139 karma · joined September 25, 2025
The Nazi example was clear and useful in the original post. It's a thing that almost everyone will be on the same side of. The point is that it is an extreme example, not the most generic possible example, in order to demonstrate the point that "there exists at least one scenario where being nice is not mandatory."
Because the original example was already sufficient for the purpose, it comes across as suspect that you are suggesting that he should not have used it as an example. The natural suspicion would be that you are in some way trying to blur the separation between Nazis and run of the mill murderers of innocents, I.e. implying perhaps that they are not much worse than others.
I don't know what your intent is, but many believe Nazis to be much worse than ordinary innocent killers, so your statement implying they are the same is probably rubbing those people the wrong way
Stallman comes across as discerning here because he's drawing a distinction between two things (sexually assaulting someone who is resisting vs sexually assaulting someone who is presenting as willing), but there is no real difference. The problem is not in his verbiage. The problem is that his underlying message is wrong.
He is trying to create a rationalization for why minsky's reputation should not be harmed. If Minsky flew to Epstein's private island and had sex with a very young girl of unknown age, his reputation should be harmed whether or not she "presented as willing."
You can make a system "more" secure than other systems, but you cannot make it truly secure.