3 ms·

I am confused because I have read said publicly available documents myself and I was unable to find any instance of sexism by Stallman in them.

KirinDave 7y ago
Perhaps you should use a better search engine. Several people have gone to great lengths to document this adequately and in public. If you want to argue with someone about the definition of sexism, you should go argue with them and stop wasting my time.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  > Perhaps you should use a better search engine Not sure what search engines have to do with the topic. I have read the two medium posts, the vice article, and the pdf. > If you want to argue with someone about the definition of sexism I am not doing that. You claimed that RMS was sexist in this incident. I am asking you what he said specifically to make you believe that. > you should go argue with them and stop wasting my time Why post in hackernews if you are not interested in discussion?
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    I am intrested discussion. Just not with you any further because I don't think that you're engaging in good faith. Have a nice day.
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      So wait, I am not engaging in good faith because I read what Stallman posted and did not detect anything that seemed sexist? Is everyone who disagrees with you arguing in bad faith? Isn't the one who "holds forbidden knowledge" on sexists thing that Stallman said regarding the Epstein incident but refuse to say what exactly these are the one engaging in bad faith?
      - balaksakrionon 7y ago
        KirinDave's definition of "in good faith" only includes positions/arguments/opinions they agree with.
        KirinDave 7y ago
        You can say this, but I'm pretty sure my post history tells another story.
        ThrowawayR2 7y ago
        > You can say this, but I'm pretty sure my post history tells another story. Having read many of your post in threads on similar topics and having replied to a few, I'm sorry to say that I must agree with others that your post history pretty clearly doesn't.
        KirinDave 7y ago
        Weird, because at least once we've talked on a feminist subject and I didn't accuse you of this. Musta been a fluke. But just for you, my longtime friend, I'll explain my thought process just this once. But seriously, firstly dependenttypes pretends not to know "which sentence" we are talking about despite the fact that my post directly references that damning sentence. He then addresses that sentence, then moves on to an outrageous statement that in "most" places children can consent to sex with adults and that it just happens to be RMS was in a place where that's not true? Where does he get that from? A few nations allow for parental permission to override this state of affairs, but in general it's tough to find a nation without laws around child rape. Then, dependenttypes draws a distinction (on the sentence that they claim wasn't clear from context), between a woman appearing to be willing vs being willing. But this once again centers the actions of the women and suggests Minsky has no responsibility to recognize things might not be right, as I suspect a rational person might in such circumstances. It centers the women's act of presenting herself as opposed to Minsky's responsibility to not rape kids. Finally, dependenttypes suggests that typing "stallman sexism" in google doesn't show (for me in incognito at last) four articles in the top ten results full of explanations. Similar searches on twitter reveal firsthand accounts of both sexist and profoundly inappropriate behavior. Upon reading this, it was pretty clear to me that: 0. This person isn't here to talk. They're here to Fisk posts aggressively. 1. This person tried to imply that it was only puritanical legal technicalities that prevented what appears to be a teenage sex slave from consenting is pretty outrageous. Generally, slaves don't have a choice and Epstein was a slaver. 2. This person has a definition of sexism that does not appear to be reasonable, OR they're so completely unwilling to even examine an opposing viewpoint that they can't read the wealth of other sources on this. 3. Given these things, the subsequent claim "I have read these things and found no evidence of sexism" strongly suggests someone who will simply refuse to adopt a reasonable definition or reasonable evidence of sexism as a matter of personal belief. Note in his posts we don't hear some sort of positive refutation. Rather we hear a negative one: "this is fine what is your problem?" We don't hear, "that isn't sexism because..." we hear, "I don't see any evidence of sexism at all." We're well past the point where any reasonable actor could come to such a conclusion. So I concluded this person is acting in bad faith. This doesn't mean "they disagree with me." This means, "they're not here to discuss the evidence or what people are saying but rather to refute it by any means necessary." And looking more closely at their post history, I stand by this assessment.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > I am asking you what he said specifically to make you believe that. Stallman defends a 70 year old man having sex with a coerced child (using the same language he used to defend familial child sexual abuse or other forms of child sexual abuse) because Stallman is a sexist who has never bothered to learn about VAWG. His "apology" just piles it on - he thinks the problem is not with what he said, but with other people's understanding. He still doesn't get the fact that people know exactly what he said, and they understood what he said.

KirinDave 7y ago

Perhaps you should use a better search engine. Several people have gone to great lengths to document this adequately and in public. If you want to argue with someone about the definition of sexism, you should go argue with them and stop wasting my time.

dependenttypes 7y ago
> Perhaps you should use a better search engine Not sure what search engines have to do with the topic. I have read the two medium posts, the vice article, and the pdf. > If you want to argue with someone about the definition of sexism I am not doing that. You claimed that RMS was sexist in this incident. I am asking you what he said specifically to make you believe that. > you should go argue with them and stop wasting my time Why post in hackernews if you are not interested in discussion?
- KirinDave 7y ago
  I am intrested discussion. Just not with you any further because I don't think that you're engaging in good faith. Have a nice day.
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    So wait, I am not engaging in good faith because I read what Stallman posted and did not detect anything that seemed sexist? Is everyone who disagrees with you arguing in bad faith? Isn't the one who "holds forbidden knowledge" on sexists thing that Stallman said regarding the Epstein incident but refuse to say what exactly these are the one engaging in bad faith?
    - balaksakrionon 7y ago
      KirinDave's definition of "in good faith" only includes positions/arguments/opinions they agree with.
      - KirinDave 7y ago
        You can say this, but I'm pretty sure my post history tells another story.
        ThrowawayR2 7y ago
        > You can say this, but I'm pretty sure my post history tells another story. Having read many of your post in threads on similar topics and having replied to a few, I'm sorry to say that I must agree with others that your post history pretty clearly doesn't.
        KirinDave 7y ago
        Weird, because at least once we've talked on a feminist subject and I didn't accuse you of this. Musta been a fluke. But just for you, my longtime friend, I'll explain my thought process just this once. But seriously, firstly dependenttypes pretends not to know "which sentence" we are talking about despite the fact that my post directly references that damning sentence. He then addresses that sentence, then moves on to an outrageous statement that in "most" places children can consent to sex with adults and that it just happens to be RMS was in a place where that's not true? Where does he get that from? A few nations allow for parental permission to override this state of affairs, but in general it's tough to find a nation without laws around child rape. Then, dependenttypes draws a distinction (on the sentence that they claim wasn't clear from context), between a woman appearing to be willing vs being willing. But this once again centers the actions of the women and suggests Minsky has no responsibility to recognize things might not be right, as I suspect a rational person might in such circumstances. It centers the women's act of presenting herself as opposed to Minsky's responsibility to not rape kids. Finally, dependenttypes suggests that typing "stallman sexism" in google doesn't show (for me in incognito at last) four articles in the top ten results full of explanations. Similar searches on twitter reveal firsthand accounts of both sexist and profoundly inappropriate behavior. Upon reading this, it was pretty clear to me that: 0. This person isn't here to talk. They're here to Fisk posts aggressively. 1. This person tried to imply that it was only puritanical legal technicalities that prevented what appears to be a teenage sex slave from consenting is pretty outrageous. Generally, slaves don't have a choice and Epstein was a slaver. 2. This person has a definition of sexism that does not appear to be reasonable, OR they're so completely unwilling to even examine an opposing viewpoint that they can't read the wealth of other sources on this. 3. Given these things, the subsequent claim "I have read these things and found no evidence of sexism" strongly suggests someone who will simply refuse to adopt a reasonable definition or reasonable evidence of sexism as a matter of personal belief. Note in his posts we don't hear some sort of positive refutation. Rather we hear a negative one: "this is fine what is your problem?" We don't hear, "that isn't sexism because..." we hear, "I don't see any evidence of sexism at all." We're well past the point where any reasonable actor could come to such a conclusion. So I concluded this person is acting in bad faith. This doesn't mean "they disagree with me." This means, "they're not here to discuss the evidence or what people are saying but rather to refute it by any means necessary." And looking more closely at their post history, I stand by this assessment.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > I am asking you what he said specifically to make you believe that. Stallman defends a 70 year old man having sex with a coerced child (using the same language he used to defend familial child sexual abuse or other forms of child sexual abuse) because Stallman is a sexist who has never bothered to learn about VAWG. His "apology" just piles it on - he thinks the problem is not with what he said, but with other people's understanding. He still doesn't get the fact that people know exactly what he said, and they understood what he said.