3 ms·

He also redefined the legal term sexual assault in the discussion. According to him Minsky was at the very least innocent of sexual assault because having acces

by josefx 7y ago

He also redefined the legal term sexual assault in the discussion. According to him Minsky was at the very least innocent of sexual assault because having access to a dictionary let him conclude that assault implied violence[1]. There are winning arguments to be had, unless we adopt GNU/law that isn't one. [1]https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/091320191...

mtrower 7y ago
He did not say Minsky was legally innocent of sexual assault (he in fact gave no opinion of guilt). He said that sexual assault is a poor term, for reasons of broadness and vagueness, and that we should avoid using such terms in order to avoid ambiguity. He brought up the definition of "assault" because, as a component of "sexual assault", it colors the term, shifting connotations towards the side of violence. He didn't redefine the legal term, he just (tl;dr) said it sucks and we shouldn't use it (and instead should use something more specific).
- josefx 7y ago
  > He did not say Minsky was legally innocent of sexual assault (he in fact gave no opinion of guilt). That part of my comment was overly sarcastic. I have to apologize for that. > He said that sexual assault is a poor term, for reasons of broadness and vagueness, and that we should avoid using such terms in order to avoid ambiguity. I would say that the term is intentionally broad and vague precisely because violence is only one of many ways to force an unwilling participant and how it was done is mostly irrelevant to the end result. > he just (tl;dr) said it sucks and we shouldn't use it (and instead should use something more specific). As far as I can tell he never actually brought up a more specific term and just disagreed in a rather non constructive fashion against the use of both sexual assault and rape, even when someone explicitly referred to laws.

by josefx 7y ago

mtrower 7y ago

He did not say Minsky was legally innocent of sexual assault (he in fact gave no opinion of guilt). He said that sexual assault is a poor term, for reasons of broadness and vagueness, and that we should avoid using such terms in order to avoid ambiguity. He brought up the definition of "assault" because, as a component of "sexual assault", it colors the term, shifting connotations towards the side of violence. He didn't redefine the legal term, he just (tl;dr) said it sucks and we shouldn't use it (and instead should use something more specific).

josefx 7y ago
> He did not say Minsky was legally innocent of sexual assault (he in fact gave no opinion of guilt). That part of my comment was overly sarcastic. I have to apologize for that. > He said that sexual assault is a poor term, for reasons of broadness and vagueness, and that we should avoid using such terms in order to avoid ambiguity. I would say that the term is intentionally broad and vague precisely because violence is only one of many ways to force an unwilling participant and how it was done is mostly irrelevant to the end result. > he just (tl;dr) said it sucks and we shouldn't use it (and instead should use something more specific). As far as I can tell he never actually brought up a more specific term and just disagreed in a rather non constructive fashion against the use of both sexual assault and rape, even when someone explicitly referred to laws.