3 ms·

https://futurism.com/the-byte/mit-scientist-stallman-pedophilia https://futurism.com/the-byte/mit-scientist-stallman-pedophi... He's never adequately explained

https://futurism.com/the-byte/mit-scientist-stallman-pedophilia https://futurism.com/the-byte/mit-scientist-stallman-pedophi... He's never adequately explained from what I can tell why he made those statements in the first place. If he could provide that additional insight, I think it would help others evaluate the sincerity of his apology. The question today that I have for Mr. Stallman, whom many of us hold in the highest regard for his role in the free software movement, is a very frank one: were his remarks in support of pedophilia designed to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation, much like he observed role-models such as MIT president Rafael Reif do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Reif sent Mr. Epstein a personally signed thank-you note for his donation to the Media Lab, or colleagues like Martin Nowak do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Nowak created a web page on a university website and an office in his department for a convicted child-rapist in exchange for tens of millions of dollars in donations that were promised to his academic program at Harvard and hundreds of millions of dollars in donations, often laundered through Epstein's fellow billionaire pedophile friends like Les Wexner, Glenn Dubin, and Leon Black, to Harvard University, where Mr. Nowak is a professor?

Zuider 6y ago
>The question today that I have for Mr. Stallman... ...Is an accusation disguised as cross examination. It is a common technique used in courtrooms and by journalists. Such usage does not serve the interests of clarity, and we need clarity here. If you believe that Richard Stallman, a notoriously unworldly hippie, was really motivated by greed for grant money, then you have a rather high burden of proof to surmount. The real, and most plausible, explanation was that Stallman was horrified at the unsavory revelations concerning his good friend and colleague, Prof. Marvin Minsky, and was attempting, innocently, to defend him.
- selfishgene 6y ago
  My current understanding, and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong here, is that Mr. Stallman's primary role at the FSF over the past decade has been to raise money for that organization, much like Rafael Reif's primary role at MIT is to raise money for the university. I am also not asking whether he was motivated "by greed" when he made public statements that appeared to defend Epstein. Your use of the word "greed" is a distraction away from the real question that I asked previously: were any of Mr. Stallman's statements intended to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation? That's all that I am asking here! If his sole intention was to defend his dear friend Mr. Minsky from false accusations of raping a underage girl who was allegedly being trafficked to him by Mr. Epstein on "Pedophile Isle," then why is he attacking the law that protects underage girls from people like Mr. Epstein rather than the accuser who you claim that Mr. Stallman is not prepared to believe?
  - Zuider 6y ago
    >My current understanding, and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong here, is that Mr. Stallman's primary role at the FSF over the past decade has been to raise money for that organization, much like Rafael Reif's primary role at MIT is to raise money for the university. Richard Stallman's primary role was to be honorary head of the FSF, a figurehead and inspiration rather than an active participant, far more interested in upholding its philosophical and ethical basis than in practical matters. There is a conflation here between 'role' with 'motive.' While one should expect the leaders of an organization such as the FSF to be concerned, even if only indirectly, with raising money, it does not follow that RMS had any such concern. Given his spectacular disregard for tact, diplomacy, interpersonal skills, and even bodily hygiene, RMS would appear to be singularly unsuited to any role resembling that of a lobbyist or fundraiser. Mr. Stallman is simply far to unworldly to care about money. >were any of Mr. Stallman's statements intended to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation? Again, that is a leading question which invites the hearer to assume the truth of what is being asked, reversing the burden of proof. This is a mere rhetorical trick, not a serious question. >If his sole intention was to defend his dear friend Mr. Minsky from false accusations of raping a underage girl who was allegedly being trafficked to him by Mr. Epstein on "Pedophile Isle," then why is he attacking the law that protects underage girls from people like Mr. Epstein rather than the accuser who you claim that Mr. Stallman is not prepared to believe? This is another attempt to impute a motive to RMS which he simply did not have. Yes, his unguarded, over-analytic, response to the accusations against his friend provides plenty of ammunition to those who would misrepresent his position, but it cannot be said to follow that his intention was to provide cover for Epstein, and his response to the ensuing controversy linked elsewhere in this thread makes it clear that he had no such motive.

Zuider 6y ago

>The question today that I have for Mr. Stallman... ...Is an accusation disguised as cross examination. It is a common technique used in courtrooms and by journalists. Such usage does not serve the interests of clarity, and we need clarity here. If you believe that Richard Stallman, a notoriously unworldly hippie, was really motivated by greed for grant money, then you have a rather high burden of proof to surmount. The real, and most plausible, explanation was that Stallman was horrified at the unsavory revelations concerning his good friend and colleague, Prof. Marvin Minsky, and was attempting, innocently, to defend him.

selfishgene 6y ago
My current understanding, and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong here, is that Mr. Stallman's primary role at the FSF over the past decade has been to raise money for that organization, much like Rafael Reif's primary role at MIT is to raise money for the university. I am also not asking whether he was motivated "by greed" when he made public statements that appeared to defend Epstein. Your use of the word "greed" is a distraction away from the real question that I asked previously: were any of Mr. Stallman's statements intended to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation? That's all that I am asking here! If his sole intention was to defend his dear friend Mr. Minsky from false accusations of raping a underage girl who was allegedly being trafficked to him by Mr. Epstein on "Pedophile Isle," then why is he attacking the law that protects underage girls from people like Mr. Epstein rather than the accuser who you claim that Mr. Stallman is not prepared to believe?
- Zuider 6y ago
  >My current understanding, and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong here, is that Mr. Stallman's primary role at the FSF over the past decade has been to raise money for that organization, much like Rafael Reif's primary role at MIT is to raise money for the university. Richard Stallman's primary role was to be honorary head of the FSF, a figurehead and inspiration rather than an active participant, far more interested in upholding its philosophical and ethical basis than in practical matters. There is a conflation here between 'role' with 'motive.' While one should expect the leaders of an organization such as the FSF to be concerned, even if only indirectly, with raising money, it does not follow that RMS had any such concern. Given his spectacular disregard for tact, diplomacy, interpersonal skills, and even bodily hygiene, RMS would appear to be singularly unsuited to any role resembling that of a lobbyist or fundraiser. Mr. Stallman is simply far to unworldly to care about money. >were any of Mr. Stallman's statements intended to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation? Again, that is a leading question which invites the hearer to assume the truth of what is being asked, reversing the burden of proof. This is a mere rhetorical trick, not a serious question. >If his sole intention was to defend his dear friend Mr. Minsky from false accusations of raping a underage girl who was allegedly being trafficked to him by Mr. Epstein on "Pedophile Isle," then why is he attacking the law that protects underage girls from people like Mr. Epstein rather than the accuser who you claim that Mr. Stallman is not prepared to believe? This is another attempt to impute a motive to RMS which he simply did not have. Yes, his unguarded, over-analytic, response to the accusations against his friend provides plenty of ammunition to those who would misrepresent his position, but it cannot be said to follow that his intention was to provide cover for Epstein, and his response to the ensuing controversy linked elsewhere in this thread makes it clear that he had no such motive.