Hacker News Reader

Comment by lolc | Hacker News Reader

It can be taken that way. But if "sexually" is omitted from "sexually assaulted" a statement can easily be misunderstood. If you add in the context that there was no direct accusation of sexual assault by the victim towards Minsky, I do find reasonable to talk about how these terms are used. I even understand his argument that these terms best not be used in accusations because there are better ones.

I find your interpretation of "an attempt to reduce the perception of the seriousness of the crime" a highly incharitable reading of what he says!

View on HN

The definition of "sexual assault" covers what allegedly took place. Yes, if you change the words used, you end up with an inaccurate statement. Why is that something that needs to be pointed out?

Stallman's entire point is that he feels the use of the word "assault" causes people to believe the crime is more serious than he believes it is. Pointing that out isn't uncharitable.

Using the word assault causes people to believe a different thing happened. It says nothing about the gravity of each kind of crime except that they shouldn't be the same.

The only reason "sexual assault" covers what allegedly took place is because the expression was redefined in the first place to cover two separate things, which is exactly the problem. Stallman called not for redefining "sexual assault" as you put it, but for undoing a redefinition that puts it at odds with how those terms are conventionally used and causes unnecessary confusion.

And "free software" makes people believe that the software costs nothing, but Stallman's position there isn't to suggest that we should always use a different term. Why not?

I agree the expression "Free Software" has the same problem. However the alternatives also have some problems. He discusses that here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... (I'm sure you've already read it, but it's always worth a re-read)

I'm partial to the term "Libre" myself, though in this case it doesn't matter much, since it's a concept that people aren't familiar with anyway and you have to explain it no matter what word you use.

> Yes, if you change the words used, you end up with an inaccurate statement. Why is that something that needs to be pointed out?

Because he is criticizing that exactly this mingling of terms happened!

> Pointing that out isn't uncharitable.

I'm beginning to feel that you're being willfully incharitable but give you the benefit of doubt that you could be merely misinformed.

Stallman's position is pretty clearly that we should use precise language always. It seems a pretty impeccable position to me. The only people I can think of who benefit from conflating coercive and non-coercive crimes under the same term are the ones who profit from the confusion.

The language used was the correct technical term. There's no imprecision in using it.

It's unfortunate that the legal definition became broader for the same reason I think the common definition shouldn't.

I imagine however that most legislatures get around the issue by having explicit paragraphs establishing harsher punishments for violent rape vs mutually-accepted statutory rape.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com