7 ms·

>Stallman's post to the MIT mailing list argued, in a spectacularly INSENSITIVE fashion, that Minsky may not have been aware Giuffre had been coerced to have se

>Stallman's post to the MIT mailing list argued, in a spectacularly INSENSITIVE fashion, that Minsky may not have been aware Giuffre had been coerced to have sex. How is this particular statement by Stallman insensitive?

ggm 7y ago
He should have argued as vociferously for the alternative: he may have been aware. He should have argued for the girls perspective. The insensitivity was to ignore the girl,and her rights, and her status,in discussing Minsky's
- alt_f4 7y ago
  I believe Minsky was his (now dead) friend. If something like this comes up for a good, deceased friend of yours, will you pick the side of an unknown to you girl over the person you knew and care about? I'm not saying that's the correct side, but it's a human, emotional thing, rather than rational.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    I've only read some of his comments after the fact. I don't think he was taking sides against the young women, as much as just speaking up for a friend.
    - alt_f4 7y ago
      I agree, but I don't know how to phrase it better.
      - lliamander 7y ago
        No worries. For what it's worth, that's what I assumed you meant. I was more or less attempting to rephrase it in my own words. In a world where one's written words can be so twisted beyond their original intent, it's good to reaffirm an assumption of good faith.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    I wouldn't come to a conclusion before even considering what situations would be plausible for the girl to be in. In the case of a 17 year old and a 73 year old, the main responsibility rests with the adult, just based on the respective age and positions of power. I wouldn't make an exception for friend nor foe, but if I had a friend who did that, I wouln't any longer consider him a friend, and there is nothing about the girl, short of her raping him, that could change that. "Friend" isn't just some flag that gets set by cosmic rays and then stays that way forever, that would make it meaningless to me, not more noble.. blind loyalty isn't loyalty, just blindness. I say this as someone who did cast of friends, which was painful to me, even though it was for totally trivial and harmless, outright edifying reasons in comparison.
    - alt_f4 7y ago
      > "Friend" isn't just some flag that gets set by cosmic rays and then stays that way forever. Agreed. It's more of a collection of experiences and knowledge of character. If I've known you for 20 years and known you to be a good person, if I hear something like this I'm more likely to believe this is some sort of a mistake, as it is completely out of character. One way to rationalize it would be to believe that you were misinformed, rather than me being a poor judge of character for all of these years. Again, not saying it's what happened - i dont know. But it's just human nature to react like that. It's not really human nature to consider the social media and print media applications before writing an opinion.
      - PavlovsCat 7y ago
        You're essentially just describing what you're not saying, and "some sort of mistake" is much too generic for me. While I personally wouldn't feel much better about a friend having sex with someone a third their age even if that person is an adult, it's impossible to have sex with a minor by accident, unless they have fake ID. Not even asking for it means not caring, no ifs and buts. "Human nature" is also too generic, the question was, how would you react. I answered that question, and have the former friends I showed the door to prove it. It's clearly within "human nature" to react like that, too.
- lliamander 7y ago
  I assume that he would agree that the girl was victimized (as would I, obviously). Why argue vociferously for a position that everyone in the discussion already agrees with?
  - partialrecall 7y ago
    Pragmatically: So as to stave off comments such as the one you responded to.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      That is probably what you or I would do, yes. My point was that perhaps such disclaimers should not always be as necessary as they are.
      - partialrecall 7y ago
        Fully agreed.
toomim 7y ago
I think the statement in question is "The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing." This statement isn't sensitive to the anger that people feel towards Epstein and thus Minsky, and the fact that Stallman has said it in this angry environment has caused quite a spectacle. So in that sense, I think one might call it "spectacularly insensitive." On the other hand, I think that was the point. And I don't think that all public intellectuals should be required to be sensitive to the angry mobs at all times. I'd like someone to stand up to the mob, from time to time.
- lliamander 7y ago
  Read: "most plausible in light of what I know personally about the character of the accused". Of course, Stallman could just be a poor judge of character and did not pick up on Minsky's flaws. EDIT: to be clear, the italicized part is what I infer Stallman's intent was.
kelnos 7y ago
Because it's besides the point. It's a distraction from the actual topic at hand. It's also naive. I mean... powerful billionaire brings you to his private island and presents to you a beautiful young woman who wants to have sex with you, a 70-something man. That sounds like the "plot" of a really bad porno. You'd have to be obnoxiously naive to believe the woman wasn't being coerced in some way.
- alt_f4 7y ago
  A lot of women enjoy sex. Some enjoy BDSM, some enjoy tentacle porn, some enjoy sex with older men and so on. If she seemed friendly, interested and didn't mention anything about this being against her will, how would he know she is being forced? Should we just assume a younger woman can never be interested in an old guy? As a rather extreme example, Hugh Hefner's 3rd wife was early 20s when she married him and he was in his mid 80s. Should we assume he coerced her too?
- lliamander 7y ago
  > I mean... powerful billionaire brings you to his private island and presents to you a beautiful young woman who wants to have sex with you Which means powerful billionaire wants to own you, and you should gtfo while you can. > You'd have to be obnoxiously naive... Well, some people probably are. > ..to believe the woman wasn't being coerced in some way. or believe that she was willingly paid? Idk, I think I'd be creeped out way before it came to that, but who knows.
- berberous 7y ago
  Assuming the allegations that they had sex are true, I think the most likely scenario, and the one that Minsky believed, was that she was a completely willing paid escort. It's only in hindsight that you think it must have been obvious she was coerced in some way. Why would he assume a billionaire had not simply used some of his money to pay for escorts? Isn't that more logical, without knowing what you know today about Epstein?
  - romwell 7y ago
    "Huh, this billionaire bought me a child prostitute. Neat." ...I don't think it makes it any better.
DATACOMMANDER 7y ago
It wasn’t, and it’s absurd that people still insist on calling it a sexual assault. Stallman’s logic was spot-on.
romwell 7y ago
>>Minsky may not have been aware Giuffre had been coerced to have sex. >How is this particular statement by Stallman insensitive? It's insensitive to the fact that if you are a very old, famous man, who is taken by another old, rich man to a private island, where a seemingly willing 17-year-old girl offers sex - - then the right thing to do is to politely decline the offer, because anyone with a half brain cell, a world-famous scientist more so, can figure out what that is about. The statement is insensitive regardless of the allegations. It shows that RMS, alas, doesn't think that something that we today can't accept is wrong at all. Does it make him unworthy of being the president of the FSF? I don't know; he has been right about the tech, I think. I just wish he abstained from commenting on social matters that don't have anything to do with FSF concerns.

ggm 7y ago

He should have argued as vociferously for the alternative: he may have been aware. He should have argued for the girls perspective. The insensitivity was to ignore the girl,and her rights, and her status,in discussing Minsky's

alt_f4 7y ago
I believe Minsky was his (now dead) friend. If something like this comes up for a good, deceased friend of yours, will you pick the side of an unknown to you girl over the person you knew and care about? I'm not saying that's the correct side, but it's a human, emotional thing, rather than rational.
- lliamander 7y ago
  I've only read some of his comments after the fact. I don't think he was taking sides against the young women, as much as just speaking up for a friend.
  - alt_f4 7y ago
    I agree, but I don't know how to phrase it better.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      No worries. For what it's worth, that's what I assumed you meant. I was more or less attempting to rephrase it in my own words. In a world where one's written words can be so twisted beyond their original intent, it's good to reaffirm an assumption of good faith.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  I wouldn't come to a conclusion before even considering what situations would be plausible for the girl to be in. In the case of a 17 year old and a 73 year old, the main responsibility rests with the adult, just based on the respective age and positions of power. I wouldn't make an exception for friend nor foe, but if I had a friend who did that, I wouln't any longer consider him a friend, and there is nothing about the girl, short of her raping him, that could change that. "Friend" isn't just some flag that gets set by cosmic rays and then stays that way forever, that would make it meaningless to me, not more noble.. blind loyalty isn't loyalty, just blindness. I say this as someone who did cast of friends, which was painful to me, even though it was for totally trivial and harmless, outright edifying reasons in comparison.
  - alt_f4 7y ago
    > "Friend" isn't just some flag that gets set by cosmic rays and then stays that way forever. Agreed. It's more of a collection of experiences and knowledge of character. If I've known you for 20 years and known you to be a good person, if I hear something like this I'm more likely to believe this is some sort of a mistake, as it is completely out of character. One way to rationalize it would be to believe that you were misinformed, rather than me being a poor judge of character for all of these years. Again, not saying it's what happened - i dont know. But it's just human nature to react like that. It's not really human nature to consider the social media and print media applications before writing an opinion.
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago
      You're essentially just describing what you're not saying, and "some sort of mistake" is much too generic for me. While I personally wouldn't feel much better about a friend having sex with someone a third their age even if that person is an adult, it's impossible to have sex with a minor by accident, unless they have fake ID. Not even asking for it means not caring, no ifs and buts. "Human nature" is also too generic, the question was, how would you react. I answered that question, and have the former friends I showed the door to prove it. It's clearly within "human nature" to react like that, too.
lliamander 7y ago
I assume that he would agree that the girl was victimized (as would I, obviously). Why argue vociferously for a position that everyone in the discussion already agrees with?
- partialrecall 7y ago
  Pragmatically: So as to stave off comments such as the one you responded to.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    That is probably what you or I would do, yes. My point was that perhaps such disclaimers should not always be as necessary as they are.
    - partialrecall 7y ago
      Fully agreed.

toomim 7y ago

I think the statement in question is "The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing." This statement isn't sensitive to the anger that people feel towards Epstein and thus Minsky, and the fact that Stallman has said it in this angry environment has caused quite a spectacle. So in that sense, I think one might call it "spectacularly insensitive." On the other hand, I think that was the point. And I don't think that all public intellectuals should be required to be sensitive to the angry mobs at all times. I'd like someone to stand up to the mob, from time to time.

lliamander 7y ago
Read: "most plausible in light of what I know personally about the character of the accused". Of course, Stallman could just be a poor judge of character and did not pick up on Minsky's flaws. EDIT: to be clear, the italicized part is what I infer Stallman's intent was.

kelnos 7y ago

Because it's besides the point. It's a distraction from the actual topic at hand. It's also naive. I mean... powerful billionaire brings you to his private island and presents to you a beautiful young woman who wants to have sex with you, a 70-something man. That sounds like the "plot" of a really bad porno. You'd have to be obnoxiously naive to believe the woman wasn't being coerced in some way.

alt_f4 7y ago
A lot of women enjoy sex. Some enjoy BDSM, some enjoy tentacle porn, some enjoy sex with older men and so on. If she seemed friendly, interested and didn't mention anything about this being against her will, how would he know she is being forced? Should we just assume a younger woman can never be interested in an old guy? As a rather extreme example, Hugh Hefner's 3rd wife was early 20s when she married him and he was in his mid 80s. Should we assume he coerced her too?
lliamander 7y ago
> I mean... powerful billionaire brings you to his private island and presents to you a beautiful young woman who wants to have sex with you Which means powerful billionaire wants to own you, and you should gtfo while you can. > You'd have to be obnoxiously naive... Well, some people probably are. > ..to believe the woman wasn't being coerced in some way. or believe that she was willingly paid? Idk, I think I'd be creeped out way before it came to that, but who knows.
berberous 7y ago
Assuming the allegations that they had sex are true, I think the most likely scenario, and the one that Minsky believed, was that she was a completely willing paid escort. It's only in hindsight that you think it must have been obvious she was coerced in some way. Why would he assume a billionaire had not simply used some of his money to pay for escorts? Isn't that more logical, without knowing what you know today about Epstein?
- romwell 7y ago
  "Huh, this billionaire bought me a child prostitute. Neat." ...I don't think it makes it any better.

DATACOMMANDER 7y ago

It wasn’t, and it’s absurd that people still insist on calling it a sexual assault. Stallman’s logic was spot-on.

romwell 7y ago

>>Minsky may not have been aware Giuffre had been coerced to have sex. >How is this particular statement by Stallman insensitive? It's insensitive to the fact that if you are a very old, famous man, who is taken by another old, rich man to a private island, where a seemingly willing 17-year-old girl offers sex - - then the right thing to do is to politely decline the offer, because anyone with a half brain cell, a world-famous scientist more so, can figure out what that is about. The statement is insensitive regardless of the allegations. It shows that RMS, alas, doesn't think that something that we today can't accept is wrong at all. Does it make him unworthy of being the president of the FSF? I don't know; he has been right about the tech, I think. I just wish he abstained from commenting on social matters that don't have anything to do with FSF concerns.