5 ms·
He was politically outspoken, like he has always been. But being outspoken is not acceptable in modern times. He said it was likely that some women of Epstein'
by im3w1l 6y ago
He was politically outspoken, like he has always been. But being outspoken is not acceptable in modern times.
He said it was likely that some women of Epstein's presented as entirely willing to Marvin Minsky. This was twisted by the press into him saying they were entirely willing.
For this he was ousted.
- wazoox 6y agoAnd some women were offended or something. This constitutes a major crime, nowadays. Bombing brown people half-across the world? No big deal. Using slave child labour to mine rare earths for your iGadget? who cares. Helping out fascists to topple a democratically elect government in Latin America? yawn. Hurting the feelings of some pampered students? Beware, you monster!
- runbyfruity 6y agoPointing out that RMS harassed women doesn't also mean that those other things aren't bad, and that line of reasoning along with your flippant remarks about very real problems facing women in tech show your true colors.
- wazoox 6y agoI didn't emit any remark about the obvious rampant misogyny in tech. You're jumping to completely unwarranted conclusions.
- saagarjha 6y agoI think starting off your comment the way you did made the conclusion fairly natural.
- wazoox 6y agoI think that "being offended" isn't a serious matter, or an actual political stance. That's the crux of my distaste of SJW, intersectionality, and victimhood culture. One of my "offensive opinions", if you wish. That doesn't mean that I think that sexism, racism, homophobia, etc aren't serious matters. On the contrary.
- nickthemagicman 6y agoIs that insane to be ousted for stating an probably true idea? Or am I just missing something?
- IshKebab 6y agoYeah I think it wasn't just that. He's said a lot of crazy things over the years so nobody could really defend him by saying "he didn't exactly say that" because the response was always "ok fine but what about all these other creepy things he's definitely said?". Basically the final straw.
- nickthemagicman 6y agoThese were all things he SAID and they weren't hateful or prejudiced? They were just weird? He never actually did anything and he never actually said anything hateful? I don't know it seems like a case of talent getting beat out by politics. I could be wrong I don't know much about it but that's what it seems like on the surface.
- rrss 6y agoalso for the bit on the CSAIL email discussion where he objected to the use of the term "sexual assault" when referring to statutory rape, the other bit on the CSAIL email discussion where he was questioning whether statutory rape actually counts as rape, and mostly for the new publicity that everything else objectionable he's been doing and saying for the last several decades received (e.g. his stated views that laws against child pornography are censorship, that pedophilia, necrophilia, incest are actually fine (IIRC he revised his view on pedophilia a few days prior to resigning), his MIT office sign reading "knight for justice and hot ladies").
- literallycancer 6y agoStatutory rape is not the same thing as rape, that's the whole point of having a separate term for it. If you look outside the Anglo bubble, you'll discover that sexual relations between teenagers of various ages are not uncommon at all.
- RandoHolmes 6y agoright. It blows my mind that anyone who considers themselves intelligent would argue that statutory rape is rape. Statutory rape LITERALLY means "consensual sex with someone below the age of consent". Because if the sex was non-consensual, it's called rape regardless of age. RMS's biggest problem is that he was technically correct, but surrounded by a society of idiots.
- devenblake 6y agoYour idea of statutory rape not being rape fails at the definition you specified for the former term. Someone below the age of consent has been deemed by the law to be unable to make an informed decision about their body - which is true in all cases; in cases where that may not necessarily be true, the child would be smart enough to realize the act they're engaging in is unhealthy if not for their development then for their partner. Sexual relations with someone who cannot consent is rape. This doesn't include the fact that a large age discrepancy between two parties engaging in sexual relations will generally lead to an inequality in power, and sexual relations between two inequal parties in that way may not be rape but certainly isn't "good sex". Many states have "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which decriminalize sexual relations between people under the age of consent as long as they're similarly aged, solving the biggest issue most people have with the idea of statutory rape ("what if children rape each other?"). I use the term "sexual relations" because the act of sex necessitates consent. And although sexual relations with children may be uncommon outside of the "Anglo bubble", they still harm the child whether via physical or mental trauma.