4 ms·
Some people here seem to need it explained why RMS's comments were wrong. - Minsky is accused, by a credible victim of a non-credible, convicted pedophile, of
by JulianMorrison 7y ago
Some people here seem to need it explained why RMS's comments were wrong.
- Minsky is accused, by a credible victim of a non-credible, convicted pedophile, of receiving sexual contact with a woman who was underage at the time, and who was dispatched to him as part of her employment.
- RMS says the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to Minsky as entirely willing. He also says that the difference between 17 and 18 is a minor detail and it's an injustice to refer to it as a sexual assault.
- RMS fails to understand that an adult with a teenager is unacceptable creeping due to the imbalance of power in several different ways, in this context he's right that 17/18 is a minor detail because both are unacceptable. But 17 is also illegal. What if he didn't know she was 17? Irrelevant because he surely knew she was a very young woman, and by implication relished the power imbalance rather than properly backing away. In fact, Minsky should never have accepted friendship with Epstein who was clearly creeping on teenagers in a completely overt way. And RMS shouldn't be defending it.
- RMS also fails to understand how the employer-employee relationship compounds this with yet another axis of undue power, and how these together make the presentation of being "entirely willing" impossible to tell apart from having no choice. This impossibility is why age of consent laws exist even though teenagers can speak and express their opinion. They don't have the structural power to speak freely. To be honest, 18-year-olds don't either. When someone has sexual contact with someone who has no power to say no, that's sexual assault, or it's rape.
- By taking the side of a man he knows, who was doing wrong, over a woman who was vulnerable, and by brushing off the implied possibility of coercion, RMS shows that he is part of the systemic problem of sexist, exploiter-friendly men in tech which the Epstein scandal has uncovered.
- UserIsUnused 7y agoHe doesn't understands power relations because he ignores them. He doesn't bend, which makes him a general outsider of society, but he expect other to act in the same manner, of not bending, because he doesn't understand social ties. There are various few occasions that you see RMS bending. Like plane travels (which require IDs), that he just does when he needs to cross oceans. So to him, a person that dd something because of a power relation with an employer is just weird.
- JulianMorrison 7y agoHe "doesn't bend" because he's never had to. He's been able to leverage his privilege into a lifestyle of not bending. You know what happens to people who "won't bend" and must? They break and die. So people in dire circumstances learn to bend. Not personally being in dire circumstance is the luck of the draw. Not considering them, or playing "I wouldn't bend" and belittling them, is a refusal to care.
- leftyted 7y ago> Some people here seem to need it explained why RMS's comments were wrong. This perspective is not compatible with a liberal society. Perhaps you prefer an illiberal society ruled by your ideological allies.
- JulianMorrison 7y agoIf it means rapey jerks shut up, bring it on.