5 ms·

What the hell are you talking about? What intellectual level? Stallman is quoted to have said: Stallman wrote that “the most plausible scenario” for Giuffre’s

What the hell are you talking about? What intellectual level? Stallman is quoted to have said: Stallman wrote that “the most plausible scenario” for Giuffre’s accusations was that she was, in actuality, “entirely willing.” How is that a rational, defensible statement in any terms?

frio 7y ago
I'm really hesitant to wade into this. I think resigning was the right move for Stallman. What he actually said, without Vice editing the quote, is: 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. From the email thread reproduced in its entirety by Vice at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html?embed=true&responsive=false&sidebar=false https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420.... In my estimation, there's a big difference between Vice's framing of "Stallman said she was 'entirely willing'" and the full quote above. There are, of course, other poor comments in that thread. EDIT -- I mention Vice specifically, because their article (which I'd read earlier) has similar phrasing to the wording used here (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist-richard-stallman-resigns-from-mit-over-epstein-comments https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist... -- "Stallman said the “most plausible scenario” is that one of Epstein’s underage victims was “entirely willing.”"), and I'd thought the quote that codesushi used was from that publication. On double checking, it might be unfair to single that publication out for the given quote.
- teh_klev 7y ago
  Thanks for the link, now I have some context.
- codesushi42 7y ago
  I see no real difference. He said that. And there are even worse comments that he made in that thread.
  - throwaway17746 7y ago
    There's a big difference. "Presented as" does not mean "was", and the sentence immediately after that makes it clear that he didn't mean it as such. There are other pretty bad comments, yes. If most of the coverage focused on those rather than something he didn't actually say, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.
    - veemacs 7y ago
      Here here, RMS is a weirdo but he's being vilified for things that do not effect his job in any way, he is by no means a representative for MIT, and his opinions on unrelated matters (no matter how misguided they might be) do not change his ability to represent the FSF.
      - throwaway17746 7y ago
        >and his opinions on unrelated matters (no matter how misguided they might be) do not change his ability to represent the FSF Now that I can't say I totally agree with. The free software movement is a political movement, and as such his statements and opinions on social issues of all kinds have a deep impact on whether or not he can be a good representative of the FSF. But we should at least be truthful about his statements and opinions!
        frio 7y ago
        Thanks. I know we're supposed to just upvote when someone hits the nail on the head, but this comment summarises my internal conflict on this perfectly.
      - williamDafoe 7y ago
        He is a beneficiary of having a free office at MIT like a faculty member on sabbatical there, at the recommendation of his friend, Gerald Sussman.
    - codesushi42 7y ago
      "Presented as" does not mean "was" It can mean that. sentence immediately after that makes it clear that he didn't mean it as such. No, it is debatable. The following sentence does not clearly state they were unwilling. Another Stallman gem: 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.
throwaway1918 7y ago
The problem here is that your quotation is wrong or misleading. The words you omitted do matter and do change the sense of it. Here is the actual paragraph: "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." Say what you will about the inappropriateness of RMS's conduct or speech or timing, but you should not try to persuade people by misquoting him.
vivekd 7y ago
That would be completely irrational and indefensible, but it's also not what Stallman wrote. What he wrote was that Epstien had the power to force his victims to act as they were willing. Stallman said he believes the victim was being coerced, just that she was being forced by Epstein to act as if she was doing these sex acts out of her own free will.
mjevans 7y ago
I am speculating about your specific question; NOT any specific real circumstances. Which of these three seems more likely in GENERAL: A) That this happened on a party island and all adults were willing. B) That someone has been lead to believe this is a consensual act on some party island with willing people there; but in reality the victim is coerced into presenting false consent. C) That the 'active offender' is aware of a lack of consent and that they are with a victim. Since I choose to believe that at least a majority of humanity aren't evil; just more than likely stupid and easily tricked, I happen to believe that the set a circumstance being either A or B is more likely that C. I also believe that if "services" were legalized and HEAVILY REGULATED circumstances B and C would be FAR less likely to happen.
- mcguire 7y ago
  Wait. I've lost track of something somewhere. What was Minski doing on Epstein's party island?
  - mjevans 7y ago
    Offhand, I don't know. I believe the same is probably true of the general public discussing the actual criminal investigation / prosecution(???) that RMS was commenting on. What I was suggesting is that there are plausible reasons someone might find themselves on such an island; which seem more realistic if those involved are rich elite who lure 'loose' individuals down with warm sandy beaches and cold drinks. My take on the full RMS text in question is that they were (probably biased but) pointing out that they believed in a friend being a good person and thus the generic case I called Scenario B being the one that they believed was likely. As I lack the facts to properly make a judgement on the issue I can only speculate about what //might// have happened, and hope that those who should be reaching a judgement gather all the possible facts and prove those who are guilty as such, without making more victims out of others tricked or entrapped by the actual wrong-doers.
  - nullc 7y ago
    > What was Minski doing on Epstein's party island? Epstein hosted conferences on a number of occasions for scientific luminaries, which is why-- for example-- there are pictures of Stephen Hawking on Epstein's island. Minsky was involved in an AI conference held by Epstein in 2002.
pvaldes 7y ago
Is not defensible, is either true or false. Would be a perfectly rational defensible statement if the facts will prove that is true, and will be demoted if proven false. Is just an opinion based on speculative reasoning from somebody that (as everyone of us) could have an incomplete picture of the facts. We know that we are in deep trouble when the new generations start solving math formula or hypothesis democratically, by the numbers of 'likes' and 'thumbs up' that they receive. Is a popular opinion true automatically just because is emotionally satisfying to us, and hence is popular? Not. As long as he assumes the risk to be corrected and wrong, Stallman has the right to express an discomforting ugly hypothesis or a discordant opinion. And is just that, an opinion. I have no reason to thing that is a dishonest one, that there is malice, attempt to defamation, or that there is a hidden agenda subjacent about it
- nullc 7y ago
  > Stallman has the right to express an discomforting ugly hypothesis or a discordant opinion Demonstratively, he did not have that right. Or perhaps you believe in some kind of imaginary right where you could still be held to have it if you predictably suffer terrible consequences should you attempt to make use of it? I've commented a number of times on this subject, calmly trying to direct people back to the facts-- but each time I know that any one of those message could be misrepresented and turned into terrible false accusations about me, simply because I pissed off the wrong mob. I think the right you imagine might exist for some people-- people who do nothing of notice, people who never challenge anyone's thinking, or people who really don't have to give a darn about what anyone else thinks-- maybe it exists for me, maybe it exists for you at least for the moment. It did not exist for RMS.

frio 7y ago

I'm really hesitant to wade into this. I think resigning was the right move for Stallman. What he actually said, without Vice editing the quote, is: 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. From the email thread reproduced in its entirety by Vice at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html?embed=true&responsive=false&sidebar=false https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420.... In my estimation, there's a big difference between Vice's framing of "Stallman said she was 'entirely willing'" and the full quote above. There are, of course, other poor comments in that thread. EDIT -- I mention Vice specifically, because their article (which I'd read earlier) has similar phrasing to the wording used here (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist-richard-stallman-resigns-from-mit-over-epstein-comments https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist... -- "Stallman said the “most plausible scenario” is that one of Epstein’s underage victims was “entirely willing.”"), and I'd thought the quote that codesushi used was from that publication. On double checking, it might be unfair to single that publication out for the given quote.

teh_klev 7y ago
Thanks for the link, now I have some context.
codesushi42 7y ago
I see no real difference. He said that. And there are even worse comments that he made in that thread.
- throwaway17746 7y ago
  There's a big difference. "Presented as" does not mean "was", and the sentence immediately after that makes it clear that he didn't mean it as such. There are other pretty bad comments, yes. If most of the coverage focused on those rather than something he didn't actually say, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.
  - veemacs 7y ago
    Here here, RMS is a weirdo but he's being vilified for things that do not effect his job in any way, he is by no means a representative for MIT, and his opinions on unrelated matters (no matter how misguided they might be) do not change his ability to represent the FSF.
    - throwaway17746 7y ago
      >and his opinions on unrelated matters (no matter how misguided they might be) do not change his ability to represent the FSF Now that I can't say I totally agree with. The free software movement is a political movement, and as such his statements and opinions on social issues of all kinds have a deep impact on whether or not he can be a good representative of the FSF. But we should at least be truthful about his statements and opinions!
      - frio 7y ago
        Thanks. I know we're supposed to just upvote when someone hits the nail on the head, but this comment summarises my internal conflict on this perfectly.
    - williamDafoe 7y ago
      He is a beneficiary of having a free office at MIT like a faculty member on sabbatical there, at the recommendation of his friend, Gerald Sussman.
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    "Presented as" does not mean "was" It can mean that. sentence immediately after that makes it clear that he didn't mean it as such. No, it is debatable. The following sentence does not clearly state they were unwilling. Another Stallman gem: 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.

throwaway1918 7y ago

The problem here is that your quotation is wrong or misleading. The words you omitted do matter and do change the sense of it. Here is the actual paragraph: "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." Say what you will about the inappropriateness of RMS's conduct or speech or timing, but you should not try to persuade people by misquoting him.

vivekd 7y ago

That would be completely irrational and indefensible, but it's also not what Stallman wrote. What he wrote was that Epstien had the power to force his victims to act as they were willing. Stallman said he believes the victim was being coerced, just that she was being forced by Epstein to act as if she was doing these sex acts out of her own free will.

mjevans 7y ago

I am speculating about your specific question; NOT any specific real circumstances. Which of these three seems more likely in GENERAL: A) That this happened on a party island and all adults were willing. B) That someone has been lead to believe this is a consensual act on some party island with willing people there; but in reality the victim is coerced into presenting false consent. C) That the 'active offender' is aware of a lack of consent and that they are with a victim. Since I choose to believe that at least a majority of humanity aren't evil; just more than likely stupid and easily tricked, I happen to believe that the set a circumstance being either A or B is more likely that C. I also believe that if "services" were legalized and HEAVILY REGULATED circumstances B and C would be FAR less likely to happen.

mcguire 7y ago
Wait. I've lost track of something somewhere. What was Minski doing on Epstein's party island?
- mjevans 7y ago
  Offhand, I don't know. I believe the same is probably true of the general public discussing the actual criminal investigation / prosecution(???) that RMS was commenting on. What I was suggesting is that there are plausible reasons someone might find themselves on such an island; which seem more realistic if those involved are rich elite who lure 'loose' individuals down with warm sandy beaches and cold drinks. My take on the full RMS text in question is that they were (probably biased but) pointing out that they believed in a friend being a good person and thus the generic case I called Scenario B being the one that they believed was likely. As I lack the facts to properly make a judgement on the issue I can only speculate about what //might// have happened, and hope that those who should be reaching a judgement gather all the possible facts and prove those who are guilty as such, without making more victims out of others tricked or entrapped by the actual wrong-doers.
- nullc 7y ago
  > What was Minski doing on Epstein's party island? Epstein hosted conferences on a number of occasions for scientific luminaries, which is why-- for example-- there are pictures of Stephen Hawking on Epstein's island. Minsky was involved in an AI conference held by Epstein in 2002.

pvaldes 7y ago

Is not defensible, is either true or false. Would be a perfectly rational defensible statement if the facts will prove that is true, and will be demoted if proven false. Is just an opinion based on speculative reasoning from somebody that (as everyone of us) could have an incomplete picture of the facts. We know that we are in deep trouble when the new generations start solving math formula or hypothesis democratically, by the numbers of 'likes' and 'thumbs up' that they receive. Is a popular opinion true automatically just because is emotionally satisfying to us, and hence is popular? Not. As long as he assumes the risk to be corrected and wrong, Stallman has the right to express an discomforting ugly hypothesis or a discordant opinion. And is just that, an opinion. I have no reason to thing that is a dishonest one, that there is malice, attempt to defamation, or that there is a hidden agenda subjacent about it

nullc 7y ago
> Stallman has the right to express an discomforting ugly hypothesis or a discordant opinion Demonstratively, he did not have that right. Or perhaps you believe in some kind of imaginary right where you could still be held to have it if you predictably suffer terrible consequences should you attempt to make use of it? I've commented a number of times on this subject, calmly trying to direct people back to the facts-- but each time I know that any one of those message could be misrepresented and turned into terrible false accusations about me, simply because I pissed off the wrong mob. I think the right you imagine might exist for some people-- people who do nothing of notice, people who never challenge anyone's thinking, or people who really don't have to give a darn about what anyone else thinks-- maybe it exists for me, maybe it exists for you at least for the moment. It did not exist for RMS.