3 ms·

> "To assault" means "to make a physical attack on". You can rape someone without assaulting them. That’s not how sexual assault is defined though. Quoting Wik

by jolux 6y ago

> "To assault" means "to make a physical attack on". You can rape someone without assaulting them. That’s not how sexual assault is defined though. Quoting Wikipedia: “Sexual assault is an act in which a person intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.” Avoiding this, like Stallman did, is a way of playing with semantics to reduce the seriousness of an accusation. He may be doing this because he’s autistic and rigid. I’ve done similar in the past because I’m similarly rigid, but it absolutely comes from a place of defensiveness too. >This is a pretty standard way of thinking for many neurodivergents. You're just saying "people of your kind cannot be public figures, and if they are they have to be taken down". I’m autistic, dude. This shit makes no sense to me. Saying it’s a “standard way of thinking” is doing us a disservice. Public figures cannot express opinions like this about rape! Autistic men who don’t seem to understand consent like this, or think they have figured out an inconsistency in society’s rules around sex, freak me the hell out. I expect other autistic people to have a hard time complying with social rules, but the fact that the rules are difficult for us is not an excuse for not following them, particularly if you want to lead a diverse group of people. Stallman is certainly not the best the autistic community has to offer, and I really wish you would stop implying he is.

seba_dos1 6y ago
> Avoiding this, like Stallman did, is a way of playing with semantics to reduce the seriousness of an accusation. Well, yes, since the point was to speak against what he called "accusation inflation" - which, I believe, wasn't even directed as much to Minksy's case as into general usage of that term in English: The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” 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 X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X... The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing... Notice how it was "accused of assaulting" that Stallman spoke against, and that "sexual assault" was then mentioned by Stallman as a way to explain his position. And guess what? I don't actually agree with his opinion about the term "sexual assault". I mean, I see his reasoning and I agree with it on its own, but to me that ship has sailed - it's not enough for me to challenge the already existing usage of that term; especially when it does actually make some sense to "inflate" its meaning, because the harm done by non-consensual sexual acts often greatly exceeds the physical attack aspect itself (which may not even be there). So I can accept that term even though I find it somewhat inaccurate, technically. Kinda metaphorical. It clearly is enough for Stallman though, as evidenced by many other language crusades he's been on for his whole life. That said, the fact that it was "assault" and not "sexual assault" that was used there in the announcement seems to just prove the Stallman's point. > Stallman is certainly not the best the autistic community has to offer, and I really wish you would stop implying he is. Where was I implying that? That's very far from what I'd ever be comfortable with suggesting. Stallman doesn't even properly recognize his shortcomings and could really put much greater effort into dealing with them which would help him and his causes (and in turn, my causes, since I share his concerns about software freedom). This particular case is, however, not an example of that. > Public figures cannot express opinions like this about rape! Which opinions? What does "like this" mean? I honestly don't follow! My own views on this matter are exactly what some would describe as very "leftist" or "woke", and I do share your concern about men who don't understand consent. People in privileged position (which men that don't have to wear in a specific way every day out of the fear of being assaulted certainly are in) have greater responsibility when it comes to understanding such issues. That said, you don't need to belittle consent to point out that "assault" in "sexual assault" doesn't mean literal "assault" anymore, especially in context of situation where there was no evidence that the act even took place at all in the first place (which might have changed since, I don't know - I really couldn't care less about Minsky himself). Mind you - Stallman didn't even mention that. If his intention was to defend Minsky, he was a very poor defender. Also, > Autistic men who don’t seem to understand consent like this, or think they have figured out an inconsistency in society’s rules around sex, freak me the hell out. That's a real issue, and it leads such people to plenty of suffering and depression. They should be educated, not ostracized. If we don't do it, they may turn somewhere else where they'll get worse - there are some circles that claim to offer them "help" and "answers" already, but those don't make the society a better place.
- jolux 6y ago
  >It clearly is enough for Stallman though, as evidenced by many other language crusades he's been on for his whole life. The context is significant here though, because he has a history of belittling women and being insensitive to concerns about consent. These specific characteristics are red flags. It doesn't really matter whether the person bringing them up thinks they have wholly rational reasons to, or that they're just pointing out something interesting about language. >Which opinions? What does "like this" mean? I honestly don't follow! He said that Minsky probably would not have known that he was having sex with a minor who was also being coerced, and thus to him the victim would probably have appeared "entirely willing," as if that would make the act ok, or make it not constitute "sexual assault." He also said that he thought defining age of consent based on the law was ridiculous, which would be a colorable philosophical argument if we had any better way for defining and preventing child sexual abuse in our societies. >If his intention was to defend Minsky, he was a very poor defender. I'm sure he was, since he ended up essentially getting fired for what he said. I'm not here to litigate whether his specific example is sound, as you acknowledge that it's not. But the fact that he had to turn an accusation aimed at another MIT colleague with connections to Epstein into an opportunity to further a personal vendetta over the precise use of language used to describe rape — charitably you could say it was said in immensely poor taste. At worst, it does amount to attempting to defend or minimize the accusation. >That's a real issue, and it leads such people to plenty of suffering and depression. They should be educated, not ostracized. If we don't do it, they may turn somewhere else where they'll get worse - there are some circles that claim to offer them "help" and "answers" already, but those don't make the society a better place. It's sure led me to a lot of suffering, and depression, and severe anxiety. I don't feel safe around many men I meet in tech-centric spaces. All my friends have horror stories about abuse and harassment in our field. And I'm sure the abusive men are depressed too. That's, of course, sadly common with autism. But they do need to get educated, and stop using their disability as an excuse for being insensitive. I'm not required to spend time around people who make me feel unsafe, regardless of gender, just so that they don't feel ostracized.
  - seba_dos1 6y ago
    > as if that would make the act ok, or make it not constitute "sexual assault." It doesn't appear to me as "making the act ok", I'm not sure where that comes from at all. He didn't even hint that it wasn't a case of "sexual assault". All he said is that it wasn't "assault" (which was the exact term being used in the announcement), and that he dislikes the way the other term - "sexual assault" - leads to people misusing the term "assault" in the first place; and explained why. Was that a proper way, time and place to do that? Nope! Was it in poor taste and prone to misinterpretation? Absolutely! Does speaking in poor taste (or even questioning the institution of age of consent) make you child abuse apologist? Heck no. Regarding the context of belittling women and consent insensitivity - I don't have enough information about Stallman to accurately assess that. I've seen some stories that appear credible, but I've also seen some that are so blatantly misinterpreted that reading them makes me feel sick. Therefore I remain cautious, both ways.

by jolux 6y ago

seba_dos1 6y ago

> Avoiding this, like Stallman did, is a way of playing with semantics to reduce the seriousness of an accusation. Well, yes, since the point was to speak against what he called "accusation inflation" - which, I believe, wasn't even directed as much to Minksy's case as into general usage of that term in English: The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])” 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 X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X... The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing... Notice how it was "accused of assaulting" that Stallman spoke against, and that "sexual assault" was then mentioned by Stallman as a way to explain his position. And guess what? I don't actually agree with his opinion about the term "sexual assault". I mean, I see his reasoning and I agree with it on its own, but to me that ship has sailed - it's not enough for me to challenge the already existing usage of that term; especially when it does actually make some sense to "inflate" its meaning, because the harm done by non-consensual sexual acts often greatly exceeds the physical attack aspect itself (which may not even be there). So I can accept that term even though I find it somewhat inaccurate, technically. Kinda metaphorical. It clearly is enough for Stallman though, as evidenced by many other language crusades he's been on for his whole life. That said, the fact that it was "assault" and not "sexual assault" that was used there in the announcement seems to just prove the Stallman's point. > Stallman is certainly not the best the autistic community has to offer, and I really wish you would stop implying he is. Where was I implying that? That's very far from what I'd ever be comfortable with suggesting. Stallman doesn't even properly recognize his shortcomings and could really put much greater effort into dealing with them which would help him and his causes (and in turn, my causes, since I share his concerns about software freedom). This particular case is, however, not an example of that. > Public figures cannot express opinions like this about rape! Which opinions? What does "like this" mean? I honestly don't follow! My own views on this matter are exactly what some would describe as very "leftist" or "woke", and I do share your concern about men who don't understand consent. People in privileged position (which men that don't have to wear in a specific way every day out of the fear of being assaulted certainly are in) have greater responsibility when it comes to understanding such issues. That said, you don't need to belittle consent to point out that "assault" in "sexual assault" doesn't mean literal "assault" anymore, especially in context of situation where there was no evidence that the act even took place at all in the first place (which might have changed since, I don't know - I really couldn't care less about Minsky himself). Mind you - Stallman didn't even mention that. If his intention was to defend Minsky, he was a very poor defender. Also, > Autistic men who don’t seem to understand consent like this, or think they have figured out an inconsistency in society’s rules around sex, freak me the hell out. That's a real issue, and it leads such people to plenty of suffering and depression. They should be educated, not ostracized. If we don't do it, they may turn somewhere else where they'll get worse - there are some circles that claim to offer them "help" and "answers" already, but those don't make the society a better place.

jolux 6y ago
>It clearly is enough for Stallman though, as evidenced by many other language crusades he's been on for his whole life. The context is significant here though, because he has a history of belittling women and being insensitive to concerns about consent. These specific characteristics are red flags. It doesn't really matter whether the person bringing them up thinks they have wholly rational reasons to, or that they're just pointing out something interesting about language. >Which opinions? What does "like this" mean? I honestly don't follow! He said that Minsky probably would not have known that he was having sex with a minor who was also being coerced, and thus to him the victim would probably have appeared "entirely willing," as if that would make the act ok, or make it not constitute "sexual assault." He also said that he thought defining age of consent based on the law was ridiculous, which would be a colorable philosophical argument if we had any better way for defining and preventing child sexual abuse in our societies. >If his intention was to defend Minsky, he was a very poor defender. I'm sure he was, since he ended up essentially getting fired for what he said. I'm not here to litigate whether his specific example is sound, as you acknowledge that it's not. But the fact that he had to turn an accusation aimed at another MIT colleague with connections to Epstein into an opportunity to further a personal vendetta over the precise use of language used to describe rape — charitably you could say it was said in immensely poor taste. At worst, it does amount to attempting to defend or minimize the accusation. >That's a real issue, and it leads such people to plenty of suffering and depression. They should be educated, not ostracized. If we don't do it, they may turn somewhere else where they'll get worse - there are some circles that claim to offer them "help" and "answers" already, but those don't make the society a better place. It's sure led me to a lot of suffering, and depression, and severe anxiety. I don't feel safe around many men I meet in tech-centric spaces. All my friends have horror stories about abuse and harassment in our field. And I'm sure the abusive men are depressed too. That's, of course, sadly common with autism. But they do need to get educated, and stop using their disability as an excuse for being insensitive. I'm not required to spend time around people who make me feel unsafe, regardless of gender, just so that they don't feel ostracized.
- seba_dos1 6y ago
  > as if that would make the act ok, or make it not constitute "sexual assault." It doesn't appear to me as "making the act ok", I'm not sure where that comes from at all. He didn't even hint that it wasn't a case of "sexual assault". All he said is that it wasn't "assault" (which was the exact term being used in the announcement), and that he dislikes the way the other term - "sexual assault" - leads to people misusing the term "assault" in the first place; and explained why. Was that a proper way, time and place to do that? Nope! Was it in poor taste and prone to misinterpretation? Absolutely! Does speaking in poor taste (or even questioning the institution of age of consent) make you child abuse apologist? Heck no. Regarding the context of belittling women and consent insensitivity - I don't have enough information about Stallman to accurately assess that. I've seen some stories that appear credible, but I've also seen some that are so blatantly misinterpreted that reading them makes me feel sick. Therefore I remain cautious, both ways.