9 ms·

> If any politician or public figure said this statement in the past 70 years, they would have ended their career. I mean, given everything in the news these d

> If any politician or public figure said this statement in the past 70 years, they would have ended their career. I mean, given everything in the news these days, this is blatantly untrue. I suspect it wasn't ever quite that true before either. Maybe it should be but I don't think it's quite that easy. > The wrong opinion? Stallman questions whether the victim, who he admits was coerced into sex, was actually sexually assaulted. This is an incredibly shameful take on the situation. [...] There are people trying to downplay sexual assault. I'm hesitating to respond to this (self-censorship and all) but I'm not a public figure so I can risk being wrong, right? Right?!? This isn't exactly what RMS was getting it and you're kinda missing the point in the same way RMS kinda missed the point. He didn't get why we use the term "sexual assault" as broadly (and reasonably so) as we do, and it doesn't sound like you get why he decided to argue the semantics of it. His point was that he felt calling what Misnky had done "sexual assault" seemed to imply that Misky hadviolently attacked and raped her in a physically restraining sorta way instead of, to his best knowledge, in a "she was coerced by a third party without his knowledge" sort of way. He missed the point that regardless of those details she was sexual assaulted. Further, he seems oblivious to the fact that splitting hairs defending his friend distracts from the real issue: that this isn't about any of them, it's about what happened to the victims. I think that take is fair enough but I agree making that case is bone headed. Not because he shouldn't speak his mind, but that it's just besides the point. I think you're missing the fact that at all RMS was about was just clearing up the record of what Minsky did and didn't do. Not even that he was fully innocent. I agree it was in poor taste but I think if he was any less a public figure it would have been read more charitably with an awkward sigh instead.

csb6 7y ago
I think it’s wrong to absolve Minsky of responsibility, though. He would have had to be pretty clueless to not at least wonder why all of these teenaged girls were hanging around Epstein’s place. Whether he knew doesn’t mean he did not still have sex with an underage girl. Claiming that he didn’t know she was underage seems shaky to me. At the very least he was taking advantage of a woman in the employ of Epstein who seduced/tried to seduce him. At the very least Minsky was involved in indirect, coerced sexual assault as the one having sex with her (if ended up doing so), even if Epstein is the mastermind. I think Minsky was smart enough to know what was happening. So that is why I disagree with RMS. I think calling it sexual assault done, perhaps unknowingly, by Minsky is an accurate description.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Indeed. The "best case" assumption that Minsky could have made was that Epstein was a procurer and a pimp.
- freetime2 7y ago
  > I think it’s wrong to absolve Minsky of responsibility, though. Stallman was not saying that Minsky should not be absolved of responsibility. He was just saying that the term "sexual assault" is inaccurate in that it implies violence. > I think Minsky was smart enough to know what was happening. That's a fairly large assumption. Minsky's name shows up twice in hundreds of pages of deposition. Once is in a statement by the victim when she is asked to name names: > They instructed me to go to George Mitchell, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, another prince that I don't know his name. A guy that owns a hotel, a really large hotel chain, I can't remember which hotel it was. Marvin Minsky. And the only other reference (that I am aware of) is in reference to being on a private flight with a bunch of other people. How are you able to infer so much from so litte information?
  - kelnos 7y ago
    > He was just saying that the term "sexual assault" is inaccurate in that it implies violence. Which is also incorrect. Sexual assault encompasses coercion without physical violence. It is accurate to say that the girl was sexually assaulted; whether or not Minsky sexually assaulted her is up for debate. I agree with the parent that it seems sketchy that Minsky (and the others present) didn't have at least some idea what was going on. At best, these girls could be prostitutes, but just assuming everything about the situation was completely legit is in my mind morally questionable. Then there wass also a person present at the gathering who says Minsky turned the girl down. If she says that she had sex with him, I would tend to believe her, though.
    - non-entity 7y ago
      > Which is also incorrect. Sexual assault encompasses coercion without physical violence. I was actually reading Stallman's site last night, after seeing the article about him leaving CSAIL. I noticed he had a "glossary" section where he basically rejected the use of many common words and phrases, because their literal meaning did not match the colloquial or modern use (for example, he rejected the word homophobia, being pedantic about the phobia part). I'd bet this whole thing about "sexual assault" is along the same line.
freetime2 7y ago
> He missed the point that regardless of those details she was sexual assaulted. Further, he seems oblivious to the fact that splitting hairs defending his friend distracts from the real issue: that this isn't about any of them, it's about what happened to the victims. I think that take is fair enough but I agree making that case is bone headed. Not because he shouldn't speak his mind, but that it's just besides the point. I don't know... to me it seems totally understandable (even somewhat admirable) that Stallman would stand up for a deceased friend/colleague and try to set the record straight.
- larrywright 7y ago
  I think most people would stand up for a friend in this way. I think where Stallman erred is by making it all about Minsky without in anyway acknowledging what had happened to these girls. It came off poorly.
- emptyfile 7y ago
  His friend is accused of having sex with an underage prostitute on a billionares private island. The fact that he thinks people don't have issues with that, but with the fact that he may have forced himself on her, is what makes him a piece of shit.
  - freetime2 7y ago
    I think that details matter when assessing the severity of a crime. The law also takes details into account, assigning different categories and punishments depending on the details of the sexual offense. So yes I think the details of whether he forced himself on her matter. So do other details like what type of sexual acts occurred, the victims age at the time, whether he knew she was under age, etc. To be clear, I think Epstein committed some terrible crimes and I am glad he was eventually brought to justice. And based on the limited details available surrounding Minsky’s involvement, it certainly looks bad for him as well. And my heart goes out to the victims for the terrible exploitation they were subjected to... I literally can’t even imagine what that must have been like as I have never experienced anything even remotely comparable in my life. But that doesn’t change the fact that I think some acts of sexual misconduct are worse than others. That I think details and precision matter when accusing someone of a crime. Or that I think the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Does that make me a “piece of shit” too?
concordDance 7y ago
I very much disagree that defending the reputation of your dead friend should be called "splitting hairs". On a partially related note, the abuse of language that has lead to the current definitions of "rape" and "sexual assault" is distressing. :(

csb6 7y ago

I think it’s wrong to absolve Minsky of responsibility, though. He would have had to be pretty clueless to not at least wonder why all of these teenaged girls were hanging around Epstein’s place. Whether he knew doesn’t mean he did not still have sex with an underage girl. Claiming that he didn’t know she was underage seems shaky to me. At the very least he was taking advantage of a woman in the employ of Epstein who seduced/tried to seduce him. At the very least Minsky was involved in indirect, coerced sexual assault as the one having sex with her (if ended up doing so), even if Epstein is the mastermind. I think Minsky was smart enough to know what was happening. So that is why I disagree with RMS. I think calling it sexual assault done, perhaps unknowingly, by Minsky is an accurate description.

pjc50 7y ago
Indeed. The "best case" assumption that Minsky could have made was that Epstein was a procurer and a pimp.
freetime2 7y ago
> I think it’s wrong to absolve Minsky of responsibility, though. Stallman was not saying that Minsky should not be absolved of responsibility. He was just saying that the term "sexual assault" is inaccurate in that it implies violence. > I think Minsky was smart enough to know what was happening. That's a fairly large assumption. Minsky's name shows up twice in hundreds of pages of deposition. Once is in a statement by the victim when she is asked to name names: > They instructed me to go to George Mitchell, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, another prince that I don't know his name. A guy that owns a hotel, a really large hotel chain, I can't remember which hotel it was. Marvin Minsky. And the only other reference (that I am aware of) is in reference to being on a private flight with a bunch of other people. How are you able to infer so much from so litte information?
- kelnos 7y ago
  > He was just saying that the term "sexual assault" is inaccurate in that it implies violence. Which is also incorrect. Sexual assault encompasses coercion without physical violence. It is accurate to say that the girl was sexually assaulted; whether or not Minsky sexually assaulted her is up for debate. I agree with the parent that it seems sketchy that Minsky (and the others present) didn't have at least some idea what was going on. At best, these girls could be prostitutes, but just assuming everything about the situation was completely legit is in my mind morally questionable. Then there wass also a person present at the gathering who says Minsky turned the girl down. If she says that she had sex with him, I would tend to believe her, though.
  - non-entity 7y ago
    > Which is also incorrect. Sexual assault encompasses coercion without physical violence. I was actually reading Stallman's site last night, after seeing the article about him leaving CSAIL. I noticed he had a "glossary" section where he basically rejected the use of many common words and phrases, because their literal meaning did not match the colloquial or modern use (for example, he rejected the word homophobia, being pedantic about the phobia part). I'd bet this whole thing about "sexual assault" is along the same line.

freetime2 7y ago

> He missed the point that regardless of those details she was sexual assaulted. Further, he seems oblivious to the fact that splitting hairs defending his friend distracts from the real issue: that this isn't about any of them, it's about what happened to the victims. I think that take is fair enough but I agree making that case is bone headed. Not because he shouldn't speak his mind, but that it's just besides the point. I don't know... to me it seems totally understandable (even somewhat admirable) that Stallman would stand up for a deceased friend/colleague and try to set the record straight.

larrywright 7y ago
I think most people would stand up for a friend in this way. I think where Stallman erred is by making it all about Minsky without in anyway acknowledging what had happened to these girls. It came off poorly.
emptyfile 7y ago
His friend is accused of having sex with an underage prostitute on a billionares private island. The fact that he thinks people don't have issues with that, but with the fact that he may have forced himself on her, is what makes him a piece of shit.
- freetime2 7y ago
  I think that details matter when assessing the severity of a crime. The law also takes details into account, assigning different categories and punishments depending on the details of the sexual offense. So yes I think the details of whether he forced himself on her matter. So do other details like what type of sexual acts occurred, the victims age at the time, whether he knew she was under age, etc. To be clear, I think Epstein committed some terrible crimes and I am glad he was eventually brought to justice. And based on the limited details available surrounding Minsky’s involvement, it certainly looks bad for him as well. And my heart goes out to the victims for the terrible exploitation they were subjected to... I literally can’t even imagine what that must have been like as I have never experienced anything even remotely comparable in my life. But that doesn’t change the fact that I think some acts of sexual misconduct are worse than others. That I think details and precision matter when accusing someone of a crime. Or that I think the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Does that make me a “piece of shit” too?

concordDance 7y ago

I very much disagree that defending the reputation of your dead friend should be called "splitting hairs". On a partially related note, the abuse of language that has lead to the current definitions of "rape" and "sexual assault" is distressing. :(