3 ms·

https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mi

https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r...

dx87 7y ago
You should read his actual emails, he never defended Epstein. Sites were just parroting what they read on a medium article written by someone with an axe to grind who'd never met RMS.
- gizmo686 7y ago
  Stallman's "defense" of a serial sex trafficker (applogogies for the poor transcription, I just did some minor corrections to the OCR from vice): "The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: deceased Al "pioneer" Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims The injustice is in the word "assaulting". The term "sexual assault" is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X. The accusation quoted is a clear example of in?ation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein?s harem. (See [URL that didn't make it through OCR]) Let's presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). The word "assaulting" presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. l've concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term "sexual assault" in an accusation. Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism. " [0] As an aside. as discussed in the thread, it is not clear if any first party even accused Minsky of engaging in the alleged sex in the first place [0] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
mottethis 7y ago
I eagerly await the next step in your brutally obvious motte-and-bailey game. Try being less dishonest, you shameless sack of shit.
newnewpdro 7y ago
A clickbait daily beast article is not a meaningful source, you're engaging in the same crap that blew this tire fire up. First of all, RMS was defending Minksy, not Epstein. Second, he was saying the most likely scenario was that she presented to Minsky as willing. All he was saying was that the person he knew, Minsky, was most likely oblivious to her being coerced by Epstein. He never came to the defense of Epstein, the alleged trafficker, to the best of my knowledge.
josefx 7y ago
The entirely willing line again? The actual claim was that Epstein ordered them to appear willing. Not that they were willing, but that they were forced to appear that way to Epsteins guests. It was part of Stallmans defense of Minsky, who he thought had no knowledge of Epsteins crimes.
deogeo 7y ago
The media lynch is documented here: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ Stallman wrote: the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. The Daily Beast re-contextualizes this as that she was, not presented as, willing. And the title includes "defended Epstein" and "victims", plural, both of which are entirely fabricated, and not reflected in Stallman's writings. In short, The Daily Beast is lying to you, and half a month later has not bothered to clarify or correct their article. You should assume anything else they print is utterly unconcerned with the truth, and spun however they like. I can't begin to put my contempt for them into words.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  Thank you for linking that document, it led me to the petition [0] which I've now signed. Though RMS certainly has his flaws, what the media has done here is very wrong. [0] https://www.change.org/p/journalists-to-stop-the-persecution-of-stallman-and-apologize-publicly https://www.change.org/p/journalists-to-stop-the-persecution...
- SomeOtherThrow 7y ago
  Yea fuck RMS on that comment alone. I didn’t realize it was that bad. Fuck him repeatedly.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r...

dx87 7y ago

You should read his actual emails, he never defended Epstein. Sites were just parroting what they read on a medium article written by someone with an axe to grind who'd never met RMS.

gizmo686 7y ago
Stallman's "defense" of a serial sex trafficker (applogogies for the poor transcription, I just did some minor corrections to the OCR from vice): "The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: deceased Al "pioneer" Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims The injustice is in the word "assaulting". The term "sexual assault" is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X. The accusation quoted is a clear example of in?ation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein?s harem. (See [URL that didn't make it through OCR]) Let's presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). The word "assaulting" presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. l've concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term "sexual assault" in an accusation. Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism. " [0] As an aside. as discussed in the thread, it is not clear if any first party even accused Minsky of engaging in the alleged sex in the first place [0] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...

mottethis 7y ago

I eagerly await the next step in your brutally obvious motte-and-bailey game. Try being less dishonest, you shameless sack of shit.

newnewpdro 7y ago

A clickbait daily beast article is not a meaningful source, you're engaging in the same crap that blew this tire fire up. First of all, RMS was defending Minksy, not Epstein. Second, he was saying the most likely scenario was that she presented to Minsky as willing. All he was saying was that the person he knew, Minsky, was most likely oblivious to her being coerced by Epstein. He never came to the defense of Epstein, the alleged trafficker, to the best of my knowledge.

josefx 7y ago

The entirely willing line again? The actual claim was that Epstein ordered them to appear willing. Not that they were willing, but that they were forced to appear that way to Epsteins guests. It was part of Stallmans defense of Minsky, who he thought had no knowledge of Epsteins crimes.

deogeo 7y ago

The media lynch is documented here: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ Stallman wrote: the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. The Daily Beast re-contextualizes this as that she was, not presented as, willing. And the title includes "defended Epstein" and "victims", plural, both of which are entirely fabricated, and not reflected in Stallman's writings. In short, The Daily Beast is lying to you, and half a month later has not bothered to clarify or correct their article. You should assume anything else they print is utterly unconcerned with the truth, and spun however they like. I can't begin to put my contempt for them into words.

newnewpdro 7y ago
Thank you for linking that document, it led me to the petition [0] which I've now signed. Though RMS certainly has his flaws, what the media has done here is very wrong. [0] https://www.change.org/p/journalists-to-stop-the-persecution-of-stallman-and-apologize-publicly https://www.change.org/p/journalists-to-stop-the-persecution...
SomeOtherThrow 7y ago
Yea fuck RMS on that comment alone. I didn’t realize it was that bad. Fuck him repeatedly.