7 ms·

I grow more and more tired of these discussions. Talks of banishing people because they’re ignorant, rude, sexist. Conferences are getting shut down, people are

I grow more and more tired of these discussions. Talks of banishing people because they’re ignorant, rude, sexist. Conferences are getting shut down, people are having their world turned upside down for being ignorant. Every topic is a hot potato. I feel i can’t even have a reasonable conversation about diversity, ignorance, or whatever the controversy of the day is. It’s easier to just be quiet than express opinions.

pjc50 7y ago
> Talks of banishing people because they’re ignorant, rude, sexist. The problem is that not getting those people to stop doing that - or, if necessary, excluding them - causes them to exclude other people.
- interfixus 7y ago
  Who are the people thus excluded by RMS?
  - mikeash 7y ago
    People who aren’t comfortable associating with someone who defends child rape.
    - interfixus 7y ago
      Which - to the best of my knowledge - Stallman has never defended.
      - Jonnax 7y ago
        “ I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children.” https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
        AstralStorm 7y ago
        It does, but how badly, it depends? What are the worst kinds, what are relatively harmless if any? Does our current handling thereof help or harm? If those questions are not answered, we're flying blind. Also there are some stupid things done like putting 18 y.o. boy in jail for sleeping with his 16 y.o. girlfriend, consensually. Someone should do actual not politically correct and not victim culture motivated research. It would be hard work, reaching out to the victims and running longitudinal observation. If there is such research, I'd like to read it.
        DanBC 7y ago
        Child sexual abuse is strongly linked to a range of mental illness later on in life. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30286-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0... > Someone should do actual not politically correct and not victim culture motivated research. Someone should take a few minutes to read the reams of research that has been written about this rather than parotting NAMBLA discussion points.
        eesmith 7y ago
        I'll add that "harm" doesn't make a difference - lack of consent is what's at issue. If someone has sex with a woman in a coma, there's no harm to the woman. There's no need for physical force. It's still sexual assault. Unconscious people, children, and sex slaves are not able to give meaningful consent. Stallman doesn't appear to understand the role of consent in these laws.
      - shagie 7y ago
        https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci... has a redacted email thread.
        interfixus 7y ago
        For those who might prefer unredacted, here's what Stallman is reported to have said: "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."
        mjg59 7y ago
        Of course, the definition of "sexual assault" presumes no such thing.
        AstralStorm 7y ago
        The law definition in the United States, you mean. In Poland, it requires use of force or coercion on part of the person doing the sexual act. Without it, say drugging and then letting someone else do it, it's "just" assault. (The other person is committing sexual assault.) What Epstein did is called pimping and also punishable by law. Potentially also abduction or assault. Forcing a minor to commence a sexual act is a separate category of pimping (pimping a minor) that's yet more harshly punished. Sex with minor is also punishable by law separately. (With some exceptions and discretion by the judge.) Now there is a strong association with sexual assault, though circumstances can leave it as just sex with minor. Depends on prosecutor and judge. So it is likely Epstein would be convicted of multiple crimes and potentially recidivism (repeat offense) and organized crime, while Minsky would be convicted for sex with minor, not any kind of assault. Note that repeat offense means Epstein would not be offered bail nor allowed a reduced sentence.
      - mikeash 7y ago
        Maybe read the link about which we are all talking.
        interfixus 7y ago
        A less condescending tone would be appreciated. I read that article - and formed certain opinions about it - long before it was posted to HN.
        mikeash 7y ago
        The whole thing is about RMS defending child rape on the basis that legal age limits are stupid and that it’s not rape if the child is willing. If you managed to miss all that then maybe try again.
        interfixus 7y ago
        If you could kindly point me to the passage where Stallman talks about rape, I would be much obliged.
        mikeash 7y ago
        “...the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.” The context is an underage sex slave. Having sex with her is rape by definition in two different ways.
- prepend 7y ago
  I don’t buy that. Or at least I don’t buy that more are being excluded by RMS remaining vs banishment. I think it’s easier to be inclusive by people’s preference to join rather than to try to guess about unknown groups that may be be comfortable enough to participate but since we don’t know them we can’t query them. I don’t think RMS is scaring off good developers. I also don’t understand what kind of developer would be put off by his statements so much they would not collaborate on a project.
  - mjg59 7y ago
    People have literally talked about how they left the field because of RMS's behaviour. This isn't a case where we're randomly guessing that he discourages participation, we know he does.
    - prepend 7y ago
      “People” is not very specific. This is a tricky discussion topic because I don’t really care if people left the field without more info. Were they awesome programmers? We’re they mean people? Was it a net positive that they left the field? I have no way of knowing this. I’ve worked on a lot of projects and software is weird and awesome because the impact of one person is so amazing. Lots of people can come and go without making a difference. So discouraging participation isn’t some absolute evil to be avoided. Sometimes it actually helps cut down on noise per the whole Brooks Law kind of thing.
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  > The problem is that not getting those people to stop doing that - or, if necessary, excluding them - causes them to exclude other people. And getting those people to stop excludes people who don't like for anyone to force them to stop and to cave to the mobs.
  - krapp 7y ago
    Why are the people who object to Stallman's views "mobs" - a rabble mindlessly driven by rage and conformity - but "ignorant, rude and sexist" people who agree with him are not? I have yet to see a mob mentality like that which forms to defend Richard Stallman at all costs.
yeahthat 7y ago
It turns out that if the opinion in question is “maybe pedophilia is ok” I am OK with the speaker being shut down and/or banished.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- prepend 7y ago
  It depends a lot on the context. I wouldn’t want to work on a project with a pedophile. But if someone was having a conversation about early Islam and trying to understand the cultures of that time, etc then that’s an example where your statement wouldn’t be ban worthy. I just don’t think there’s a clear set of bad things that can’t be said. Programmers I know are frequently doing thought exercises so even something like “what if murder were legal” would need to be taken in the context of the conversation to even understand what the author was advocating.
  - dymk 7y ago
    > It depends a lot on the context The context is Epstein and RMS claiming that this woman trafficked by him was willing. We don't need to pontificate about all these hypothetical scenarios; this concrete thing that he's defending is pretty disgusting.
    - gowld 7y ago
      Your factual claims are not true, probably because you only read the lies published on Medium and salacious reposted, and did not read the source material. RMS surmised that the woman "presented herself as willing" to Minsky. His point is that Minsky likely (in his estimation) was not aware of the coercion. He did not defend the coercion.
ndidi 7y ago
>I feel i can’t even have a reasonable conversation about diversity, ignorance, or whatever the controversy of the day is. Conform, or else. I mean, I don't agree with what rms said, and I think sexual degenerates should be shot in the head, but Jesus, what the fuck do I care about his stance on politics. It's not my fucking problem.
- pjc50 7y ago
  "I don't care about his stance on politics but I think he should be shot in the head" is one hell of a take.
  - ndidi 7y ago
    In this context that's implying that rms has done things such as looking for child pornography online, which is something we don't know and can't prove. Defending the right to do something != doing something
tom_mellior 7y ago
> Every topic is a hot potato. Yeah, you can't even condone raping children anymore. What has the world come to? More seriously, the point is that this topic is not enough of a hot potato if RMS is comfortable talking about it in public.
- pault 7y ago
  I don't disagree with you, but I think a lot of commenters here are talking past each other. We all agree that having sex with a 17 year old girl who is being abused and manipulated by a billionaire pedophile is inexcusable. I personally don't like the use of the phrase "child rape" to describe it because it's the same phrase you would use to describe the violent rape of a toddler. If the terminology we use to debate this subject equates those two acts, how can we ever have a reasoned discussion? One of those things makes you a sleezeball, and certainly deserving of all the social and professional consequences of your actions. The other makes you a vile monster, and deserving of removal from the earth. Both are crimes that warrant prosection. Failing to acknowledge the difference between the two is a dangerous path to go down.
  - tom_mellior 7y ago
    Fair enough. My comment above used obvious overstated sarcasm, but I agree that these things are different. Substitute "statutory rape of a minor" or something like that above. I don't think this means that we should judge RMS any differently. > having sex with a 17 year old girl who is being abused and manipulated by a billionaire pedophile [...] makes you a sleezeball Not the greatest way to put this, I think.
    - gowld 7y ago
      The "overstated sarcasm" and faked quotations is literally what pushed RMS out of his job. Congratulations.
Jonnax 7y ago
Why can't you have a reasonable discussion? Stallman emailed a big mailing list for a computer science department the following about a child sex trafficking victim: "The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem…Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). ... We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing." Is this acceptable to you?
- codr7 7y ago
  To imagine a scenario, sure. I can imagine plenty of scenarios. Epstein liked to film his visitors and use the material to blackmail them. Knowing that, it's not unreasonable to assume that he ordered his slaves to behave nice and inviting. You should be very careful about drawing lines between what you can and can't think. Once you do that, it doesn't really matter if you call it Religion or Science; you're still hosed.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    He’s not just imagining a scenario. He’s saying that this is the most likely scenario, and that the fact that she presented as willing makes everything totally cool.
    - prepend 7y ago
      > totally cool I didnt read that in the email thread. Human trafficked sex slaves appearing willing to Minsky does not mean everything is totally cool.
      - mikeash 7y ago
        He keeps saying it shouldn’t qualify as sexual assault or rape. If it’s not that then what is it?
        prepend 7y ago
        For Minsksy it’s at least statutory rape, not cool at all. For Epstein it’s the whole gamut of messed up stuff, also not cool. It seems to me that Stallman is saying that qualifying language is valuable as statutory rape in USVI (and most other jurisdictions) has a much smaller penalty than other forms of sexual assault. So using the same word for Epstein and Minsky is not fair, I think, to their victims. But saying “use more accurate language” is not the same as saying what Minsky is accused of is totally cool.
jrnichols 7y ago
> It’s easier to just be quiet than express opinions. It's no wonder that instead of staying quiet, many wind up at echo chambers like Voat and Gab.

pjc50 7y ago

> Talks of banishing people because they’re ignorant, rude, sexist. The problem is that not getting those people to stop doing that - or, if necessary, excluding them - causes them to exclude other people.

interfixus 7y ago
Who are the people thus excluded by RMS?
- mikeash 7y ago
  People who aren’t comfortable associating with someone who defends child rape.
  - interfixus 7y ago
    Which - to the best of my knowledge - Stallman has never defended.
    - Jonnax 7y ago
      “ I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children.” https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        It does, but how badly, it depends? What are the worst kinds, what are relatively harmless if any? Does our current handling thereof help or harm? If those questions are not answered, we're flying blind. Also there are some stupid things done like putting 18 y.o. boy in jail for sleeping with his 16 y.o. girlfriend, consensually. Someone should do actual not politically correct and not victim culture motivated research. It would be hard work, reaching out to the victims and running longitudinal observation. If there is such research, I'd like to read it.
        DanBC 7y ago
        Child sexual abuse is strongly linked to a range of mental illness later on in life. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30286-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0... > Someone should do actual not politically correct and not victim culture motivated research. Someone should take a few minutes to read the reams of research that has been written about this rather than parotting NAMBLA discussion points.
        eesmith 7y ago
        I'll add that "harm" doesn't make a difference - lack of consent is what's at issue. If someone has sex with a woman in a coma, there's no harm to the woman. There's no need for physical force. It's still sexual assault. Unconscious people, children, and sex slaves are not able to give meaningful consent. Stallman doesn't appear to understand the role of consent in these laws.
    - shagie 7y ago
      https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci... has a redacted email thread.
      - interfixus 7y ago
        For those who might prefer unredacted, here's what Stallman is reported to have said: "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."
        mjg59 7y ago
        Of course, the definition of "sexual assault" presumes no such thing.
        AstralStorm 7y ago
        The law definition in the United States, you mean. In Poland, it requires use of force or coercion on part of the person doing the sexual act. Without it, say drugging and then letting someone else do it, it's "just" assault. (The other person is committing sexual assault.) What Epstein did is called pimping and also punishable by law. Potentially also abduction or assault. Forcing a minor to commence a sexual act is a separate category of pimping (pimping a minor) that's yet more harshly punished. Sex with minor is also punishable by law separately. (With some exceptions and discretion by the judge.) Now there is a strong association with sexual assault, though circumstances can leave it as just sex with minor. Depends on prosecutor and judge. So it is likely Epstein would be convicted of multiple crimes and potentially recidivism (repeat offense) and organized crime, while Minsky would be convicted for sex with minor, not any kind of assault. Note that repeat offense means Epstein would not be offered bail nor allowed a reduced sentence.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Maybe read the link about which we are all talking.
      - interfixus 7y ago
        A less condescending tone would be appreciated. I read that article - and formed certain opinions about it - long before it was posted to HN.
        mikeash 7y ago
        The whole thing is about RMS defending child rape on the basis that legal age limits are stupid and that it’s not rape if the child is willing. If you managed to miss all that then maybe try again.
        interfixus 7y ago
        If you could kindly point me to the passage where Stallman talks about rape, I would be much obliged.
        mikeash 7y ago
        “...the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.” The context is an underage sex slave. Having sex with her is rape by definition in two different ways.
prepend 7y ago
I don’t buy that. Or at least I don’t buy that more are being excluded by RMS remaining vs banishment. I think it’s easier to be inclusive by people’s preference to join rather than to try to guess about unknown groups that may be be comfortable enough to participate but since we don’t know them we can’t query them. I don’t think RMS is scaring off good developers. I also don’t understand what kind of developer would be put off by his statements so much they would not collaborate on a project.
- mjg59 7y ago
  People have literally talked about how they left the field because of RMS's behaviour. This isn't a case where we're randomly guessing that he discourages participation, we know he does.
  - prepend 7y ago
    “People” is not very specific. This is a tricky discussion topic because I don’t really care if people left the field without more info. Were they awesome programmers? We’re they mean people? Was it a net positive that they left the field? I have no way of knowing this. I’ve worked on a lot of projects and software is weird and awesome because the impact of one person is so amazing. Lots of people can come and go without making a difference. So discouraging participation isn’t some absolute evil to be avoided. Sometimes it actually helps cut down on noise per the whole Brooks Law kind of thing.
zzzcpan 7y ago
> The problem is that not getting those people to stop doing that - or, if necessary, excluding them - causes them to exclude other people. And getting those people to stop excludes people who don't like for anyone to force them to stop and to cave to the mobs.
- krapp 7y ago
  Why are the people who object to Stallman's views "mobs" - a rabble mindlessly driven by rage and conformity - but "ignorant, rude and sexist" people who agree with him are not? I have yet to see a mob mentality like that which forms to defend Richard Stallman at all costs.

yeahthat 7y ago

It turns out that if the opinion in question is “maybe pedophilia is ok” I am OK with the speaker being shut down and/or banished.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
prepend 7y ago
It depends a lot on the context. I wouldn’t want to work on a project with a pedophile. But if someone was having a conversation about early Islam and trying to understand the cultures of that time, etc then that’s an example where your statement wouldn’t be ban worthy. I just don’t think there’s a clear set of bad things that can’t be said. Programmers I know are frequently doing thought exercises so even something like “what if murder were legal” would need to be taken in the context of the conversation to even understand what the author was advocating.
- dymk 7y ago
  > It depends a lot on the context The context is Epstein and RMS claiming that this woman trafficked by him was willing. We don't need to pontificate about all these hypothetical scenarios; this concrete thing that he's defending is pretty disgusting.
  - gowld 7y ago
    Your factual claims are not true, probably because you only read the lies published on Medium and salacious reposted, and did not read the source material. RMS surmised that the woman "presented herself as willing" to Minsky. His point is that Minsky likely (in his estimation) was not aware of the coercion. He did not defend the coercion.

ndidi 7y ago

>I feel i can’t even have a reasonable conversation about diversity, ignorance, or whatever the controversy of the day is. Conform, or else. I mean, I don't agree with what rms said, and I think sexual degenerates should be shot in the head, but Jesus, what the fuck do I care about his stance on politics. It's not my fucking problem.

pjc50 7y ago
"I don't care about his stance on politics but I think he should be shot in the head" is one hell of a take.
- ndidi 7y ago
  In this context that's implying that rms has done things such as looking for child pornography online, which is something we don't know and can't prove. Defending the right to do something != doing something

tom_mellior 7y ago

> Every topic is a hot potato. Yeah, you can't even condone raping children anymore. What has the world come to? More seriously, the point is that this topic is not enough of a hot potato if RMS is comfortable talking about it in public.

pault 7y ago
I don't disagree with you, but I think a lot of commenters here are talking past each other. We all agree that having sex with a 17 year old girl who is being abused and manipulated by a billionaire pedophile is inexcusable. I personally don't like the use of the phrase "child rape" to describe it because it's the same phrase you would use to describe the violent rape of a toddler. If the terminology we use to debate this subject equates those two acts, how can we ever have a reasoned discussion? One of those things makes you a sleezeball, and certainly deserving of all the social and professional consequences of your actions. The other makes you a vile monster, and deserving of removal from the earth. Both are crimes that warrant prosection. Failing to acknowledge the difference between the two is a dangerous path to go down.
- tom_mellior 7y ago
  Fair enough. My comment above used obvious overstated sarcasm, but I agree that these things are different. Substitute "statutory rape of a minor" or something like that above. I don't think this means that we should judge RMS any differently. > having sex with a 17 year old girl who is being abused and manipulated by a billionaire pedophile [...] makes you a sleezeball Not the greatest way to put this, I think.
  - gowld 7y ago
    The "overstated sarcasm" and faked quotations is literally what pushed RMS out of his job. Congratulations.

Jonnax 7y ago

Why can't you have a reasonable discussion? Stallman emailed a big mailing list for a computer science department the following about a child sex trafficking victim: "The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem…Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). ... We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing." Is this acceptable to you?

codr7 7y ago
To imagine a scenario, sure. I can imagine plenty of scenarios. Epstein liked to film his visitors and use the material to blackmail them. Knowing that, it's not unreasonable to assume that he ordered his slaves to behave nice and inviting. You should be very careful about drawing lines between what you can and can't think. Once you do that, it doesn't really matter if you call it Religion or Science; you're still hosed.
- mikeash 7y ago
  He’s not just imagining a scenario. He’s saying that this is the most likely scenario, and that the fact that she presented as willing makes everything totally cool.
  - prepend 7y ago
    > totally cool I didnt read that in the email thread. Human trafficked sex slaves appearing willing to Minsky does not mean everything is totally cool.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      He keeps saying it shouldn’t qualify as sexual assault or rape. If it’s not that then what is it?
      - prepend 7y ago
        For Minsksy it’s at least statutory rape, not cool at all. For Epstein it’s the whole gamut of messed up stuff, also not cool. It seems to me that Stallman is saying that qualifying language is valuable as statutory rape in USVI (and most other jurisdictions) has a much smaller penalty than other forms of sexual assault. So using the same word for Epstein and Minsky is not fair, I think, to their victims. But saying “use more accurate language” is not the same as saying what Minsky is accused of is totally cool.

jrnichols 7y ago

> It’s easier to just be quiet than express opinions. It's no wonder that instead of staying quiet, many wind up at echo chambers like Voat and Gab.