Comment by selfishgene | Hacker News Reader

Comment by selfishgene | Hacker News Reader

Both MIT and Harvard have admitted to helping Jeffrey Epstein avoid prosecution on federal racketeering charges for the sex-trafficking of minors after they were exposed by whistle-blowers at both of these institutions.

Not sure why it would be appropriate then to exclude Stallman from serving on the Board of the FSF while allowing Rafael Reif, for example, to remain president of MIT after sending a personally signed "thank-you note" to one of the most notorious alleged sex-traffickers and convicted child-rapists in US history:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2020/01/12/after-epstei...

Nor would it be any more appropriate to allow Mr. Seth Lloyd back onto the MIT campus with just a slap on the wrist:

https://thetech.com/2021/02/25/mit-administration-epstein-op...

Or Mr. Martin "Punishment Serves No Noble Purpose" Nowak for that matter either:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/03/26/metro/harvard-sanctio...

This hacker news thread on Nowak is worth reading again:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25442060

So why has nobody drafted petitions to cancel Rafael Reif, Benedict "Dick" Gross, Alan "Dershbag" Dershowitz, Martin Nowak, Steven Pinker, Seth Lloyd, Neri Oxman, Frank Wilczek, and all of the other pedophilia-supporting two-faced phonies that attended Edge Foundation dinners hosted by the convicted child rapist and/or visited him on "Pedophile Isle," where FBI reportedly found instruction manuals that Mr. Epstein had ordered on Amazon that describe how to create a so-called "sex slave," in addition to video tapes containing child pornography that he allegedly recorded using secret cameras that were installed throughout his various residences?

Ito resigned. Kosslyn has repeatdly resigned as he tried to run with his tail between his legs from one university to the next as soon as he started to feel the heat (thanks to some anonymous emails).

It's time to cancel the rest of them too ... and that now includes Claudine Gay at Harvard and Martin Schmidt at MIT who signed off on allowing Nowak and Lloyd to return to their respective campuses !!!

Where is the presumption of innocence, where accusations of guilt must pass a burden of proof?

Stallman is the least 'guilty' of the people you mention, since his 'crimes' consist of the pedantic quibbling over definitions that are typical of an individual suffering from Asperger's syndrome. They are, of course, 'wooden-eared' and easily misrepresented by persons of bad faith such as the petitioners linked above. There is zero positive evidence that he advocates, or ever participated in pedophilia.

I put 'guilty' in scare-quotes because, unless there is solid evidence to the contrary, there is only guilt by association involved. Epstein was a big donor, especially to research programs in physics, and that is the basis of their association with him.

I agree with the rest of your comment, but

> pedantic quibbling over definitions that are typical of an individual suffering from Asperger's syndrome

I don't get why expressing (however unpopular) opinions based on rational arguments should be dismissed as "pedantic quibbling" caused by some underlying mental issue. Just consider how closed-minded, not to mention offensive, is to characterise opinions you disagree with as the product of a mental syndrome.

Besides, Stallman's opinions are not about subtle points without practical consequences. The laws and language in the US (which are, by the way, NOT always shared by the rest of the advanced world) have very practical- sometimes terrible- consequences on people's lives. So I don't think it's fair to call it "pedantic quibbling".

Stallman was responding only to the accusations against his colleague and friend, the late Prof. Marvin Minsky, not making policy prescriptions. It is clear that he did not want to believe that Prof. Minsky was guilty, and he engaged in precisely that direct and unfiltered thinking aloud that can get people who are on the autistic spectrum into trouble.

If that were the case, the "pedantic quibbling" would be exactly of the same sort that takes place every day in courts of justice- and it's at the base of our judicial system, as the right to defense from accusations. Stallman is using it to defend the reputation of a deceased friend, I think it has value.

Anyway, there are many more statements by Stallman that caused outrage, and they are about morals and public policy. And he has the full right to hold and express opinions that go against that of the majority in his time and his country, without them being dismissed as the ramblings of someone suffering from a mental disorder.

Noting that somebody has Asperger's syndrome is not an invitation to dismiss their words. Instead it provides context and insight into why they speak as they do, which furthers correct understanding of what they have said, and their motives for speaking.

I think they speak as they do for the same reasons of everyone else, i.e. because they believe it's right and relevant. If anything (my entirely intuitive, anecdotal take, for what it's worth) people with Asperger tend to be less conscious of social norms and therefore more capable of independent, original thought. Which would make their statements more valuable and less hypocritical.

I agree with you, but given that hypocrisy, indirectness and dissimulation are the norm, an approach to speaking characterized by directness, literalness, and lack of guile can easily be misinterpreted, assigned false motives, or cause upset even if understood correctly.

Ok. But then instead of trying to excuse Stallman by mentioning a possible cognitive disorder, it would make more sense to try to excuse the cancellers- after all they are those who misinterpret, assign motives without reason, and ultimately lack the ability to participate in a rational conversation.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/mit-scientist-stallman-pedophi...

He's never adequately explained from what I can tell why he made those statements in the first place. If he could provide that additional insight, I think it would help others evaluate the sincerity of his apology.

The question today that I have for Mr. Stallman, whom many of us hold in the highest regard for his role in the free software movement, is a very frank one: were his remarks in support of pedophilia designed to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation, much like he observed role-models such as MIT president Rafael Reif do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Reif sent Mr. Epstein a personally signed thank-you note for his donation to the Media Lab, or colleagues like Martin Nowak do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Nowak created a web page on a university website and an office in his department for a convicted child-rapist in exchange for tens of millions of dollars in donations that were promised to his academic program at Harvard and hundreds of millions of dollars in donations, often laundered through Epstein's fellow billionaire pedophile friends like Les Wexner, Glenn Dubin, and Leon Black, to Harvard University, where Mr. Nowak is a professor?

>The question today that I have for Mr. Stallman...

...Is an accusation disguised as cross examination. It is a common technique used in courtrooms and by journalists. Such usage does not serve the interests of clarity, and we need clarity here.

If you believe that Richard Stallman, a notoriously unworldly hippie, was really motivated by greed for grant money, then you have a rather high burden of proof to surmount.

The real, and most plausible, explanation was that Stallman was horrified at the unsavory revelations concerning his good friend and colleague, Prof. Marvin Minsky, and was attempting, innocently, to defend him.

My current understanding, and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong here, is that Mr. Stallman's primary role at the FSF over the past decade has been to raise money for that organization, much like Rafael Reif's primary role at MIT is to raise money for the university.

I am also not asking whether he was motivated "by greed" when he made public statements that appeared to defend Epstein.

Your use of the word "greed" is a distraction away from the real question that I asked previously: were any of Mr. Stallman's statements intended to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation?

That's all that I am asking here!

If his sole intention was to defend his dear friend Mr. Minsky from false accusations of raping a underage girl who was allegedly being trafficked to him by Mr. Epstein on "Pedophile Isle," then why is he attacking the law that protects underage girls from people like Mr. Epstein rather than the accuser who you claim that Mr. Stallman is not prepared to believe?

>My current understanding, and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong here, is that Mr. Stallman's primary role at the FSF over the past decade has been to raise money for that organization, much like Rafael Reif's primary role at MIT is to raise money for the university.

Richard Stallman's primary role was to be honorary head of the FSF, a figurehead and inspiration rather than an active participant, far more interested in upholding its philosophical and ethical basis than in practical matters.

There is a conflation here between 'role' with 'motive.' While one should expect the leaders of an organization such as the FSF to be concerned, even if only indirectly, with raising money, it does not follow that RMS had any such concern. Given his spectacular disregard for tact, diplomacy, interpersonal skills, and even bodily hygiene, RMS would appear to be singularly unsuited to any role resembling that of a lobbyist or fundraiser. Mr. Stallman is simply far to unworldly to care about money.

>were any of Mr. Stallman's statements intended to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation?

Again, that is a leading question which invites the hearer to assume the truth of what is being asked, reversing the burden of proof. This is a mere rhetorical trick, not a serious question.

>If his sole intention was to defend his dear friend Mr. Minsky from false accusations of raping a underage girl who was allegedly being trafficked to him by Mr. Epstein on "Pedophile Isle," then why is he attacking the law that protects underage girls from people like Mr. Epstein rather than the accuser who you claim that Mr. Stallman is not prepared to believe?

This is another attempt to impute a motive to RMS which he simply did not have. Yes, his unguarded, over-analytic, response to the accusations against his friend provides plenty of ammunition to those who would misrepresent his position, but it cannot be said to follow that his intention was to provide cover for Epstein, and his response to the ensuing controversy linked elsewhere in this thread makes it clear that he had no such motive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com