Hacker News Reader

Comment by elif | Hacker News Reader

"argued in an email thread last week that Marvin Minskey, the late AI pioneer and longtime MIT professor, was unfairly accused of sexual assault and that one of the underage girls in Epstein’s sex trafficking operation likely presented herself as “entirely” willing to have sex"

MIT scientist Richard Stallman resigns in the wake of his Jeffrey Epstein remarks https://share.google/L9w5zAnDjbvnrWhex

View on HN

Yes, that is the Minsky comment I mentioned that apparently renders people illiterate and incapable of understanding what they read.

What Stallman said is "the people who were trafficked, probably did not tell the people they were trafficked to, that they were being trafficked and were there unwillingly."

I don't see how saying that is a "defense of Jeffrey Epstein".

"Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.

Through personal conversations in recent years, I’ve learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per1 psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.

Children: Humans up to age 12 or 13 are children. After that, they become adolescents or teenagers. Let’s resist the practice of infantilizing teenagers, by not calling them “children”."

THESE ARE THE WORDS RICHARD STALLMAN POSTED ON HIS OWN WEBSITE WITHOUT BEING PROMPTED.

please defend this. i really really want to see you stoop this low.

EDIT: OKAY i'm being DOWNVOTED for bringing these words to light. officially y'all are now covering up for child sex criminals. Sickening.

or am i "not understanding his meaning" here somehow again?

Look, we know you think you understand what you think you read.

It's just that you don't seem to realize that what you perennially appear to have understood, is not what anyone wrote.

Why would I defend that? That part's pretty cut and dry.

Him posting that doesn't have anything to do with you telling lies about defending Epstein. Both are shitty.

Is it now appropriate for me to tell lies about you defending Epstein, because you did something shitty (falsely accusing others of defending Epstein)?

I'll explain instead of just adding the easily discoverable quote.

He is assigning the blame to Epstein's victims.

How is that assigning the blame to Epstein's victims?

The scenario being described was that Epstein was ordering some of his victims, who were ostensibly employed as masseuses at his resort, to go and offer sex to specific people who were at an event taking place there.

You don't keep a sex trafficking operation going as long as he did if you don't coerce victims in that situation to play along with the story that they are masseuses and that the offer of sex is coming from them.

"the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing"

if you dont understand what that is saying, i can't help you.

He's saying that Marvin Minsk might not have known that he was on pedo entrapment island and may have assumed a teenage girl was of age. Telling the entrapment targets the deal up front wouldn't be very smart. This is not blaming the girls, it was Epstein's setup.

"I thought she was not a child" is never a defense for raping a child.

Legally, no, you are right.

When third parties are discussing the crime, "the person who committed the crime may not have known they were committing a crime" is a valid, reasonable thing for a person to say as part of a discussion.

Doing so is not a defense of the person who trafficked the child to be raped.

You really do have a hard time responding to what people actually said.

I fear you are the one who does not understand what that is saying.

"The trafficked person did not reveal they were being trafficked, because they were trapped on an island with their abuser and were afraid".

This is not blaming the victim, nor a defense of the abuser.

In statutory child rape, it does not matter in any way or any context what the behavior of the victim was.

Sure, yes, we agree crimes were committed. By Epstein and Minsky.

The statements that Stallman made about the nature of those crimes, were not what you claim they are.

Minsky turned down the offer according to witnesses at the event. The only crime was committed by Epstein.

She was 16 which was above the age of consent there.

From Minsky's point of view a girl who was old enough to legally consent to sex offered to have sex with him. According to witnesses at the event he turned down the offer.

> "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing"

You can't see the difference between "she presented herself to him as entirely willing" and "she was entirely willing"?

Stallman may be a dick, but at least he's precise with his speech - this means exactly what it says, and in no way means what you want it to mean.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com