4 ms·

Renowned MIT Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Defends Epstein

32 points by taytus 7y ago

viig99 7y ago
Woah, those are some extreme views, Chafing at the idea of a legal age of consent was a favorite theme of his, per his earlier blog posts. In 2003, he said, “I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)” In 2006, he said it wouldn’t so bad for an adult man who worked for the Department of Homeland Security to have sex with a 14-year-old, as one government employee had allegedly propositioned: “Supposing she had voluntarily had sex with him, presuming that they used a condom and suitable contraception, it would have done no harm to either of them.”
- equalunique 7y ago
  The view is relatively extreme because of constructed social norms, but when I was 14, I had the same view, and it was shared among the peers that I associated with. It would be hypocritical for me to say the points you quoted are abnormal, because in my experience, that's what being 14 was like. Consensual encounters between underage high school freshman and adult high school seniors are certainly different than a DHS employee, but which one is more "moral" depends on the framework you use to evaluate trust. For example, atleast DHS employees get background checks. And which of those two groups are better known for carrying out school shootings? My points are: Stallman's relatively extreme views are not absolutely extreme views; and overall, the amount of gray area in the subject makes it complicated.
  - asciimo 7y ago
    The point of the law is to protect vulnerable minors, not liberate precocious minors. For every 14 year old who thinks that they would consent to sex with an adult, how many would not? The best way to avoid damaging minors in "the gray area" is to eliminate the gray area.
  - solipsism 7y ago
    when I was 14, I had the same view Why would we trust a 14 year old's opinion about child sexual development and maturity? How would that be even remotely relevant? Stallman's opinions on the subject aren't relevant either, since he's far from an expert on the subject. Stallman's relatively extreme views are not absolutely extreme views; Oh boy. Absolutely extreme? How can something be absolutely extreme?
  - zzo38computer 7y ago
    I wouldn't know about your first two paragraphs, but I can agree about the third paragraph, that "the amount of gray area in the subject makes it complicated". Yes, a lot of stuff becomes complicated because there is a lot of parts, not all of which are being considered (and many that I have not thought of).
voldacar 7y ago
Such a hatchet job. He did not "defend Epstein" in the slightest.
flippinburgers 7y ago
Original title yes. Clickbait nonetheless.
SeeDave 7y ago
This is an extremely provocative title which I hope the mods will swiftly change and/or censure. I often find myself thinking "Stallman was right!" when it comes to FOSS/privacy but there is a zero-percent chance I will ever defend Epstein's organized, systematic, and continuous abuse of children. And shame on everyone who refers to him as a "disgraced financier" and his victims as "underage women." This isn't a pearl-clutching instance of "think of the children" so much as a totally human response based on the litany of evidence that child abuse _ruins lives_ (Google 'Borderline Personality Disorder')
- voldacar 7y ago
  Stallman did not defend any of Epstein's acts. He referred to Epstein as a "serial rapist", just not a pedophile. RMS is a very literal thinker and he lacks tact for sure, but a defender of sexual predators he is not.
floatingatoll 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... The complete Stallman emails cited by this repost-seeming link are at the above link.
throw7 7y ago
Sauce?
frittig 7y ago
Original email from Stallman The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X. The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed. https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...) Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). 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. I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation. Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  I did not read the article he quotes, and cannot say whether "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing" is true or false, but I agree that you should try to criticize it correctly; if you do not know that it is assault, then perhaps "(who is accused of having sex with one of Epstein's victims)" might be better. Depending on what a article mentioning Minsky would be mainly about, though, such as parenthetical comment might or might not be relevant, I think. In a biography it would be relevant, but not as a parenthetical comment, I should think.

32 points by taytus 7y ago

Woah, those are some extreme views, Chafing at the idea of a legal age of consent was a favorite theme of his, per his earlier blog posts. In 2003, he said, “I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)” In 2006, he said it wouldn’t so bad for an adult man who worked for the Department of Homeland Security to have sex with a 14-year-old, as one government employee had allegedly propositioned: “Supposing she had voluntarily had sex with him, presuming that they used a condom and suitable contraception, it would have done no harm to either of them.”

equalunique 7y ago
The view is relatively extreme because of constructed social norms, but when I was 14, I had the same view, and it was shared among the peers that I associated with. It would be hypocritical for me to say the points you quoted are abnormal, because in my experience, that's what being 14 was like. Consensual encounters between underage high school freshman and adult high school seniors are certainly different than a DHS employee, but which one is more "moral" depends on the framework you use to evaluate trust. For example, atleast DHS employees get background checks. And which of those two groups are better known for carrying out school shootings? My points are: Stallman's relatively extreme views are not absolutely extreme views; and overall, the amount of gray area in the subject makes it complicated.
- asciimo 7y ago
  The point of the law is to protect vulnerable minors, not liberate precocious minors. For every 14 year old who thinks that they would consent to sex with an adult, how many would not? The best way to avoid damaging minors in "the gray area" is to eliminate the gray area.
- solipsism 7y ago
  when I was 14, I had the same view Why would we trust a 14 year old's opinion about child sexual development and maturity? How would that be even remotely relevant? Stallman's opinions on the subject aren't relevant either, since he's far from an expert on the subject. Stallman's relatively extreme views are not absolutely extreme views; Oh boy. Absolutely extreme? How can something be absolutely extreme?
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  I wouldn't know about your first two paragraphs, but I can agree about the third paragraph, that "the amount of gray area in the subject makes it complicated". Yes, a lot of stuff becomes complicated because there is a lot of parts, not all of which are being considered (and many that I have not thought of).

voldacar 7y ago

Such a hatchet job. He did not "defend Epstein" in the slightest.

flippinburgers 7y ago

Original title yes. Clickbait nonetheless.

SeeDave 7y ago

This is an extremely provocative title which I hope the mods will swiftly change and/or censure. I often find myself thinking "Stallman was right!" when it comes to FOSS/privacy but there is a zero-percent chance I will ever defend Epstein's organized, systematic, and continuous abuse of children. And shame on everyone who refers to him as a "disgraced financier" and his victims as "underage women." This isn't a pearl-clutching instance of "think of the children" so much as a totally human response based on the litany of evidence that child abuse _ruins lives_ (Google 'Borderline Personality Disorder')

voldacar 7y ago
Stallman did not defend any of Epstein's acts. He referred to Epstein as a "serial rapist", just not a pedophile. RMS is a very literal thinker and he lacks tact for sure, but a defender of sexual predators he is not.

floatingatoll 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... The complete Stallman emails cited by this repost-seeming link are at the above link.

throw7 7y ago

Sauce?

frittig 7y ago

Original email from Stallman The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X. The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed. https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...) Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). 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. I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation. Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.

zzo38computer 7y ago
I did not read the article he quotes, and cannot say whether "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing" is true or false, but I agree that you should try to criticize it correctly; if you do not know that it is assault, then perhaps "(who is accused of having sex with one of Epstein's victims)" might be better. Depending on what a article mentioning Minsky would be mainly about, though, such as parenthetical comment might or might not be relevant, I think. In a biography it would be relevant, but not as a parenthetical comment, I should think.