3 ms·

> (there is no fucking way you are oblivious to people being coerced into sex this visiting Epsteins Island, just none). That seems a particular American hangu

> (there is no fucking way you are oblivious to people being coerced into sex this visiting Epsteins Island, just none). That seems a particular American hangup. If people would visit the mansion of a skin-magazine tycoon on invitation, and one of the many women around there would approach them, very few would assume this was a genuine romantic interest, but there would be little reason to doubt if they were being set up for blackmail instead of straight-up prostitution. Whether you are revolted by prostitution, or whether you would find it inappropriate for an older man to sleep with a significantly younger woman doesn't matter. > (fuck rms for shitting on singular they) [..] you know he'll throw a huge tantrum if you don't. Terrible thing that, people throwing tantrums when others don't see things their way.

sascha_sl 7y ago
1. The point is that an integer person would know to deny, because you're potentially breaking the law in the one way where being oblivious doesn't matter and the "potentially" is quite likely. 2. I see no equivalence here. RMS will go out of his way to misgender people. He might not think that's a big deal, but that's no excuse. Watch any interview with the guy, even if he's talking to someone who does not subscribe to calling it "GNU/Linux" he will insist, every time, for it to be corrected. That's not just being insistent, that's actually - dare i say it - orwellian. He also likes to draw the JBP "oh god no i have been misinterpreted" line. Like, when I say "Hacker news users are techbros." and someone asks me "why do you think all hacker news users are techbros", I can turn around and say I never said ALL I meant a very specific subset why are you misinterpreting my words you horrible horrible person aren't you supposed to be better this horrible tribalism. He does it in his per article twice (using the phrase "without inquiring if that's what I believe")
- Frondo 7y ago
  I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: stallman isn't a pedant. he just uses the tool of pedantry to evade, play defense, or dodge critique; his goal doesn't seem to be clarity, but moving the goalposts when someone calls him out. A pedant won't cleave to his own private definitions when they suit him ("You said drm, which I call digital restrictions management"), common language definitions when they suit him ("when someone says sexual assault, we hear assault and think violence"), and technical jargon when they suit him ("it's GNU/linux"). There's no seeking of understanding there, just someone being pushy with definitions however it suits them.
- craigsmansion 7y ago
  > 1. The point is that an integer person Most people are irrational. > Watch any interview with the guy Interviews he's been invited to, where calling the operating system GNU has been stipulated beforehand. rms is involved in GNU and has no involvement in "Linux". Not in the development of the kernel, nor in the philosophy behind the various "Linux" operating systems. What would you expect him to say about "Linux"?

sascha_sl 7y ago

1. The point is that an integer person would know to deny, because you're potentially breaking the law in the one way where being oblivious doesn't matter and the "potentially" is quite likely. 2. I see no equivalence here. RMS will go out of his way to misgender people. He might not think that's a big deal, but that's no excuse. Watch any interview with the guy, even if he's talking to someone who does not subscribe to calling it "GNU/Linux" he will insist, every time, for it to be corrected. That's not just being insistent, that's actually - dare i say it - orwellian. He also likes to draw the JBP "oh god no i have been misinterpreted" line. Like, when I say "Hacker news users are techbros." and someone asks me "why do you think all hacker news users are techbros", I can turn around and say I never said ALL I meant a very specific subset why are you misinterpreting my words you horrible horrible person aren't you supposed to be better this horrible tribalism. He does it in his per article twice (using the phrase "without inquiring if that's what I believe")

Frondo 7y ago
I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: stallman isn't a pedant. he just uses the tool of pedantry to evade, play defense, or dodge critique; his goal doesn't seem to be clarity, but moving the goalposts when someone calls him out. A pedant won't cleave to his own private definitions when they suit him ("You said drm, which I call digital restrictions management"), common language definitions when they suit him ("when someone says sexual assault, we hear assault and think violence"), and technical jargon when they suit him ("it's GNU/linux"). There's no seeking of understanding there, just someone being pushy with definitions however it suits them.
craigsmansion 7y ago
> 1. The point is that an integer person Most people are irrational. > Watch any interview with the guy Interviews he's been invited to, where calling the operating system GNU has been stipulated beforehand. rms is involved in GNU and has no involvement in "Linux". Not in the development of the kernel, nor in the philosophy behind the various "Linux" operating systems. What would you expect him to say about "Linux"?