4 ms·
I didn't read RMS's "take" as in any way excusing what happened to Giuffre, but rather disputing whether it was accurate to accuse Marvin Minsky of "sexual assa
by gojomo 7y ago
I didn't read RMS's "take" as in any way excusing what happened to Giuffre, but rather disputing whether it was accurate to accuse Marvin Minsky of "sexual assault", if from Minsky's perspective at the time nothing seemed wrong. (Sensationalist reporting and selective paraphrasing, like you've done here, has conflated the two issues.)
Suppose there's a boxer, "Joe", and he has a scheduled fight against a named opponent. It's set in a legitimate venue, is freely advertised as if the promoters have nothing to hide, includes a normal ref & audience, and then proceeds like any other boxing match, including the traditional cordialities between opponents before and after. To "Joe", nothing's wrong. But then, years later, it's discovered that the opposing boxer was coerced into fighting, perhaps with threats of violence or blackmail.
Is "Joe" now guilty of physical assault, for repeatedly punching the other boxer, even if to "Joe" at the time it seemed like a normal voluntary encounter, no seedier than any other boxing match?
Maybe RMS's take was dumb. Maybe my analogy is dumb! But it's not "shameful" to try to work out the reasonable characterizations, given Minksy's possible mental state, the law, or common-sense. It might even be possible, under formal legal definitions, for Giuffre to have been "assaulted" while at the same time Minsky's actions don't rise to the level of "assault".
- jacobush 7y agoRMS's take was really dumb. He may not be the right fit for the job. The example you gave with the boxer was a really good comparison, but for him to handle the topic that way is so incredibly tone-deaf and frankly, stupid.
- kelnos 7y agoThe problem with your analogy is that, in reality, "Joe" was presented with a beautiful woman over 50 years younger than him who supposedly wanted to have sex with him, while at a gathering on a billionaire's private island. If "Joe" were a reasonable, non-sketchy person, the absolute best interpretation there is that she was a prostitute of questionable age, which is still pretty bad. Going along with that without asking some very hard questions would seem to be not only morally questionable, but also personally risky. (Of course, there's also reasonable debate as to whether or not Minsky actually had sex with her. One person who was present at the gathering claims Minsky didn't.)
- gojomo 7y agoIf Minsky didn't realize she was essentially a prostitute, he was foolish. But how do you know Minsky didn't "ask[] some very hard questions"? At the time of the alleged sex, 2001-2002, Epstein's cover as an investment billionaire who threw money around to win the attention/affection of young-but-legal women was still secure. He'd been a recent repeat visitor to the Clinton White House, and President Bill Clinton's multiple trips in Epstein's plane were contemporaneous or followed soon after. The thinking at the time would have been: "If an ex-President (and husband of sitting Senator Hillary Clinton) can hobnob in public with this guy Epstein, he can't be into anything too shady, can he?"
- dragonsngoblins 7y agoWhy is the best interpretation that she was a prostitute of questionable age as opposed to just... a prostitute? Legitimate question, I haven't been following this closely enough to know. If it was reasonable to assume she was an adult I don't see an issue with it, but I don't have a moral objection to prostitution