4 ms·

"His previous comments about minors on his personal blog, which I don't even want to dignify with a description (you can do your own search), leads me to wonder

"His previous comments about minors on his personal blog, which I don't even want to dignify with a description (you can do your own search), leads me to wonder what other connections than money he had with Epstein." Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology. And this kind of tar-and-feathering is precisely why we need official processes for this sort of thing. Official reprimands leading to termination if unfixed, like all civilized peoples do. This ensures that it's made crystal clear what's acceptable and what's not, with time to mend one's ways. The alternative is arbitrary terminations, which makes everyone insecure.

5trokerac3 7y ago
> Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology. A dude openly defending pedos and CP, who happened to be paid from the coffers of the worst known child trafficker in history - who probably was a honeypot for getting blackmail material on famous and rich people - warrants a very large raising of the eyebrow. Stallman isn't some guy who happened to go to a single party hosted by Epstein. He worked for an org that took a ton of money from him and openly defended all the worst of Epstein's behavior. Anyone who would do that - even without the money - is wholly worth that type of scrutiny. I'm so tired of people defending someone who has been an openly hostile individual for over 30 years. This went well beyond the spectrum or social awkwardness a long time ago.
kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
>Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology. Why are so many people obsessed with applying the same standards used in a court to real life? If someone is a jerk, I don't have to maintain a chain-of-custody for the evidence I use to determine that person is a jerk, and I don't have to have sworn testimony from reliable witnesses to apply the jerk label, and I certainly don't need the opinions of a jury of said jerk's peers. Here's a job-keeping pro-tip, free of charge, for everyone: Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Because mobs are horrific and that's what you get when people base punishments on speculation. > Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired. Great. That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me.
  - urbanjunkie 7y ago
    Feel free to not live in this society. You won't be missed.
  - kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
    >That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me. I'm sure that's hyperbole because comparing being asked (I assume) to resign after downplaying child sex trafficking is not functionally or morally equivalent to lynching. As far as watching what you say, that is the world: 1. As it has always existed. 2. It exists today. 3. Will always exist until the end of time itself. And that will never, ever, change. Don't conflate raging anonymously online with being able to say whatever you want in public.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      They used to accuse people of being communists, thus landing them on a blacklist and unable to find work. I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society.
      - kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
        >I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society. Many people seem to be complaining about this. As far as I can tell, very few people are filming and posting publicly a video saying: "My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”and he should face no consequences." or "My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” and he should face no consequences." Instead they wave their hands and mutter about "free speech".
DanBC 7y ago
> Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, Prosecution: "We think he knew this person was subject to coercion and we say this because X, Y, Z". Defence: "We think he did not know this person was subject to coercion and we say this because we interpret X, Y, and Z differently." These involve speculation about the mental state of the accused.

5trokerac3 7y ago

> Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology. A dude openly defending pedos and CP, who happened to be paid from the coffers of the worst known child trafficker in history - who probably was a honeypot for getting blackmail material on famous and rich people - warrants a very large raising of the eyebrow. Stallman isn't some guy who happened to go to a single party hosted by Epstein. He worked for an org that took a ton of money from him and openly defended all the worst of Epstein's behavior. Anyone who would do that - even without the money - is wholly worth that type of scrutiny. I'm so tired of people defending someone who has been an openly hostile individual for over 30 years. This went well beyond the spectrum or social awkwardness a long time ago.

kilo_bravo_3 7y ago

>Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology. Why are so many people obsessed with applying the same standards used in a court to real life? If someone is a jerk, I don't have to maintain a chain-of-custody for the evidence I use to determine that person is a jerk, and I don't have to have sworn testimony from reliable witnesses to apply the jerk label, and I certainly don't need the opinions of a jury of said jerk's peers. Here's a job-keeping pro-tip, free of charge, for everyone: Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
Because mobs are horrific and that's what you get when people base punishments on speculation. > Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired. Great. That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me.
- urbanjunkie 7y ago
  Feel free to not live in this society. You won't be missed.
- kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
  >That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me. I'm sure that's hyperbole because comparing being asked (I assume) to resign after downplaying child sex trafficking is not functionally or morally equivalent to lynching. As far as watching what you say, that is the world: 1. As it has always existed. 2. It exists today. 3. Will always exist until the end of time itself. And that will never, ever, change. Don't conflate raging anonymously online with being able to say whatever you want in public.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    They used to accuse people of being communists, thus landing them on a blacklist and unable to find work. I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society.
    - kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
      >I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society. Many people seem to be complaining about this. As far as I can tell, very few people are filming and posting publicly a video saying: "My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”and he should face no consequences." or "My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” and he should face no consequences." Instead they wave their hands and mutter about "free speech".

DanBC 7y ago

> Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, Prosecution: "We think he knew this person was subject to coercion and we say this because X, Y, Z". Defence: "We think he did not know this person was subject to coercion and we say this because we interpret X, Y, and Z differently." These involve speculation about the mental state of the accused.