8 ms·
Richard Stallman challenges 'misleading' coverage of his comments on Minsky
- lflux 7y agoFrom https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21..., stallman is quoted saying > “I disagree with some of what the article says about Epstein. Epstein is not, apparently, a pedophile, since the people he raped seem to have all been postpuberal.” He preferred to call Epstein a “serial rapist.” yeeeeeesh
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- victoro0 7y agoHe is technically correct though.
- dralley 7y agoThe most useless kind of correct. edit: to the downvoters -- is a discussion on whether a man who trafficked and raped dozens of underage girls is "technically not a pedophile" really a worthwhile conversation to have?
- victoro0 7y agoYes, because "pedophile" right now just means "horrible person", when it actually had a definition already - "person sexually attracted to prepubescent/pubescent children". And this makes it much harder to actually have a conversation about pedophilia and how to prevent pedophiles from hurting children and themselves. So yes, this is a conversation much more worthwhile than whether Stallman is a bad person.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- krapp 7y ago>edit: to the downvoters -- is a discussion on whether a man who trafficked and raped dozens of underage girls is "technically not a pedophile" really a worthwhile conversation to have? Apparently. And don't bother complaining about downvotes in a thread like this. Any opinion besides a full-throated defense of RMS and denunciation of his detractors as a mob of pearl-clutching SJWs or shills out to destroy free software is probably going to get voted down. People will go through your history and downvote every comment they see. There's nothing you can do about that, it's Chinatown.
- krapp 7y agoIt is weird how often that seems to happen. When subjects like this come up, people suddenly get very pedantic about the definition of pedophilia versus ephebophilia, and the threads here have been dominated by sprawling, legalistic arguments about the precise definition of "sexual assault" and "rape" and the relevance of ages of consent and whether words even mean anything, really. And this ... as if the distinction between prepubescent child rape and postpubescent child rape is at all relevant enough to mention.
- Smithalicious 7y agoI think there's a meaningful distinction between a pedophile who is primarily (exclusively?) attracted to children, and someone who keeps child sex slaves because they're easier to manage than adults. It's not that one is worse than the other, it's just that they're quite different situations. I don't know exactly in which category Epstein falls because I haven't been following this whole ordeal too closely, so I'm not making any claims about that.
- partialrecall 7y agoStallman has never limited his "well technically..." outbursts to topics of sex/rape. He seems to do it with any topic without discretion. A couple of days ago I attended a talk he gave at the Seattle Public Library and he did the "well technically..." routine to an audience member who claimed to be a fan of free software ("It's strange to say you're a fan of freedom [...]" or something to that effect.) He also did it in response to several other topics, but that one stood out to me. I don't wish to pathologize aberrant social behavior since that could probably be turned back against me pretty easily, but if one were so inclined I think classifying Stallman would be pretty easy... Pedantry and lack of tact is a trait I've seen before.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pdonis 7y ago> as if the distinction between prepubescent child rape and postpubescent child rape is at all relevant enough to mention It is if the distinction between prepubescent children and postpubescent children is relevant, which certainly is the case in our current system of laws. Furthermore, failing to observe such distinctions makes every single term that describes any kind of activity that some people don't like--pedophile, rapist, etc.--all equivalent; they all just mean "bad person". But that makes it impossible to have a useful conversation at all, because "bad person" is not a useful category if you're trying to figure out what to do about such people. You have to look at the specifics. If you refuse to look at the specifics, then you're not helping to do anything about the problem; you're just virtue signaling. "I think all of these people are just bad!" Okay, got it, thanks for sharing.
- andrenth 7y ago“I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.” — Richard Stallman https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20...
- seamyb88 7y agoChrist, that's horrible. How can you be so right about complex issues, when you're so wrong about the widely held belief that under 18s are morons and it's exploitative to get your jollies from them, no matter how mature they appear to you.
- simonh 7y agoWhy do you think it’s widely believed that under 18s are morons? Depth of experience and intelligence are different things and I think most people understand that very well. Under 18s can be extremely smart, but due to lack of experience can sometimes be exploited or manipulated.
- seamyb88 7y agoI'm sorry to have offended you, but I actually used to be under 18. I think under 18s are inexperienced human beings who are undergoing some of the hardest years of anybody's life, their hormones are changing and their culture is often quite dangerous. I'm also frustrated that I couldn't have just left it at morons and for you to have got that.
- darawk 7y agoWhile that's true, the idea that there is some magical line at 18 that divides the moral from the immoral is absurd, and Stallman is simply pointing that out. We do have to have a line of some kind for legal purposes, but we shouldn't confuse that statutory line with the nuanced reality when discussing the abstract morality of behavior.
- natalyarostova 7y agoMight I suggest that this is just the equivalent of gossip under the sheen of hacker news and self-righteousness? People like Richard Stallman are non neuro-typical geniuses. They focus intensely on some topics, and harmlessly pontificate on many other topics. Historically, before the internet reached its more recent point where everything is so well indexed and networked, that the fixed cost to mob justice has dropped to near zero, we would just ignore these people. So some genius mathematicians or computer scientists (or whoever) has some weird overly-complicated political views that they poorly communicate, and won't ever do anything about? Who cares, leave that for the faculty gossip. Now it's so easy for us to share, shame, and discuss. But what value do we offer the world by scrutinizing and shaming some computer scientist who is not seeking any political power? Does anyone have a counter-argument to why this is a valuable and useful thing for us to care about and discuss?
- evrydayhustling 7y agoRichard is specifically a public figure who influences a lot of people, and some of that influence comes from platforms like his MIT professorship that imply endorsement from other groups. I agree it's distasteful for people to focus on personal judgements about Stallman's communications when we haven't walked in his shoes, mentally. But public discourse is necessary to determine what to do with the platform given to comments like this - including if they come from "non-neurotypical" individuals. Separately, because Stallman's area of focus extends into community formation and protection of individual rights, I don't agree that his statements about sexual coercion are separate from the rest of his work.
- natalyarostova 7y ago>Separately, because Stallman's area of focus extends into community formation and protection of individual rights, I don't agree that his statements about sexual coercion are separate from the rest of his work. That's a fair point. If someone is going to claim a position of moral leadership over community formation, then being judged on their strange political opinions seems reasonable. In (what I claim) is an ideal world, the fixed cost to this type of collective action against a person like Stallman, would be high enough that only those who participate in his communities would care about this stuff. I still worry that the fixed cost towards sharing/shaming is so low, that people who have no vested interest in Stallman's locus of influence can still join in for fun. This goes for all internet mob justice.
- ioioioioio 7y agoStallman is the worst person to be making these arguments. In a much different context, Matt Damon tried to reasonably add nuance to #metoo and got viciously attacked. I don’t like witch hunts or ruining people’s careers for what they say, especially when media exaggerates it to make it sound worse. It’s bad enough on it’s own. There’s also other billionaires out there, one with an infamous island in the Bahamas, who has dozens of horrific stories about him. A former President and his wife visited this island, and they have lots of photos together. I hope the media and the outrage stays focused on the principals and their enablers, not poorly expressed opinions of people trying to defend deceased friends.
- throwaway88 7y ago"Great way to undermine a movement. Mis-construe something someone said and then sic the outrage mob on them. Great way to take over open source, Bitcoin, Linux, etc. It's super cheap too. Just a few leaks and you win. No one should have control over their own software. It should all be in the cloud governed by faceless public corporations who can always blame any transgressions on careless subordinates and have their leadership replaced and changed at whim by their shadowy owners. Seriously, this whole COC movement seems tailor made to ruin people who could present any independent leadership of open source through fake allegations magnified by social media."
- frereubu 7y agoI don't know much about Stallman, but he does seem to be fond of saying "well, technically..." in discussions where it's pretty tone deaf and easy to misconstrue, in a similar way to some discussions on HN itself. As someone says in the email thread, "If we're debating the definitions of 'rape' and 'sexual assault', perhaps it's better to accept that this conversation isn't productive. When this email chain inevitably finds its way into the press, the seeming insensitivity of some will reflect poorly on the entire CSAIL community." But the initial coverage, particularly the Daily Beast article, does seem like a real hatchet job. There's a big difference between what the Daily Beast headline implied he said: "Victims were 'entirely willing'" and what he actually said, when discussing how much fault attaches to Minsky: "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." Edit: link to a PDF of the email thread from Vice is https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/091320191...
- rayiner 7y agoI agree with your sentiment: sometimes there is a place for speaking with moral clarity rather than utmost precision. That said, the piece on RMS is deceitful. Manipulative headlines have been common in the media for awhile, but the hatchet jobs are becoming more brazen: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/3/20847587/leif-olson-department-labor-anti-semitism-paul-nehlen-bloomberg https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/3/20847587/le...
- Udik 7y ago> sometimes there is a place for speaking with moral clarity rather than utmost precision. Accusing people imprecisely of horrible crimes doesn't seem a moral action at all. Let's start discussing the morality of those who do so.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gizmo686 7y ago
- chroma 7y agoI disagree with RMS on many topics, but I don't get the outrage at him. He explained how Minsky was likely not guilty of sexual assault. To use an analogy: If I have a sanctioned boxing match with someone, and it is later discovered that Don King coerced my opponent into taking the match against his will, am I guilty of battery? I don't think so. RMS is also correct that Epstein was many things, but not a pedophile. He's discussing facts and people are treating it as if he's discussing morality.
- cjbprime 7y agoYou don't have to go to boxing matches to find relevant analogies. You could start with "If I have sex with someone who's unable to consent due to some type of incapacitation, have I assaulted them?".
- chroma 7y agoHow does that question apply to Minsky?
- UncleMeat 7y agoEpstein's victims being sex slaves is not the unusual outcome but the expectation. His behavior was fairly known. A better analogy would be participating in a fight organized by somebody who is known to coerce fighters into participating.
- chroma 7y agoI don't think that analogy is better. The Minsky allegation is said to have happened in March of 2001. That was years before Epstein was investigated, let alone charged or convicted of anything.
- victoro0 7y agoI really, really, do not understand why some people's reaction to this is trying to get him fired or to apologize. Right here we have one human being that will ponder on random issues and offer his honest opinion. He will do it without regard for social pressure. This is an incredible rare thing! This is an amazing thing, go browse your Facebook or LinkedIn feed and see how "authentic" it sounds. What's more, this gentleman is a very rational person and does not shy away from thinking about pedophilia and various paraphilia. What's more he seems truly inquisitive in understanding how to measure what Minsky did, what motivations and perceptions each participant had, etc. This is so much more important than just getting revenge, being constantly angry on the internet or just saying Epstein was evil and calling it a day. We need much, much more people like Stallman and much, much less people that will cry foul on a Medium post when someone doesn't go along with what they want.
- plorkyeran 7y agoPeople who will jump on every excuse to go "well akshually it's not pedophilia" or "well actually it's not sexual assault" on the internet are not even slightly rare.
- victoro0 7y agoBut they will be anonymous and the level of conversation will probably not be very high.
- plorkyeran 7y agoThe MIT mailing list thread that provoked this whole discussion was pretty indistinguishable from any of the millions of reddit discussions on the exact same subject.
- mindslight 7y agoIt seems that you have a desire to hyperbolically label things as "pedophilia" or "sexual assault", and simply don't like it being called out. And so you're engaging in social bullying based on stereotypes ("akshually") rather than keeping to the truth of the matter.
- wudangmonk 7y agoSeeing quite a few of these outrage and holier than thou post lately and I'd like to see even less of them in the future. Hackernews does a pretty good job on filtering out all the political stuff but all this #metoo, "can you believe he said that?" posts are not things that I want to read about here.
- klingonopera 7y agoIt would concern us all, if Stallman were to fall and the ranting author got away with it. I'd argue there is a higher number of people who'd go "Well, technically" in tech than anywhere else. We're (mostly) not evil, but it may often seem that we're defending those that are, when technically, we're just pointing out factual truths.
- jstewartmobile 7y agothis is what happens when HN-style "well, ackchyually"s break free from their proper containment board
- tenpies 7y agoThis is what happens when social media companies destroy the business model of journalism and the entire profession gets replaced with outrage bloggers chasing impressions.
- jstewartmobile 7y agohow old are you? i'm 41, and the media has been a pay-to-play controversy factory for as long as I have known it. the whole "good old days" of journalism spiel is a self-serving media fiction.
- voldacar 7y ago> 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. This is a totally reasonable statement and it hardly seems like he's defending Epstein or somehow justifying what was alleged to have happened. Stallman's point is that the legal usage of the term "assault" sometimes doesn't match up with the idea of physical violence that comes with the colloquial understanding of "assault". Also it seems super weird, distasteful, and immature when, instead of discussing with or further debating this person who said something you don't like, you go tattle on them to a sympathetic reporter. Yuck.
- mindslight 7y agoThis is exactly how witch hunts work - if you don't just follow the mob 100%, but rather point out some nuance or call for some restraint, even while generally agreeing with the purported goal of the mob, then you are the next target to be attacked. The true driving force is not justice, but rather power.
- krainboltgreene 7y agoWhat "power" is gained from this? Also, that was nothing like how a witch hunt works.
- mindslight 7y agoThe power is that of the mob itself - attacking people and feeling righteous about it. And you know, attacking RMS is much easier than trying to go after whomever had Epstein snuffed so he couldn't talk. "Witch hunt" may not be the absolute best of terms, as RMS is responsible for having poked the hornets' nest. It's still an appropriate reference to the social dynamics, but perhaps "lynch mob" would be better.
- Udik 7y agoCare to explain us how a "real" witch hunt works, in your opinion? I'm genuinely curious.
- bbanyc 7y agoWhen you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
- emilfihlman 7y agoThe thing from that Alumni and Vice are basically hit-pieces, designed to kill the reputation of RMS.
- klingonopera 7y agoI'm hoping he'll legally retaliate. IANAL, but the misleading VICE, Daily Beast and Fox News headlines appear to be defamation/slander, wouldn't he not stand a good chance in court against them?
- DoreenMichele 7y agoI think I've seen several posts on this ongoing debacle. I keep wondering if there is anything we can do to either elevate the discussion of the matter or more thoroughly stamp the discussions out like the little dumpster fires they tend to be, which naturally threaten to become towering infernos. I debate whether refusing to comment at all and simply flagging them is the least worst thing I can do in a world that seems to have no constructive path forward on such topics. But that also strikes me as making the topic unspeakable, a practice known to deepen moral problems, not resolve them.