6 ms·

> Somehow we should conclude from that that RMS is guilty because somebody thinks he's a "creep", because apparently being called a "creep" by a bluecheck twitt

> Somehow we should conclude from that that RMS is guilty because somebody thinks he's a "creep", because apparently being called a "creep" by a bluecheck twitter user automatically makes you guilty of... well, whatever it is, it's clearly your fault. Please re-read my comment. You're reacting emotionally and claiming that I said things I did not say. I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him, not as proof of anything he did or didn't do. > No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that. He did say that. Find the actual email and read it. No, really, please do it. I'll even link a copy of it for you. https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/ https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/ He literally did say it.

smsm42 7y ago
> I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him It's not "people in the community", it's one person calling him what people usually call socially maladjusted males who dared to exist in their vicinity. It is a bad word, demeaning, devoid of content and only expressing hate and revulsion. > He did say that. Nope, he did not. And I say it because not only I read the email, I actually understood it. You didn't. Not RMSs fault. > He literally did say it. He literally did not. As I explained below, it makes as much sense as saying something who objects to the use of the term "piracy" thinks intellectual property laws should not exist. And the word "literally" does not mean what you think it means.
- bscphil 7y ago
  You're going to have to do better than that. It really just comes across as trolling since you're making the claim that he didn't say something he very clearly seems to say, without any evidence. Abbreviated, for anyone else who can't be bothered to go read it: >The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: >The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. >The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. >We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. So the claim is that (assuming Minsky had sex with an underage sex trafficking victim), we shouldn't say he assaulted her. Why shouldn't we say he assaulted her? Because it "presumes that he applied force". Why is it the case that he didn't apply force? Because ("plausibly") "she presented herself to him as entirely willing." So if an underage trafficking victim presents herself as entirely willing to a man she has sex with, that man did not commit sexual assault. Because sexual assault "presumes that he applied force". That is exactly what I've said this entire thread. My original claim, which apparently was inciting enough to cause this furor: > He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
  - bscphil 7y ago
    For the record, I think it's really adorable that someone has gone through and downvoted every one of my comments with 4-5 accounts (my top level comment used to be at +8, this one is -6 from where it used to be), but has nothing to say in the thread. Because there's nothing you can say to overturn the plain meaning of the text. I'm really not complaining. It's just that cute that someone is so loyal to Stallman that they feel the need to do this.
    - Sacho 7y ago
      I downvoted your previous comments because I think you haven't made any progress from your initial point. I flagged this comment because it is complaining about downvotes. Having thought about it, I downvoted your initial comment as well, because I no longer believe that your interpretation of RMS's argument was in good faith. I hope this explanation of downvotes helps you. Given good faith, I could initially respond positively to your comment. While I believe you did not phrase it well, I think there's an argument to make there - if mens rea should be part of determining whether a crime is sexual assault; I know that at least in some states, sexual assault of a minor is a strict liability offense, similar to possessing child porn. I also know that in other countries this isn't necessarily the case(e.g. in the UK there's strict liability only for ages under 13), so it is a contentious issue. Stepping away from the legality, there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be made about handling such horrific situations as child sex trafficking vs the obvious downsides of ignoring the lack of criminal intent.
      - bscphil 7y ago
        > I downvoted your previous comments because I think you haven't made any progress from your initial point. I don't need to make "progress" from my initial point, because my initial point was simple (and correct), and no one in this thread has bothered responding to it. Stallman said what he said in very simple terms. I made a claim that Stallman said what he in fact said, and this whole thread has been full of trolls claiming he did not say what he patently did say. I'm not sure what "progress" I could possibly make from that. Hell, I'm the only person in this chain of comments who bothered quoting Stallman and commenting on it. It's pretty telling that the comment in which I actually quoted Stallman's words is the most downvoted in the thread - the truth hurts - and that's the point I was making with the follow-up comment.. > I flagged this comment because it is complaining about downvotes. I explicitly said, in the damn comment itself, that I wasn't complaining about the downvotes. I genuinely do think it's hilarious that a simple statement about what Stallman did in fact actually say has brought so many trolls out of the woodwork who have no ability whatsoever to defend their "position". >Given good faith, I could initially respond positively to your comment. While I believe you did not phrase it well, I think there's an argument to make there - if mens rea should be part of determining whether a crime is sexual assault And this is how I know that you're here to troll too, because I have been extraordinarily clear about the fact that I'm not arguing with anyone about this. The only thing I'm interested in defending is that Stallman said that Minsky couldn't have committed sexual assault if we assume that his victim "presented herself as willing". Stallman said that. You can't get out of that. Frankly, in this comment, you didn't even try.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
passwordreset 7y ago
I didn't know this fact until you exposed this article to me: that the person who posted their opinion about RMS threatened to "burn it [MIT] to the ground." RMS uttered some awful opinion, and this person threatened to burn MIT to the ground as a result. If true, this person, who is identified as "Salem, Robotics student who started Remove Stallman campaign" needs to be removed from MIT immediately for making this threat. Is that something that we can all agree on? Shouldn't we be making phone calls to the Robotics department at MIT about this threat? Why has this received no media attention? "MIT student threatens to burn MIT to the ground" is certainly a headline that would capture attention.
- bscphil 7y ago
  * This person is a graduate of MIT. * I have no immediate reason to think they are at MIT, so I don't think it's likely that they can be removed. * "Burn it to the ground" is obviously metaphorical language, which means (as the person themselves said), that anyone and everyone at MIT who stands in the way of firing Stallman should be fired too. (Note that they didn't "threaten" to burn it to the ground, as you say, because then it wouldn't make sense as a metaphor.) Note that I'm not defending the language or the expressed wish, so don't attack me over that. I'm only clarifying the circumstances in which that statement was made for you.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    Burn it to the ground" is obviously metaphorical language In that case everything RMS is alleged to have said was obviously metaphorical too.
    - bscphil 7y ago
      Words ... have ... meanings. You can't just say something was a metaphor because you want it to be.
      - goatinaboat 7y ago
        You literally just did do that! My point is that either everything is or nothing is. You can’t say your friends controversial statements are metaphorical while damning your enemies for the same things.

smsm42 7y ago

> I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him It's not "people in the community", it's one person calling him what people usually call socially maladjusted males who dared to exist in their vicinity. It is a bad word, demeaning, devoid of content and only expressing hate and revulsion. > He did say that. Nope, he did not. And I say it because not only I read the email, I actually understood it. You didn't. Not RMSs fault. > He literally did say it. He literally did not. As I explained below, it makes as much sense as saying something who objects to the use of the term "piracy" thinks intellectual property laws should not exist. And the word "literally" does not mean what you think it means.

bscphil 7y ago
You're going to have to do better than that. It really just comes across as trolling since you're making the claim that he didn't say something he very clearly seems to say, without any evidence. Abbreviated, for anyone else who can't be bothered to go read it: >The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: >The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. >The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. >We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. So the claim is that (assuming Minsky had sex with an underage sex trafficking victim), we shouldn't say he assaulted her. Why shouldn't we say he assaulted her? Because it "presumes that he applied force". Why is it the case that he didn't apply force? Because ("plausibly") "she presented herself to him as entirely willing." So if an underage trafficking victim presents herself as entirely willing to a man she has sex with, that man did not commit sexual assault. Because sexual assault "presumes that he applied force". That is exactly what I've said this entire thread. My original claim, which apparently was inciting enough to cause this furor: > He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
- bscphil 7y ago
  For the record, I think it's really adorable that someone has gone through and downvoted every one of my comments with 4-5 accounts (my top level comment used to be at +8, this one is -6 from where it used to be), but has nothing to say in the thread. Because there's nothing you can say to overturn the plain meaning of the text. I'm really not complaining. It's just that cute that someone is so loyal to Stallman that they feel the need to do this.
  - Sacho 7y ago
    I downvoted your previous comments because I think you haven't made any progress from your initial point. I flagged this comment because it is complaining about downvotes. Having thought about it, I downvoted your initial comment as well, because I no longer believe that your interpretation of RMS's argument was in good faith. I hope this explanation of downvotes helps you. Given good faith, I could initially respond positively to your comment. While I believe you did not phrase it well, I think there's an argument to make there - if mens rea should be part of determining whether a crime is sexual assault; I know that at least in some states, sexual assault of a minor is a strict liability offense, similar to possessing child porn. I also know that in other countries this isn't necessarily the case(e.g. in the UK there's strict liability only for ages under 13), so it is a contentious issue. Stepping away from the legality, there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be made about handling such horrific situations as child sex trafficking vs the obvious downsides of ignoring the lack of criminal intent.
    - bscphil 7y ago
      > I downvoted your previous comments because I think you haven't made any progress from your initial point. I don't need to make "progress" from my initial point, because my initial point was simple (and correct), and no one in this thread has bothered responding to it. Stallman said what he said in very simple terms. I made a claim that Stallman said what he in fact said, and this whole thread has been full of trolls claiming he did not say what he patently did say. I'm not sure what "progress" I could possibly make from that. Hell, I'm the only person in this chain of comments who bothered quoting Stallman and commenting on it. It's pretty telling that the comment in which I actually quoted Stallman's words is the most downvoted in the thread - the truth hurts - and that's the point I was making with the follow-up comment.. > I flagged this comment because it is complaining about downvotes. I explicitly said, in the damn comment itself, that I wasn't complaining about the downvotes. I genuinely do think it's hilarious that a simple statement about what Stallman did in fact actually say has brought so many trolls out of the woodwork who have no ability whatsoever to defend their "position". >Given good faith, I could initially respond positively to your comment. While I believe you did not phrase it well, I think there's an argument to make there - if mens rea should be part of determining whether a crime is sexual assault And this is how I know that you're here to troll too, because I have been extraordinarily clear about the fact that I'm not arguing with anyone about this. The only thing I'm interested in defending is that Stallman said that Minsky couldn't have committed sexual assault if we assume that his victim "presented herself as willing". Stallman said that. You can't get out of that. Frankly, in this comment, you didn't even try.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

passwordreset 7y ago

I didn't know this fact until you exposed this article to me: that the person who posted their opinion about RMS threatened to "burn it [MIT] to the ground." RMS uttered some awful opinion, and this person threatened to burn MIT to the ground as a result. If true, this person, who is identified as "Salem, Robotics student who started Remove Stallman campaign" needs to be removed from MIT immediately for making this threat. Is that something that we can all agree on? Shouldn't we be making phone calls to the Robotics department at MIT about this threat? Why has this received no media attention? "MIT student threatens to burn MIT to the ground" is certainly a headline that would capture attention.

bscphil 7y ago
* This person is a graduate of MIT. * I have no immediate reason to think they are at MIT, so I don't think it's likely that they can be removed. * "Burn it to the ground" is obviously metaphorical language, which means (as the person themselves said), that anyone and everyone at MIT who stands in the way of firing Stallman should be fired too. (Note that they didn't "threaten" to burn it to the ground, as you say, because then it wouldn't make sense as a metaphor.) Note that I'm not defending the language or the expressed wish, so don't attack me over that. I'm only clarifying the circumstances in which that statement was made for you.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Burn it to the ground" is obviously metaphorical language In that case everything RMS is alleged to have said was obviously metaphorical too.
  - bscphil 7y ago
    Words ... have ... meanings. You can't just say something was a metaphor because you want it to be.
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      You literally just did do that! My point is that either everything is or nothing is. You can’t say your friends controversial statements are metaphorical while damning your enemies for the same things.