Hacker News Reader

Comment by hourislate | Hacker News Reader

It's sad that the media outlets and "Woke Twitter", etc, were misquoting him saying he was defending Jeffrey Epstein and doing everything they could to get him fired from the FSF, etc.

What's even worse was none of these "WOKE" were even concerned with "the victims of sexual assault" or any other noble cause. This was organized for ideological reasons and their goal was and is to replace everyone in a relevant position with ideologically aligned people. They are the kind of people that believe that any speech or freedoms that run counter to their agenda should be regulated to fit their definition of a common good.

He did nothing wrong. He is a brilliant person.

View on HN

The worst part is that the blog post that started a lot of that literally quoted RMS one sentence and the rephrased it as something completely different in the very next sentence. And nobody called them out for it.

He basically just said "Minsky may not have known because Epstein most likely forced the girl into acting as if her was willing" (paraphrased from memory) and it got turned into "RMS said the girl was willing".

Yes, the full quote with context makes it worse, not better.

Does it tho? There's definitely a difference between having sex with a 17yo when you think it's consentual without knowing someone else is forcing her in the background vs. forcing her yourself. Although I personally don't believe it, it is theoretically possible that Minsky didn't know - pointing that out, especially when very little information was available, seems at worst insensitive, but sounds mainly like a very logic-driven mind taking the presumption of innocence very seriously.

He also had a very good point about making the distinction between "sexual relations with a minor" and "sexual assault"/"rape" - again, I agree that both should be illegal and punushed harshly, but is having consentual sex with a 17yo really AS BAD as forcing yourself upon a person of any age?

As for his last point about the absurdity of the exact same thing being rape if done today, but perfectly normal if done mere days later: isn't it kinda absurd? Like, yes, there needs to be a boundary, but isn't it insane that there are only two categories: <18 is one of the worst crimes possible and >18 is perfectly legal. I don't know a better system and wouldn't even attempt to propose a better one, but surely this isn't the best we can do?

To be clear: I don't particularly like Stallman and gladly point out his sexist and generally rude remarks and behavior when people glorify him, but this all just seems like a person only looking at the logical side of the story and ending up sounding extremely insensitive. The term "neurodivergent" would usually get thrown in here, although I'm reluctant to use it since it's far too broad and I don't have any specific information about RMS.

Inappropriate and insensitive? Yes! Defending rape, as some media outlets framed it? Not even close!

Minsky was an obese, balding old man. To imply that he should have expected or not had even a tiny bit of concern that an attractive young woman on a private island was throwing herself at him is ridiculous.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/lomkCENpPXufPOLUkw6mzlgBljQ=...

If I were in my 60s and a 17 year old child was throwing themselves at me for sex, I would question what was going on. The fact it was on a private island in the middle of the Caribbean makes the feigned ignorance laughable. There's no planet on which the circumstances should have left Minsky with any doubt about what he was getting himself into.

I'll just say this HN: shame on you. The fact there are so many people here willing to defend someone that was participating in sex trafficking is pretty disgusting. I have no time for "cancel culture" or "SJW's" but this isn't even a little bit that. There's no planet on which Minsky didn't know exactly what he was doing. To defend those actions is honestly pretty abhorrent. I hope none of you have daughters, and if you do I hope you think long and hard about how you'd feel if they were in that situation.

Yeah, obviously I don't believe that he though she did it because she liked him.

But there's a big spectrum of possibilities from "she freely accepted payment for it" to "she was kidnapped, tied up and shipped in a crate, then forced under threat of violence". Before we knew Epstein was a monster, her being a very highly-paid prostitute would've seemed like the more likely explanation.

We need a term for people in between "creep" and "monster" - judging by this specific example, Minsky was in that middle. Maybe he did know exactly what was happening in the background and that would make him a monster, but I don't think that information was available at the time.

There's no way for a person to know for sure how old another person is. Many girls at 17 have reached sexual maturity and could be 25 from their looks. Calling a 17yo a "child" is not accurate.

there's a reason stores ask for an id when it comes to selling liquor up into women (and men as well!) 30s. I have no idea about legality about prostitution in the carrabean.

In addition to that, many countries have laws that arent as inane as the US when it comes to sex between teenage minors and adults, for most of Europe it's between 14 and sixteen, although rules for a maximum legal partner age may further restrict this.

I'm not saying I think Minsky was unanware, nor do I say I think his actions are right or even non repelling, but I think it's very clear where rms is coming from.

I know a bunch of musicians and DJ's and many of them are.. not good looking.. but young (legal but not by that much) women still often throw themselves at them, just because they have some perceived prestige or fame or something. It does happen more than you might like to think, without anything nefarious going on.

> he fact there are so many people here willing to defend someone that was participating in sex trafficking is pretty disgusting.

Nobody is defending Epstein. If anything, we're arguing that the blame lies squarely with him and that he was an evil, sick man.

I'm not even really arguing on Minsky's behalf, although given the reports I've heard that he didn't actually engage in sex and given what I said above, and the fact that she most definitely was groomed and coerced to act a certain way, its not at all a given that he's guilty. Maybe he is, but we don't know. Also, as f1refly says, age is hard to judge. I personally find it impossible to tell many ages apart. Maybe if you put a 17 year old and a 25 year old side by side I could, but in isolation, many look more or less the same to me. Of course, I'm also not having sex with that age group. Still, telling what age someone is can be very hard and 17 year olds do often look older.

What I'm arguing is that the comments RMS made were not at all bad and taken completely out of context (and outright changed!) to demonize him.

How? The full quote says that she presented her in a way that Epstein groomed and coerced her to. That is, the blame for anything that may have happened is clearly on Epstein. How does that make it worse?

What Stallman said verbatim:

>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.

We'll set aside for a moment that he's trying to argue the only way that sexual assault can occur is if the attacker literally assaults the victim. It wasn't really the time or the place to try defending a friend by arguing semantics given the accusations.

I guess if some billionaire flew me to a private island in the Carribean where young attractive girls started throwing themselves at me, and I was the age and... attractiveness of Minsky, giant alarm bells would have been blaring in my head and I think that of pretty much every sane American male. To not take the entirety of the situation into account and try to paint it as an innocent "I met a girl at the bar who lied about how old she was" is more than a bit disingenuous

> I guess if some billionaire flew me to a private island in the Carribean where young attractive girls started throwing themselves at me, and I was the age and... attractiveness of Minsky, giant alarm bells would have been blaring in my head [...]

As you may or may not know, some women will voluntarily have sex with men in exchange for money, no coercion or assault required. If a billionaire flew you to a private island with attractive woman offering to have sex with you, then the presumption that those women are paid prostitutes is not that far-fetched.

>As you may or may not know, some women will voluntarily have sex with men in exchange for money, no coercion or assault required.

Which is also illegal. And if you're having sex with a teenager for money, she probably has some pretty major life issues going on. Which as a 60-year-old - you should know better. Period.

>If a billionaire flew you to a private island with attractive woman offering to have sex with you, then the presumption that those women are paid prostitutes is not that far-fetched.

So... sex trafficking. By definition. Which is illegal both where it took place and in all party's country of origin.

> Which is also illegal.

Where? Even within the US, prostitution laws vary wildly.

> And if you're having sex with a teenager for money, she probably has some pretty major life issues going on.

Did Minsky know that they weren't adults? Do you have a source for that?

> So... sex trafficking. By definition.

Wrong. Not even by definition. If you disagree, show me a valid definition of sex trafficking that includes "flying to an island to have sex with voluntary prostitutes".

>Where? Even within the US, prostitution laws vary wildly.

I guess it's fortunate we have that information:

Minsky is from Massachusets: illegal. Guifreye and Epstein Florida: illegal. Little St. James: illegal.

>Did Minsky know that they weren't adults? Do you have a source for that?

You entirely missed the point. A 60 year old man sleeping with someone young enough to be his granddaughter is disgusting. Full stop. The fact that AT BEST he knew she was a prostitute being sex trafficked makes it worse.

>Wrong. Not even by definition. If you disagree, show me a valid definition of sex trafficking that includes "flying to an island to have sex with voluntary prostitutes".

It is LITERALLY the definition:

>the illegal business of recruiting, harboring, transporting, obtaining, or providing a person and especially a minor for the purpose of sex

> You entirely missed the point. A 60 year old man sleeping with someone young enough to be his granddaughter is disgusting. Full stop.

You're moving the goal post. At first your claim was that Minsky should have known the women were coerced because otherwise they wouldn't have had sex with him. Now that I've refuted your claim, you shifted your position to, paraphrased, "he's a criminal because what he did offends my moral compass".

> It is LITERALLY the definition: the illegal business of recruiting, harboring, transporting, obtaining, or providing a person and especially a minor for the purpose of sex

That's not a valid definition of "sex trafficking", which requires an individual to be exploited and/or coerced to perform sexual acts. We don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were exploited and/or coerced, and we don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were minors.

>You're moving the goal post. At first your claim was that Minsky should have known the women were coerced because otherwise they wouldn't have had sex with him. Now that I've refuted your claim, you shifted your position to, paraphrased, "he's a criminal because what he did offends my moral compass".

I didn't shift my claim in the least, you attempted to imply that prostitution is legal. I pointed out that regardless of the fact you're wrong, and it isn't legal, it's disgusting. No goal post was moved, you just keep doubling down on something that is both morally reprehensible AND illegal.

>That's not a valid definition of "sex trafficking", which requires an individual to be exploited and/or coerced to perform sexual acts. We don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were exploited and/or coerced, and we don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were minors.

Except it doesn't. In fact the law states the exact opposite of your claim. You're batting 0 trying to defend sexual predators here.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/787.06

>(g) For commercial sexual activity in which any child under the age of 18 is involved commits a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life, or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. In a prosecution under this paragraph in which the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the person who was subject to human trafficking, the state need not prove that the defendant knew that the person had not attained the age of 18 years.

> You're batting 0 trying to defend sexual predators here.

This is what's wrong with public discourse in the current cancel culture climate: One cannot even discuss facts without being accused of defending the worst kinds of criminals. Way to go! What's next, are you going to accuse me of being a potential sexual predator if I don't shut up?

> A 60 year old man sleeping with someone young enough to be his granddaughter is disgusting.

Sure, but from all accounts I've seen, its not even clear that he did sleep with her. It seems likely that he did not.

But its really not uncommon for older guys to be with young (usually 20's) women, look at older male actors. The lady in question was 17 IIRC, its not inconceivable to me that a 17 year old could be mistaken for early 20's.

I mean, I personally still think that's wrong, but my point is that it totally does happen, without any coercion or anything like that, so that it could also happen when someone underage is mistaken for someone slightly older, especially if groomed and coerced by Epstein, doesn't seem inconceivable to me.

Doesn't make it right, but its more nuanced than "he's old therefore he should have known she was coerced" (and again, apparently he didn't actually do anything anyway).

if you're having sex with a teenager for money, she probably has some pretty major life issues going on

Once in a year I end up in a local strip club (non-US; never had sex or something there, but it’s not uncommon for guests to “continue elsewhere”). Spoke with many of girls, and they are usually not poor or orphaned, it’s just the way of life. “Don’t wanna to sit in office for a mediocre pay”. They are yesterday’s teenagers who sometimes earn as much as local software guys or lawyers in their 30s.

Which as a 60-year-old - you should know better

As such an experienced person you’d know how different people are and how many world niches exist beyond a “normal life”.

I know a number of musicians and DJ's and some women will voluntarily have sex with them, just because they have some small amount of fame. Not even money is required.

> We'll set aside for a moment that he's trying to argue the only way that sexual assault can occur is if the attacker literally assaults the victim.

So was it figurative assault or do words not have literal meaning anymore?

Those who read the extensive threads back in 2019 will remember that Minsky, at the time, commented to one of his associates about the interaction with the young woman. That’s how Stallman heard of it.

And, further, there is no evidence that Minsky took any further action relative to her. Quite the contrary - he seemed bemused by the situation.

Some of the discussion in these threads strongly implies that Minsky had a sexual interaction and that Stallman was defending him. This is wrong, in both cases.

Source please?

Minsky’s wife denied the allegations.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/09/jeffrey-epsteins-alleged-sex-s...

You will have to dig out the 2019 emails yourself, I didn’t bookmark them.

Eyewitness: Minsky rebuffed her

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/

Indeed, the woke are nearly always lying in cancel cases (at the very least by omission, often directly) and engaging in blatant defamation.

Many cases could be taken to court, even in the USA with its relaxed defamation laws.

Then why aren't they, more often?

Most people probably can't afford to unless it's a slam dunk

There's a reason wokeism is fastest growing religion in the world.

What is the reason?

I believe it is natural human social behaviour that is simply emerging again after a long quiet period after the dissolution of organized religion. IMO, all the horrible mob mentality and violence that used to be blamed on religion, really didn't have much to do with religion or its associated belief system.. rather it's just ugly group and social dynamics that reemerge the moment people come back together under any umbrella. Turning away from religion wasn't the achievement we estimated it to be, much of the problematic elements associated with it persist unabated.

Even non-religious people have been saying for _generations_ that mass turning away from religion without redirecting the genuine human needs it fulfills was going to be trouble.

If they keep eating one another so publicly and randomly, they won't achieve the necessary internal stability.

Successful authoritarian movements have a clear set of rules that make you safe as a member, and only turn to internal purges once they destroyed any external opposition.

Are you saying that they haven't destroyed all (effective) external opposition?

Locally (universities), maybe.

As far as the entire USA or perhaps the entire Western world goes, no.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com