He said this:
"
Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem
[...]
Let’s presume that was true
[...]
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.
[...]
"
I have no clue how plausible this scenario is, but I don't see any reason to infer anything about the character of Stallman based on him suggesting it.
Well you can infer things about his character based on his support of pedophilia in general.
> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
> There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
These are not the types of statements a non pedophile would make. People who are not pedophile's don't randomly argue that pedophilia is not harmful.
IMO, all aspects of this subject are FUBAR beyond belief. Anyone who touches it from any side is unlikely to have any positive results.
I think the real mistake here that rms made was to try to apply any form of logic to what is a highly emotionally charged situation, and especially to try to do that in any kind of a shared forum.
And yes, I am fully aware of the irony of my doing the same thing here.
I’ve had my disagreements with rms over the years on certain issues, but frankly, I think he should have been smarter than this.
I suppose Mr. Stallman has never heard of "grooming." It's entirely possible they were "willing" in an denotative sense of the word, but given maleability of the young mind it's not exactly informed and willing consent as between two standard adults.
There's a reason teachers in many states cannot have relations with former students no matter the age of consent and of those involved.
But doesn't using a phrase like this open up the very matter that Stallman is trying to implore the forum to consider? "Standard adults" is not concrete language.
Can someone be a "standard adult" at 17? I don't know. I do know that I (and everyone I know) was having sex at 17. I'm male (and white, and middle-class), so my surface for being victimized in this way is much different from the victim in this case. But I think Stallman's point is that calling this "rape" merely because of the jurisdiction in which it happened serves to trivialize the word "rape" rather than add clarity to Epstein's conduct.
It does not appear to me that Stallman is defending what we now know of Epstein's abhorrent conduct. Instead, he's engaging in a very reasonable debate about the terminology of accusations like these.
It's possible that I'm misreading this whole thing - if that's true, please point it out. But the article seems to indicate that the worst of Stallman's remarks are here:
<unknown>: Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it __rape__ in the Virgin Islands
<Stallman>:
Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term ‘sexual assault’ is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone.
----
On this specific passage (and again, there may be other bad stuff I'm not seeing), I basically agree with Stallman. Rape is a serious, heinous offense to nature. It is morally absurd - and insensitive to victims - to define it as the person to whom Stallman is responding is apparently trying to do.
The USA is a place of rampant sexism and obsession with alcohol (particularly its use as a date-rape drug, although for some reason we don't call it that). Rape is disgustingly commonplace. Talking about the laws of the Virgin Islands as they apply to a 17-year-old is a great example of distraction from this reality.
particularly its use as a date-rape drug, although for some reason we don't call it that
That's a rather strange comment. Date rape drugging happens without the victim's knowledge or consent. That's markedly different from a person willingly drinking alcohol.
His definition of "sexual assault" doesn't match with the legal definition. Not by a long shot.
It is not a reasonable debate about the terminology to throw away all current definitions and create new ones, without at least explaining why the current one is wrong.
I always find it weird that we care about what software engineers think about things completely unrelated to software engineers.
Why do we care what Richard Stallman thinks about Epstein? Why does his experience with GNU and Hurd immediately make him expert about human trafficking?
Ask yourself why billions are spent on celebrity endorsements. To first
order, the opinion of a globally accomplished person matters more, if only
as a convenient point of reference. You can argue "non-expert" all day, but
the market doesn't care.
Be careful before posting a reply to this one... There are many subjects that will naturally devolve into a witch hunt if you go even slightly off script... even if you're just playing devils advocate.
In a company context I would not count on other people to give you the benefit of the doubt for not immediately raising pitch forks when something gets controversial. The needs of the loudest and most upset outweigh the thoughts of the few.
[+] [-] devit|6 years ago|reply
He said this: " Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem [...] Let’s presume that was true [...] 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. [...] "
I have no clue how plausible this scenario is, but I don't see any reason to infer anything about the character of Stallman based on him suggesting it.
[+] [-] notus|6 years ago|reply
> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
> There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
These are not the types of statements a non pedophile would make. People who are not pedophile's don't randomly argue that pedophilia is not harmful.
[+] [-] bradknowles|6 years ago|reply
I think the real mistake here that rms made was to try to apply any form of logic to what is a highly emotionally charged situation, and especially to try to do that in any kind of a shared forum.
And yes, I am fully aware of the irony of my doing the same thing here.
I’ve had my disagreements with rms over the years on certain issues, but frankly, I think he should have been smarter than this.
[+] [-] mav3rick|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sitkack|6 years ago|reply
RMS isn't the Free Software movement, but this still disappoints me.
[+] [-] mieseratte|6 years ago|reply
There's a reason teachers in many states cannot have relations with former students no matter the age of consent and of those involved.
[+] [-] jMyles|6 years ago|reply
But doesn't using a phrase like this open up the very matter that Stallman is trying to implore the forum to consider? "Standard adults" is not concrete language.
Can someone be a "standard adult" at 17? I don't know. I do know that I (and everyone I know) was having sex at 17. I'm male (and white, and middle-class), so my surface for being victimized in this way is much different from the victim in this case. But I think Stallman's point is that calling this "rape" merely because of the jurisdiction in which it happened serves to trivialize the word "rape" rather than add clarity to Epstein's conduct.
[+] [-] jMyles|6 years ago|reply
It does not appear to me that Stallman is defending what we now know of Epstein's abhorrent conduct. Instead, he's engaging in a very reasonable debate about the terminology of accusations like these.
It's possible that I'm misreading this whole thing - if that's true, please point it out. But the article seems to indicate that the worst of Stallman's remarks are here:
<unknown>: Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it __rape__ in the Virgin Islands
<Stallman>:
Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term ‘sexual assault’ is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone.
---- On this specific passage (and again, there may be other bad stuff I'm not seeing), I basically agree with Stallman. Rape is a serious, heinous offense to nature. It is morally absurd - and insensitive to victims - to define it as the person to whom Stallman is responding is apparently trying to do.
The USA is a place of rampant sexism and obsession with alcohol (particularly its use as a date-rape drug, although for some reason we don't call it that). Rape is disgustingly commonplace. Talking about the laws of the Virgin Islands as they apply to a 17-year-old is a great example of distraction from this reality.
[+] [-] solipsism|6 years ago|reply
That's a rather strange comment. Date rape drugging happens without the victim's knowledge or consent. That's markedly different from a person willingly drinking alcohol.
[+] [-] eesmith|6 years ago|reply
It is not a reasonable debate about the terminology to throw away all current definitions and create new ones, without at least explaining why the current one is wrong.
[+] [-] patthebunny|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bb88|6 years ago|reply
Why do we care what Richard Stallman thinks about Epstein? Why does his experience with GNU and Hurd immediately make him expert about human trafficking?
[+] [-] epakai|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimmyvalmer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jchallis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Uptrenda|6 years ago|reply
Be careful before posting a reply to this one... There are many subjects that will naturally devolve into a witch hunt if you go even slightly off script... even if you're just playing devils advocate.
In a company context I would not count on other people to give you the benefit of the doubt for not immediately raising pitch forks when something gets controversial. The needs of the loudest and most upset outweigh the thoughts of the few.
I can see this getting ugly...
[+] [-] njn|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jimmyvalmer|6 years ago|reply
two out of three a'int bad.
[+] [-] bonerman69|6 years ago|reply