that it's not the age that makes it rape, and that therefore the law is an ass. The law effectively defines consent as something that cannot legally be given by someone younger than X. Obviously the younger someone is, the less likely it is that they can give consent; RMS is complaining that the law gives X an arbitrary value.

One can disagree with him, either with a proper argument, or simply by denouncing him; but it's not morally reprehensible for him to reason in that way.

> It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16.

Even for American's travelling to that country? Even for prostitution?

> It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16.

This is not a point I particularly care about, but it's worth pointing out that you are wrong, so far as I can tell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_Ameri...

I don't care much about it either, but thanks for the link. It seems there's a close-in-age exemption that wouldn't have applied in the Minsky case anyway.

"it seems unlikely that he will be an effective leader and public face for GNU"

He never has been, if you ask me. The Unix-like operating system he invented is known to the public as "Linux", despite his repeated, loud insistence that it's a misnomer. But hell, GNU is his project; in fact it's him. GNU without RMS is not GNU, it's something else.

[1] I don't read twitter, sorry. [2] That's not what he said; you've just repeated the apparently-deliberate distortions of the tech press. [3] By "these comments", do you mean his defence of Minsky on the CSAIL mailing list? He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse. Read his actual remarks (and read them carefully; he uses precise language). Pay no attention to the way they have been twisted by Vice and TechCrunch - two publishers whose words I will in future be taking with a bushel of salt.

> That's not what he said; you've just repeated the apparently-deliberate distortions of the tech press.

Please read the thread, including my extensive quotes and links. I'm not making the "distortions" that, say, the Vice article made. In fact, this proves you read my comment too quickly because you assume I did that:

>He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse.

And look at my comment again. I never claimed he did. Vice did. I claimed he did something very specific, which you can find directly and literally in his email. Maybe you don't think he should have been fired over it. That's one thing. But he did say it.

Edit: I saw you were downvoted, so I've upvoted you again in the hope you aren't just here to troll. This thread is toxic enough without people getting arbitrarily downvoted, even if their opinions are wrong.