6 ms·

"Thoughtcrime" here refers to the mere expression of taboo opinions, independent of a person's actual behavior towards others. It seems to be the case that Sta

"Thoughtcrime" here refers to the mere expression of taboo opinions, independent of a person's actual behavior towards others. It seems to be the case that Stallman did engage in inappropriate behavior - which perhaps should have been dealt with differently by CSAIL, MIT, the FSF board etc. The appropriate response may very well have been to ask for his resignation. But those behaviors are not why he was asked to resign. Reference to his past behavior was a post-hoc rationalization. It seems the real reason he was fired was because he expressed a difference of opinion over the nature of Marvin Minksy's guilt as a result of his association with Epstein. Well, it wasn't even about the opinion he expressed, rather he was fired because someone publicly misinterpreted his opinion, and that mistaken opinion was picked up by the media. Well, it wasn't even about the misinterpreted opinion. He was fired because MIT is (I'm sure) facing some very serious scrutiny over it's entanglements with Epstein, and the very real concern that one of it's famed professors may have been a co-conspirator in a powerful and depraved criminal ring. The whole Stallman affair serves as a nice deflection from that scrutiny. As it stands, it does not even look like Minsky ever participated in said criminal activity (as far as I can tell, the victim only said that she was compelled to offer herself to Minsky, and another witness claimed that Minksy turned her down). While there likely were many powerful people who were knowing participants in Epstein's activities, it seems that Epstein was also someone who liked to befriend very smart STEM folks, and not all of them may have been aware as to what exactly Epstein was involved in.

foldr 7y ago
People in public positions have always had to be careful about what they say. It really lowers the quality of discussion to talk about "thought crime" in this context. Stallman isn't being thrown into prison for expressing his political views. He's being fired from his job (to the extent that it is a job) for making ill-judged and offensive comments. > It seems the real reason he was fired was because he expressed a difference of opinion over the nature of Marvin Minksy's guilt as a result of his association with Epstein. No, thats not it. The inflammatory comment was the following: >“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". This statement is as clear as mud, but it certainly seems to suggest that age shouldn't be considered as a factor in determining consent.
- ralfd 7y ago
  Do you think RMS argument is wrong here though? Why? Age of consent in my (European) country is 16. Do you think we are all rapists here? And looking up the law 14 is permissible (with a few caveats), even if the other person is over 21. In the United States it depends on the state. So Minsky would have done a horrible rape crime in the US Virgin Islands (age of consent 18), but in Massachusetts (age of consent 16) ... it would be all perfectly fine and A-okay? This appeal to law seems a bit relativistic for making a moral judgement?
  - foldr 7y ago
    I don't see how what you're saying is relevant. RMS said that the age was a "minor detail". He didn't make any claim about what the age of consent should be. Given his previous comments, one suspects he doesn't think there should be one: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...
    - ralfd 7y ago
      He said age "17 or 18" is a minor detail, which from my perspective, coming from a country which has an age of consent under both, I agree.
      - foldr 7y ago
        I don't understand what he means by that. If there is an age of consent, then some people will be under it by a year. What is the alternative? In your country, there are also people a year under the age of consent. Whether not someone is above the age of consent cannot possibly be considered a "minor detail" in determining whether or not they consented.
        hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        Put it this way a member of the Norwegian government has been widely reported to have had sex with a drunk 17 year old (I am not certain whether the reports are true since the teenager has declined to comment). If the age of consent were 18 then the minister would have been investigated by the police. Since it is 16 the minister continues to serve in the government without stigma. Big difference in outcomes but the teenager is the same age. Of course there has to be a cutoff. 16 seems reasonable to me. But I would not have sex with any teenager.

foldr 7y ago

People in public positions have always had to be careful about what they say. It really lowers the quality of discussion to talk about "thought crime" in this context. Stallman isn't being thrown into prison for expressing his political views. He's being fired from his job (to the extent that it is a job) for making ill-judged and offensive comments. > It seems the real reason he was fired was because he expressed a difference of opinion over the nature of Marvin Minksy's guilt as a result of his association with Epstein. No, thats not it. The inflammatory comment was the following: >“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". This statement is as clear as mud, but it certainly seems to suggest that age shouldn't be considered as a factor in determining consent.

ralfd 7y ago
Do you think RMS argument is wrong here though? Why? Age of consent in my (European) country is 16. Do you think we are all rapists here? And looking up the law 14 is permissible (with a few caveats), even if the other person is over 21. In the United States it depends on the state. So Minsky would have done a horrible rape crime in the US Virgin Islands (age of consent 18), but in Massachusetts (age of consent 16) ... it would be all perfectly fine and A-okay? This appeal to law seems a bit relativistic for making a moral judgement?
- foldr 7y ago
  I don't see how what you're saying is relevant. RMS said that the age was a "minor detail". He didn't make any claim about what the age of consent should be. Given his previous comments, one suspects he doesn't think there should be one: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...
  - ralfd 7y ago
    He said age "17 or 18" is a minor detail, which from my perspective, coming from a country which has an age of consent under both, I agree.
    - foldr 7y ago
      I don't understand what he means by that. If there is an age of consent, then some people will be under it by a year. What is the alternative? In your country, there are also people a year under the age of consent. Whether not someone is above the age of consent cannot possibly be considered a "minor detail" in determining whether or not they consented.
      - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        Put it this way a member of the Norwegian government has been widely reported to have had sex with a drunk 17 year old (I am not certain whether the reports are true since the teenager has declined to comment). If the age of consent were 18 then the minister would have been investigated by the police. Since it is 16 the minister continues to serve in the government without stigma. Big difference in outcomes but the teenager is the same age. Of course there has to be a cutoff. 16 seems reasonable to me. But I would not have sex with any teenager.