8 ms·

Can you provide an actual link for [2]? It's a very serious allegation.

bscphil 7y ago
Yes. This article[1], so far as I can tell, contains the full nuance of the story. He claimed (or very strongly insinuated) that if a minor sex trafficking victim presented herself as "entirely willing", then a man who had sex with her is not guilty of sexual assault. I believe that's what I said in my comment. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer-scientist-richard-stallman-resigns-mit-after-comments-about-epstein-scandal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...
- smsm42 7y ago
  He did not claim that and did not insinuate that. It's like saying that person that doesn't believe we should use term "piracy" to describe copying software without obtaining license, because piracy implies violent robbery, thinks that violating copyright is OK. It's a total non-sequitur and failure of reading comprehension to the point of functional illiteracy.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  So are you saying that somebody who willfully rapes a kid is no worse than somebody who thinks they're enjoying the services of a prostitute? You're a monster.
  - F-0X 7y ago
    That's not what was said _at all_. You simply have not read the post correctly, and worse, your phrasing exaggerates the actual situation.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      So what are you saying? He agrees with Stallman? That’s even worse!
- zajio1am 7y ago
  Which is AFAIK true in my jurisdiction. While he could be prosecuted for child abuse (if the victim is minor), but not for sexual assault or rape, as that requires mens rea, which is not here if the victim presented herself as 'entirely willing'.
  - pseudalopex 7y ago
    It is not true where the alleged act took place.
  - bscphil 7y ago
    Maybe. In many US states it's a strict liability crime. But you'll notice that nothing about my point hinges on whether RMS was right or wrong. My claim was about what RMS said (which you seem to grant), not about whether he was correct in saying it.
    - zajio1am 7y ago
      If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal argument. There are at least three levels of analysis - semantic (which are proper words describing the act), descriptive legal (whether the commited act is crime) and normative legal (whether the commited act should be crime). Note that the law does not prescribe language (if the law defines some crime named XYZ mean it overrides common language meaning of XYZ). It is the other way - criminal law defines which classes of acts are crimes and then uses common language names for them (which may or may not fits perfectly). Stallman first made semantic algument about 'sexual assault' and later later did semantic or perhaps normative legal argument about rape definition. (With second reading, the rape definition comment was also clearly semantic.)
      - bscphil 7y ago
        > If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal argument. I agree! Stallman's claim was (at least mostly) semantic. Specifically, it hinges on the claim that sexual assault means something that involves coercion on the part of the assaulter. He adds to this a factual argument that (assuming Minsky did have sex with her), he was probably unaware of the fact that she did not consent. Therefore (he concludes), Minsky probably did not commit sexual assault. But ... you'll notice that this is exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread. RMS is defending Minsky against the charge of sexual assault by saying that she probably pretended to consent (which means he probably didn't physically force her to have sex). Maybe you want to defend this claim. I'm not here to argue for or against it. The simple statement that I made in the OP was that this is what Stallman said, and the rest of the thread has basically been trolls claiming he didn't say it with no evidence.
NhanH 7y ago
He didn't said that. But at this point, I think everyone made up their mind about the reading of the email. Here is the original email thread you can read and decide for yourself https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
ccalf 7y ago
There is none; the people who keep promulgating this falsehood about Stallman say that because of one paragraph that anyone who can pass the SAT reading comprehension tests, parse standard English, or understand the basics of logical reasoning, would have understood that it is simply a wrong interpretation at the level of how 1+1 = 3 is wrong. It is much better to accuse Stallman in that instance that he was mansplaining and contributing to workplace toxicity, and/or to accuse Stallman of a historical pattern of objectifying women. Those are better because they are closer to the truth. But people like simpler narratives, that he said this one horrible thing, when it is not even that far fetched to show using the exact same quote that he was actually arguing quite an opposite, or orthogonal, point. The other thing about this is that people ignore the context of the speaker; in this case Stallman was talking about media abuse of terminology. To complain about media manipulation is a very standard, leftist position. So like the above, to implicitly suggest that he was using this position as a cover for his personal misogyny, has merit, but nobody cares about this angle, because again it's too complicated to sort through.
- adamsea 7y ago
  So simple that it requires so many words to explain ;)
  - ccalf 7y ago
    Actually, the SAT reading comprehension questions are not that simple and trip people up. Which is really my point of analogy. They're the kind of questions where you either got the right answer or not, but explaining it to the person who got it wrong can be non trivial.
    - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
      Almost an opposite of NP problems. Easy to solve, but hard to convince someone else that your solution is correct.
josefx 7y ago
I think this part of his emails could be constructed as that > We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that. Stallmans defense of Minsky is reasoning that he could have been an unknowing participant who wasn't aware of the lack of consent. His opinion on the age of consent is another matter: > Does it really? I think 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. Source: https://pastebin.com/658yfLj5 https://pastebin.com/658yfLj5
- bscphil 7y ago
  This is not the most damning part of the email to me. I excerpted the part I thought most relevant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21089394 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21089394
- denton-scratch 7y ago
  It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16. I believe RMS is on record saying that he thinks the idea of a legal "age of consent" is a nonsense. It's entirely an arguable position that if two 16-year-olds have sex together, they have not necessarily raped one-another. He's saying that it's not the age that makes it rape, and that therefore the law is an ass. The law effectively defines consent as something that cannot legally be given by someone younger than X. Obviously the younger someone is, the less likely it is that they can give consent; RMS is complaining that the law gives X an arbitrary value. One can disagree with him, either with a proper argument, or simply by denouncing him; but it's not morally reprehensible for him to reason in that way.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16. Even for American's travelling to that country? Even for prostitution?
  - bscphil 7y ago

Yes. This article[1], so far as I can tell, contains the full nuance of the story. He claimed (or very strongly insinuated) that if a minor sex trafficking victim presented herself as "entirely willing", then a man who had sex with her is not guilty of sexual assault. I believe that's what I said in my comment. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer-scientist-richard-stallman-resigns-mit-after-comments-about-epstein-scandal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...

smsm42 7y ago
He did not claim that and did not insinuate that. It's like saying that person that doesn't believe we should use term "piracy" to describe copying software without obtaining license, because piracy implies violent robbery, thinks that violating copyright is OK. It's a total non-sequitur and failure of reading comprehension to the point of functional illiteracy.
SamReidHughes 7y ago
So are you saying that somebody who willfully rapes a kid is no worse than somebody who thinks they're enjoying the services of a prostitute? You're a monster.
- F-0X 7y ago
  That's not what was said _at all_. You simply have not read the post correctly, and worse, your phrasing exaggerates the actual situation.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    So what are you saying? He agrees with Stallman? That’s even worse!
zajio1am 7y ago
Which is AFAIK true in my jurisdiction. While he could be prosecuted for child abuse (if the victim is minor), but not for sexual assault or rape, as that requires mens rea, which is not here if the victim presented herself as 'entirely willing'.
- pseudalopex 7y ago
  It is not true where the alleged act took place.
- bscphil 7y ago
  Maybe. In many US states it's a strict liability crime. But you'll notice that nothing about my point hinges on whether RMS was right or wrong. My claim was about what RMS said (which you seem to grant), not about whether he was correct in saying it.
  - zajio1am 7y ago
    If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal argument. There are at least three levels of analysis - semantic (which are proper words describing the act), descriptive legal (whether the commited act is crime) and normative legal (whether the commited act should be crime). Note that the law does not prescribe language (if the law defines some crime named XYZ mean it overrides common language meaning of XYZ). It is the other way - criminal law defines which classes of acts are crimes and then uses common language names for them (which may or may not fits perfectly). Stallman first made semantic algument about 'sexual assault' and later later did semantic or perhaps normative legal argument about rape definition. (With second reading, the rape definition comment was also clearly semantic.)
    - bscphil 7y ago
      > If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal argument. I agree! Stallman's claim was (at least mostly) semantic. Specifically, it hinges on the claim that sexual assault means something that involves coercion on the part of the assaulter. He adds to this a factual argument that (assuming Minsky did have sex with her), he was probably unaware of the fact that she did not consent. Therefore (he concludes), Minsky probably did not commit sexual assault. But ... you'll notice that this is exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread. RMS is defending Minsky against the charge of sexual assault by saying that she probably pretended to consent (which means he probably didn't physically force her to have sex). Maybe you want to defend this claim. I'm not here to argue for or against it. The simple statement that I made in the OP was that this is what Stallman said, and the rest of the thread has basically been trolls claiming he didn't say it with no evidence.

NhanH 7y ago

He didn't said that. But at this point, I think everyone made up their mind about the reading of the email. Here is the original email thread you can read and decide for yourself https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...

ccalf 7y ago

There is none; the people who keep promulgating this falsehood about Stallman say that because of one paragraph that anyone who can pass the SAT reading comprehension tests, parse standard English, or understand the basics of logical reasoning, would have understood that it is simply a wrong interpretation at the level of how 1+1 = 3 is wrong. It is much better to accuse Stallman in that instance that he was mansplaining and contributing to workplace toxicity, and/or to accuse Stallman of a historical pattern of objectifying women. Those are better because they are closer to the truth. But people like simpler narratives, that he said this one horrible thing, when it is not even that far fetched to show using the exact same quote that he was actually arguing quite an opposite, or orthogonal, point. The other thing about this is that people ignore the context of the speaker; in this case Stallman was talking about media abuse of terminology. To complain about media manipulation is a very standard, leftist position. So like the above, to implicitly suggest that he was using this position as a cover for his personal misogyny, has merit, but nobody cares about this angle, because again it's too complicated to sort through.

adamsea 7y ago
So simple that it requires so many words to explain ;)
- ccalf 7y ago
  Actually, the SAT reading comprehension questions are not that simple and trip people up. Which is really my point of analogy. They're the kind of questions where you either got the right answer or not, but explaining it to the person who got it wrong can be non trivial.
  - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
    Almost an opposite of NP problems. Easy to solve, but hard to convince someone else that your solution is correct.

josefx 7y ago

I think this part of his emails could be constructed as that > We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that. Stallmans defense of Minsky is reasoning that he could have been an unknowing participant who wasn't aware of the lack of consent. His opinion on the age of consent is another matter: > Does it really? I think 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. Source: https://pastebin.com/658yfLj5 https://pastebin.com/658yfLj5

bscphil 7y ago
This is not the most damning part of the email to me. I excerpted the part I thought most relevant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21089394 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21089394
denton-scratch 7y ago
It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16. I believe RMS is on record saying that he thinks the idea of a legal "age of consent" is a nonsense. It's entirely an arguable position that if two 16-year-olds have sex together, they have not necessarily raped one-another. He's saying that it's not the age that makes it rape, and that therefore the law is an ass. The law effectively defines consent as something that cannot legally be given by someone younger than X. Obviously the younger someone is, the less likely it is that they can give consent; RMS is complaining that the law gives X an arbitrary value. One can disagree with him, either with a proper argument, or simply by denouncing him; but it's not morally reprehensible for him to reason in that way.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > It's worth noting (again) that the age of consent at that time, in that place, was 16. Even for American's travelling to that country? Even for prostitution?
- bscphil 7y ago