4 ms·

Saying we wouldn't have anyone left in power of they were held up to this standard seems more damning to our current power structure than the moral standard at

Saying we wouldn't have anyone left in power of they were held up to this standard seems more damning to our current power structure than the moral standard at play here

robocat 7y ago
The underlying moral story of all this is: 1. If you are attacked by the media, you will lose in the court of public opinion (I expect we wouldn't know about this at all except for the egregiously misleading "news" headlines). 2. Never ever discuss toxic topics (particularly if you are either a little odd, or politically weak). 3. If you publically question anything about a witch hunt, you too will be branded as a witch. 4. Beware of getting poisoned by association (Epstein -> Minsky -> Stallman -> anyone defending RMS). From what I can tell, the actual morals of RMS don't seem to be the actual issue here. There is surely a modern Grimm parable in all of this.
- mistersquid 7y ago
  Your garden-variety human being with even the slightest social wherewithal would know better than to say some of Epstein’s victims were “entirely willing”. This is not the fault of the media looking for witches to hunt. This is the result of a massively intelligent man deciding to spit into the political wind.
  - armitron 7y ago
    But that's not what he said or meant. Which is why this whole thing is disgusting and little more than outright character assassination.
  - robocat 7y ago
    The whole point is that Richard said she was unwilling. Here's the context "...plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein...". Richard is talking about her being coerced -- to pretend that she was willing. The witch hunt is taking the context (Richard presumes she was unwilling) and then twisting his words to make it appear that he said she was willing. The moral dilemma is: is someone willing if they pretend to be willing? Let's guess she was paid to pretend to be willing (why else was she doing it?). Perhaps she was paid to be a honeypot (entrap someone by pretending to be interested in sex - it is at least plausible). I think we can all agree that the girl probably would prefer not to have to screw some random. Of course, any underage sex is breaking the law, and ignorance won't help you (in court or the media). Richard's words could have been better, but the quotes in the public media (and you repeating the two key words) are clearly twisting his meaning 180 degrees. > This is not the fault of the media looking for witches to hunt. The media is at fault when it radically perverts meanings just to get eyeballs. Why pretend that there can only be one single canonical root cause? > This is the result of a massively intelligent man deciding to spit into the political wind. It seems obvious enough to me that Richard is definitely not "massively intelligent" when it comes to social nuance. We all have our strengths and weaknesses: many engineers cut themselves using their blunt EQ knives.
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      The EQ point is interesting. If we simplify things a lot, engineers generally aren't "forgiven" for having a low IQ. Why should leaders of massive groups of people be forgiven for having a low EQ? To me, showing a profound lack of the intelligence that is incredibly pertinent to your role is no different whether you're an engineer who can't write FizzBuzz or you're an OSS leader who says that sometimes it's fine to have sex with children.
- ryan_lane 7y ago
  As to #4, if you're actively defending particular people's views on sex with underage people, then yeah, people are going to view you negatively by association. The vast majority of people vehemently disagree with that view, and for the most part, people assume that if you defend the view, it's probably because you agree with it.
  - bigbugbag 7y ago
    Thing is here, RMS was talking about an accusation being misqualified in relation to Mens Rea and some person took offense and misrepresented his words to present him as saying something else[1]. Then again I beg to differ, the vast majority of people do not live in the US and have different local definition of underage, also the US has a reputation for having a fascination for sex with teenager (one of the most popular porn sites categories during the last 25-30 years). [1]:https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
  - jeegsy 7y ago
    Though difficult, I endeavor to differentiate between an action and words in 'defense'(for lack of a better word) of said action.
- sam_lowry_ 7y ago
  > (Epstein -> Minsky -> Stallman -> anyone defending RMS Next to a vicious billionaire, a famous intellectual and the most prolific hacker? Um...
- lazyjones 7y ago
  5. if you are a libertarian, better be always prepared for the SJW zombie apocalypse...

Saying we wouldn't have anyone left in power of they were held up to this standard seems more damning to our current power structure than the moral standard at play here

robocat 7y ago

The underlying moral story of all this is: 1. If you are attacked by the media, you will lose in the court of public opinion (I expect we wouldn't know about this at all except for the egregiously misleading "news" headlines). 2. Never ever discuss toxic topics (particularly if you are either a little odd, or politically weak). 3. If you publically question anything about a witch hunt, you too will be branded as a witch. 4. Beware of getting poisoned by association (Epstein -> Minsky -> Stallman -> anyone defending RMS). From what I can tell, the actual morals of RMS don't seem to be the actual issue here. There is surely a modern Grimm parable in all of this.

mistersquid 7y ago
Your garden-variety human being with even the slightest social wherewithal would know better than to say some of Epstein’s victims were “entirely willing”. This is not the fault of the media looking for witches to hunt. This is the result of a massively intelligent man deciding to spit into the political wind.
- armitron 7y ago
  But that's not what he said or meant. Which is why this whole thing is disgusting and little more than outright character assassination.
- robocat 7y ago
  The whole point is that Richard said she was unwilling. Here's the context "...plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein...". Richard is talking about her being coerced -- to pretend that she was willing. The witch hunt is taking the context (Richard presumes she was unwilling) and then twisting his words to make it appear that he said she was willing. The moral dilemma is: is someone willing if they pretend to be willing? Let's guess she was paid to pretend to be willing (why else was she doing it?). Perhaps she was paid to be a honeypot (entrap someone by pretending to be interested in sex - it is at least plausible). I think we can all agree that the girl probably would prefer not to have to screw some random. Of course, any underage sex is breaking the law, and ignorance won't help you (in court or the media). Richard's words could have been better, but the quotes in the public media (and you repeating the two key words) are clearly twisting his meaning 180 degrees. > This is not the fault of the media looking for witches to hunt. The media is at fault when it radically perverts meanings just to get eyeballs. Why pretend that there can only be one single canonical root cause? > This is the result of a massively intelligent man deciding to spit into the political wind. It seems obvious enough to me that Richard is definitely not "massively intelligent" when it comes to social nuance. We all have our strengths and weaknesses: many engineers cut themselves using their blunt EQ knives.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    The EQ point is interesting. If we simplify things a lot, engineers generally aren't "forgiven" for having a low IQ. Why should leaders of massive groups of people be forgiven for having a low EQ? To me, showing a profound lack of the intelligence that is incredibly pertinent to your role is no different whether you're an engineer who can't write FizzBuzz or you're an OSS leader who says that sometimes it's fine to have sex with children.
ryan_lane 7y ago
As to #4, if you're actively defending particular people's views on sex with underage people, then yeah, people are going to view you negatively by association. The vast majority of people vehemently disagree with that view, and for the most part, people assume that if you defend the view, it's probably because you agree with it.
- bigbugbag 7y ago
  Thing is here, RMS was talking about an accusation being misqualified in relation to Mens Rea and some person took offense and misrepresented his words to present him as saying something else[1]. Then again I beg to differ, the vast majority of people do not live in the US and have different local definition of underage, also the US has a reputation for having a fascination for sex with teenager (one of the most popular porn sites categories during the last 25-30 years). [1]:https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
- jeegsy 7y ago
  Though difficult, I endeavor to differentiate between an action and words in 'defense'(for lack of a better word) of said action.
sam_lowry_ 7y ago
> (Epstein -> Minsky -> Stallman -> anyone defending RMS Next to a vicious billionaire, a famous intellectual and the most prolific hacker? Um...
lazyjones 7y ago
5. if you are a libertarian, better be always prepared for the SJW zombie apocalypse...