11 ms·

Because it's the absolute laziness of other media companies that see articles posted on other journalism sites and blindly copy-paste it instead of doing their

Because it's the absolute laziness of other media companies that see articles posted on other journalism sites and blindly copy-paste it instead of doing their own investigation. It ends up most of the time causing witchhunts and it turns out we're making mountains out of mole hills.

2_listerine_pls 7y ago
Just saw a TechCrunch article with a title saying Richard was defending Epstein. edit: what's up with the downvotes
- amanzi 7y ago
  Exactly - this why 'media' is being called out here.
DanBC 7y ago
> it turns out we're making mountains out of mole hills. Except we're not, are we? We're talking about RMS's firmly held, often repeated, views on child sexual abuse. He keeps saying that it's not that harmful; that images are fine; that coercion isn't force. This latest episode, where he interjects his "well actually" to say that assault is the wrong word (because he mistakenly thinks assault requires use of force) is yet another example where he could have said nothing, or he could have done a little bit of research before speaking. Instead chose to deliver his weird definition of assault in a thread to defend the actions of Minsky.
- frabbit 7y ago
  He keeps saying that it's not that harmful; that images are fine; that coercion isn't force. That's a lie on your part isn't it? There are very grave points to make about rms's statements but you are doing no one any favors with these statements and merely muddying the waters. It would probably be a good idea to knock it off.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    No, it's not a lie. >I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. Then, later, > “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realise they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue.” Look at what he says here. Words like "willing" and "voluntary". This is a normalisation of child sexual abuse. About Minsky: > The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X. > The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed. https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...) > Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. Here he is clearly saying that "assault" requires use of force, and using this misinterpretation of the word to defend Minsky's actions. He's wrong about the word assault. It does not require force or violence. You can find your own Stallman quotes about child sexual abuse and bestiality.
    - Chris2048 7y ago
      > No, it's not a lie. Care to provide example of "that images are fine"? > Words like "willing" and "voluntary" Maybe look at the other words around those words for context. > This is a normalisation of... This is the infantilisation of language. Certain word "normalize" something, therefore adults are no longer allowed to be subjected to them. Language policing at its finest. > using this misinterpretation of the word Says who? Many people would assume the same. Should that be ignored because the legal definition, only fully understood by lawyers, differs? In terms of Minsky's reputation, it matters more what regular people think it means, than what definitions exist in law. The common misconception wrt what "sexual assault" implies is often utilised by malicious publications and prosecutions - maybe it's time to clean up the language.

2_listerine_pls 7y ago

Just saw a TechCrunch article with a title saying Richard was defending Epstein. edit: what's up with the downvotes

amanzi 7y ago
Exactly - this why 'media' is being called out here.

DanBC 7y ago

> it turns out we're making mountains out of mole hills. Except we're not, are we? We're talking about RMS's firmly held, often repeated, views on child sexual abuse. He keeps saying that it's not that harmful; that images are fine; that coercion isn't force. This latest episode, where he interjects his "well actually" to say that assault is the wrong word (because he mistakenly thinks assault requires use of force) is yet another example where he could have said nothing, or he could have done a little bit of research before speaking. Instead chose to deliver his weird definition of assault in a thread to defend the actions of Minsky.

frabbit 7y ago
He keeps saying that it's not that harmful; that images are fine; that coercion isn't force. That's a lie on your part isn't it? There are very grave points to make about rms's statements but you are doing no one any favors with these statements and merely muddying the waters. It would probably be a good idea to knock it off.
- DanBC 7y ago
  No, it's not a lie. >I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. Then, later, > “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realise they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue.” Look at what he says here. Words like "willing" and "voluntary". This is a normalisation of child sexual abuse. About Minsky: > The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X. > The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed. https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...) > Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. Here he is clearly saying that "assault" requires use of force, and using this misinterpretation of the word to defend Minsky's actions. He's wrong about the word assault. It does not require force or violence. You can find your own Stallman quotes about child sexual abuse and bestiality.
  - Chris2048 7y ago
    > No, it's not a lie. Care to provide example of "that images are fine"? > Words like "willing" and "voluntary" Maybe look at the other words around those words for context. > This is a normalisation of... This is the infantilisation of language. Certain word "normalize" something, therefore adults are no longer allowed to be subjected to them. Language policing at its finest. > using this misinterpretation of the word Says who? Many people would assume the same. Should that be ignored because the legal definition, only fully understood by lawyers, differs? In terms of Minsky's reputation, it matters more what regular people think it means, than what definitions exist in law. The common misconception wrt what "sexual assault" implies is often utilised by malicious publications and prosecutions - maybe it's time to clean up the language.