3 ms·

My impression was that Stallman wasn't making a clear distinction between what was legal and what was moral; and that he was primarily focused on people's moral

by gwd 7y ago

My impression was that Stallman wasn't making a clear distinction between what was legal and what was moral; and that he was primarily focused on people's moral outrage. He seems less concerned with whether what Minsky did was a crime, and more concerned with Minsky's portrayal as a sexual predator. In countries such as France or Germany -- hardly barbaric backwaters -- it seems it's perfectly legal to have consensual sex with 15-year-olds[1]. So maybe he does think that America's laws are "absurdly" strict; in which case most of Europe would agree with him. Or maybe he's just making the point that this is an area where many reasonable people come to different conclusions, and so it's absurd to be so outraged about it. I mean, I have a hard time understanding how anyone could think a 15-year-old can possibly be considered to consent to have sex with someone in their 20's. But obviously a lot of Europe thinks differently; if you're going to cut off ties with Stallman for his view on the matter, you'd better cut off ties with all of Europe too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe edit: Forgot the reference

DanBC 7y ago
Minsky didn't have consensual sex. She was coerced. Age of sexual consent isn't relevant here. We need to legal age for prostitution. Does any US state or any EU country set that below 18? But also, it doesn't matter. US federal law makes it a crime to travel abroad to have sex with people under 18. https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-fede...
- gwd 7y ago
  We're not talking about Minsky; we're talking about a hit piece on Richard Stallman, which brings up his opinion on the morality of sleeping with 17-year-olds as a reason to revile him. The age of consent in Finland is apparently 16. Should we ask Linus Torvalds what his opinions on the matter are, and force him to step down if he disagrees? The age of consent in Italy is apparently 14 (!). I know a number of Italians prominently involved in the kernel community; shall we ask them what their opinions are? It's important that we distinguish exactly what it is that we're accusing someone of, and make sure that each individual element is true, for two reasons. One is just plain justice sake: it's not right to railroad someone and force them to step down from the organization they founded based on bad logic and twisted facts. The second is, Stallman is not the only target here: everyone else is looking at this and deciding how they need to act in response. If what the average guy sees is "he expressed a minority viewpoint and he was lynched", then they'll learn to simply not express minority viewpoints; they won't see what was really problematic about either the current behavior, or Stallman's history. His "but is it really assault" defense of Minsky is definitely problematic given his position and the situation. And apparently he's had a long history of "creepy" behavior, along with a long history of people telling him he needs to change. Those are good reasons to ask him to step down. But it is not true that Richard Stallman said the girl was "entirely willing"; that is just a lie, and covers up the real problems Stallman had. And regarding his question about whether a 17-year-old can give consent -- be consistent: either drop this issue, or take it up with every European in our community.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    We are talking about Minsky, because it's Stallman's comments about Minsky that are the problem. > The age of consent in Finland is apparently 16. 1) Not for Americans visiting Finland. 2) Not for prostitutes in Finland. > But it is not true that Richard Stallman said the girl was "entirely willing"; I haven't said this. I'm focussing on the things that Stallman actually said. You yourself agree that these are enough to ask Stallman to step down. > he second is, Stallman is not the only target here: everyone else is looking at this and deciding how they need to act in response. If what the average guy sees is "he expressed a minority viewpoint and he was lynched", then they'll learn to simply not express minority viewpoints; they won't see what was really problematic about either the current behavior, or Stallman's history. Yes, this is entirely the point. We don't want powerful men to make public comments saying that fucking children is fine so long as those children have been brutalised into looking willing. We don't want powerful men saying that "voluntary" child sexual abuse isn't harmful for those children.
    - Chris2048 7y ago
      > is fine so long as those children have been brutalised into looking willing Stallman never said "it's fine", He called Epstein a rapist - i.e. indicated it was whoever did the brutalising who is to blame. Also, it was a 17 year old, not a child.
- rurban 7y ago
  Minsky didn't have sex at all with Guiffre. The various hitpieces on Minsky were all based on vague court documents by her, where she described that she was asked to approach him. Amongst others. We have an eyewitness, who testified that she indeed approached him at the island, and that Minsky turned her down. That should have been the end of the story, but the various hitpieces on Minsky didn't stop. http://archive.is/nZIjt http://archive.is/nZIjt The particular crime in question is called slander, nor rape. RMS made too liberal comments about the age of consent rule though.
  - gwd 7y ago
    > RMS made too liberal comments about the age of consent rule though. What I consider worse is his "but was it really assault" defense. The question itself is framed in a hypothetical world: "Suppose Guiffre was coerced. And suppose that Minsky did in fact sleep with her, but without knowing she was coerced. Is that really so bad?" Well, yes, it would be bad. In the hypothetical situation described, Minsky should have seen lots of red flags. That hypothetical situation is the behavior that Stallman is downplaying. When a person in power makes that kind of defense, it protects sexual predators and silences their victims: it signals that the next time there is this situation, similar behavior will be defended and similar complaints ignored. Regardless of whether or not Minsky slept with Guiffre, Stallman's comments were a harmful thing for someone in his position to have said. And what makes me angry about the "hit pieces" is that this angle is completely lost -- he's being attacked for saying Guiffre was "entirely willing" (which he never said) and for questioning whether 17 is really too young to consent (which apparently all of Europe questions). Nobody is going to learn about how to avoid accidentally using your influence to protect sexual predators; all they're going to learn is not to touch any contentious topic with a barge pole for fear of being heinously misrepresented.
VikingCoder 7y ago
I think his past comments make his position clear: "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." https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
- TheAdamAndChe 7y ago
  Is there any data that refutes his claim, or is resistance to his statement based solely on opinion and morals?
  - gwd 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure that anyone who's actually dealt with children who have engaged in sexual experiences with adults will say it's harmful. I'm not a psychologist, but I think the burden of proof is on people who think it may be safe to show that it is safe, not the other way around. But to understand a bit why: I think this is a bit like asking, "Is it really always harmful for professors to sleep with their (adult) students, or managers to sleep with their employees?" The answer to that is, sure, you can imagine that this or that particular relationship might never be any hint of coercion or favoritism, and be considered afterwards a positive experience for all parties involved (including the professors other students / the rest of the manager's company). But we still universally say these relationships are wrong, because there's no way to tell in advance whether that will be the case; the risk is just too high. I think it's the same for paedophilia. Children know so little, are so dependent on the adults around them for so many things -- including basic things like "what's normal" -- that it is simply not possible to ensure that there is no element of coercion.

by gwd 7y ago

DanBC 7y ago

Minsky didn't have consensual sex. She was coerced. Age of sexual consent isn't relevant here. We need to legal age for prostitution. Does any US state or any EU country set that below 18? But also, it doesn't matter. US federal law makes it a crime to travel abroad to have sex with people under 18. https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-fede...

gwd 7y ago
We're not talking about Minsky; we're talking about a hit piece on Richard Stallman, which brings up his opinion on the morality of sleeping with 17-year-olds as a reason to revile him. The age of consent in Finland is apparently 16. Should we ask Linus Torvalds what his opinions on the matter are, and force him to step down if he disagrees? The age of consent in Italy is apparently 14 (!). I know a number of Italians prominently involved in the kernel community; shall we ask them what their opinions are? It's important that we distinguish exactly what it is that we're accusing someone of, and make sure that each individual element is true, for two reasons. One is just plain justice sake: it's not right to railroad someone and force them to step down from the organization they founded based on bad logic and twisted facts. The second is, Stallman is not the only target here: everyone else is looking at this and deciding how they need to act in response. If what the average guy sees is "he expressed a minority viewpoint and he was lynched", then they'll learn to simply not express minority viewpoints; they won't see what was really problematic about either the current behavior, or Stallman's history. His "but is it really assault" defense of Minsky is definitely problematic given his position and the situation. And apparently he's had a long history of "creepy" behavior, along with a long history of people telling him he needs to change. Those are good reasons to ask him to step down. But it is not true that Richard Stallman said the girl was "entirely willing"; that is just a lie, and covers up the real problems Stallman had. And regarding his question about whether a 17-year-old can give consent -- be consistent: either drop this issue, or take it up with every European in our community.
- DanBC 7y ago
  We are talking about Minsky, because it's Stallman's comments about Minsky that are the problem. > The age of consent in Finland is apparently 16. 1) Not for Americans visiting Finland. 2) Not for prostitutes in Finland. > But it is not true that Richard Stallman said the girl was "entirely willing"; I haven't said this. I'm focussing on the things that Stallman actually said. You yourself agree that these are enough to ask Stallman to step down. > he second is, Stallman is not the only target here: everyone else is looking at this and deciding how they need to act in response. If what the average guy sees is "he expressed a minority viewpoint and he was lynched", then they'll learn to simply not express minority viewpoints; they won't see what was really problematic about either the current behavior, or Stallman's history. Yes, this is entirely the point. We don't want powerful men to make public comments saying that fucking children is fine so long as those children have been brutalised into looking willing. We don't want powerful men saying that "voluntary" child sexual abuse isn't harmful for those children.
  - Chris2048 7y ago
    > is fine so long as those children have been brutalised into looking willing Stallman never said "it's fine", He called Epstein a rapist - i.e. indicated it was whoever did the brutalising who is to blame. Also, it was a 17 year old, not a child.
rurban 7y ago
Minsky didn't have sex at all with Guiffre. The various hitpieces on Minsky were all based on vague court documents by her, where she described that she was asked to approach him. Amongst others. We have an eyewitness, who testified that she indeed approached him at the island, and that Minsky turned her down. That should have been the end of the story, but the various hitpieces on Minsky didn't stop. http://archive.is/nZIjt http://archive.is/nZIjt The particular crime in question is called slander, nor rape. RMS made too liberal comments about the age of consent rule though.
- gwd 7y ago
  > RMS made too liberal comments about the age of consent rule though. What I consider worse is his "but was it really assault" defense. The question itself is framed in a hypothetical world: "Suppose Guiffre was coerced. And suppose that Minsky did in fact sleep with her, but without knowing she was coerced. Is that really so bad?" Well, yes, it would be bad. In the hypothetical situation described, Minsky should have seen lots of red flags. That hypothetical situation is the behavior that Stallman is downplaying. When a person in power makes that kind of defense, it protects sexual predators and silences their victims: it signals that the next time there is this situation, similar behavior will be defended and similar complaints ignored. Regardless of whether or not Minsky slept with Guiffre, Stallman's comments were a harmful thing for someone in his position to have said. And what makes me angry about the "hit pieces" is that this angle is completely lost -- he's being attacked for saying Guiffre was "entirely willing" (which he never said) and for questioning whether 17 is really too young to consent (which apparently all of Europe questions). Nobody is going to learn about how to avoid accidentally using your influence to protect sexual predators; all they're going to learn is not to touch any contentious topic with a barge pole for fear of being heinously misrepresented.

VikingCoder 7y ago

I think his past comments make his position clear: "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." https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...

TheAdamAndChe 7y ago
Is there any data that refutes his claim, or is resistance to his statement based solely on opinion and morals?
- gwd 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure that anyone who's actually dealt with children who have engaged in sexual experiences with adults will say it's harmful. I'm not a psychologist, but I think the burden of proof is on people who think it may be safe to show that it is safe, not the other way around. But to understand a bit why: I think this is a bit like asking, "Is it really always harmful for professors to sleep with their (adult) students, or managers to sleep with their employees?" The answer to that is, sure, you can imagine that this or that particular relationship might never be any hint of coercion or favoritism, and be considered afterwards a positive experience for all parties involved (including the professors other students / the rest of the manager's company). But we still universally say these relationships are wrong, because there's no way to tell in advance whether that will be the case; the risk is just too high. I think it's the same for paedophilia. Children know so little, are so dependent on the adults around them for so many things -- including basic things like "what's normal" -- that it is simply not possible to ensure that there is no element of coercion.