4 ms·

I'm fairly supportive of RMS and his movement but are you seriously failing to see why someone who is not "woke" might have a problem with somebody playing apol

I'm fairly supportive of RMS and his movement but are you seriously failing to see why someone who is not "woke" might have a problem with somebody playing apologetics for their friend for committing statutory rape? It's not that his point was incorrect but it's rather the fact that he is clearly bringing it up to play defence for somebody's actions which were fundamentally wrong regardless of if you take it colloquially or not. You think an underage prostitute has 100% free agency in who their clientele are? RMS either does or more likely, he hasn't thought his position through very clearly and is doing a knee-jerk defense of a friend who did a bad bad. This is also not the first time RMS has made statements about sexuality that betray a lack of understanding such as when he defended necrophilia and pedophilia as ok as long as it is consensual. I don't think he needs to be cancelled for this or whatever since I don't think RMS is of any real danger to vulnerable people and clearly his free software activism is still needed in the world but he absolutely does deserve to have his views questioned, challenged, and criticised.

maratc 6y ago
> Minsky organized two academic symposia on Epstein's private island Little Saint James, one in 2002 and another in 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky#Association_with_Jeffrey_Epstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky#Association_with... > Born Virginia Louise Roberts — August 9, 1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Roberts_Giuffre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Roberts_Giuffre Someone born in 1983 was either 18 or 19 in 2002. I'm not that supportive of RMS, or his habits, or his goals, but even if there was sex between Minsky and Guiffre — and no allegations of it ever being occurred have been brought up so far — no statutory rape could have happened.
- brnt 6y ago
  I would find any older man hanging out with 18-19 year olds sufficiently weird to raise my guards. I can imagine just a single reason that makes them think its a good idea to skirt the line that closely. You're right, in the end you need proof for a conviction. We however don't need that high a bar to get a pretty good measure of a person, and we're free to dislike someone for manoeuvring themselves into situations where abuse of power imbalance is made so easy. I'm always open to correction in particular cases, but my default will always be to be aware of the decreased barriers of committing abuse.
  - vimacs2 6y ago
    To play a little bit of defense here, there was definitely a bit of manipulation here by Epstein himself by gathering all these scientists and engineers, many of whom were assured that their colleagues would be there - framing it as a convention instead of what it actually was. Once you have everybody in the Island, just insert these beautiful women and try to get either entrapment or at the very least a photo or recording that looks compromising. I don't buy that everybody in Epstein's contact list were ignorant of the true nature of his enterprise but one-off academic guests probably were.
    - brnt 6y ago
      Perhaps they were not aware beforehand, but I find it difficult to believe that on the island it wouldn't be. It provides a confronting look into ones character. Minsky went there a second time. I'll need proof to convict him, I'll also need proof to exhonorate him. I looks like I'll get neither proof.
  - vfclists 6y ago
    > I would find any older man hanging out with 18-19 year olds sufficiently weird to raise my guards Weird is not a crime and how old is older? In many societies including within the US, being with an older man may be seen as providing financial security and stability and is not considered as inherently wrong.
    - brnt 6y ago
      I was specific: I understand the inverse reason and find it more valid and as such don't have nearly the size of a beef with it and therefore didn't mention it. I'm also not saying it's inherently wrong, I'm only saying that I find it sufficiently deep into suspicious territory to raise my guards. And I explained why I think that: because it lowers thresholds for committing abuse. The young person in this scenario is not in the position of power after all.
mc32 6y ago
I understand the pint regarding the intersection of free will coercion prostitutes and pimps. But... are they going to cancel all Hollywood actors caught with prostitutes, male or female? Do you recall ‘rape-rape Whoopi? Sure, unrelated industries, but where is the media on this? They cover both but are only interested in one.
- vimacs2 6y ago
  How can you seriously claim that there is somehow more media attention on the sexual misconduct of software engineers than Hollywood? There is probably more articles and news coverage on the acts of Harvey Weinstein alone than every sexual abuse case in the software world combined. They probably are not talking that much about Hollywood actors being caught with prostitutes specifically because they are preoccupied with the rampant sexual abuse that goes on between actors themselves including towards many child actors.
vfclists 6y ago
> I'm fairly supportive of RMS and his movement but are you seriously failing to see why someone who is not "woke" might have a problem with somebody playing apologetics for their friend for committing statutory rape? What apologetics are there here? What is there to apologize for? Sex with a physically mature person male or female who proffers themselves voluntarily is not considered rape in any social settings. The fact that the "rape" has to be prefixed by "statutory" only shows that it is not rape in the colloquial sense. There is nothing to defend in regards to such an opinion. "Statutory rape" with a consenting 17 year old is like "gay marriage". It may be a statutory definition, but marriage means "matrimony" such as Christian "Holy matrimony" to a lot of people and for them "gay marriage" is simply an oxymoron. Statute is not the sole arbiter of morality. You are simply demanding that people conform to moral sensibilities which are not universally hled. Consider the concept of trying juveniles as an adult. How many people who consider that there is no such thing as consensual sex with a 17 year old ever object to the concept of trying the same juveniles as adults? Apparently teenagers are mature enough to be tried as adults when it suits them and immature youths being preyed upon by older people when it doesn't. If Victoria Giuffre had a normal life which did not involve being pimped by wealthy socialites and committed a cold calculated murder at the age of 17 would any of the people yelling "statutory rape" object if she was tried as an adult? The very same society which yells statutory rape is the very same one which applauds and fetes entertainment stars like Beyonce, Rihanna, Ariana Grande etc, singing saucy lyrics and gyrating to preteens and feigns shock when the very same girls engage in those acts with adults. Why the double standards? Offending sensibilities is not a crime. It is actions that constitute crime and whether he has different opinions on sex with legal minors and has no objections to necrophilia does not necessarily mean an interest or commitment to participating in them. Many American Muslims in believe in Islamic teachings on homosexuality, sex with in minors and a whole load of edicts which are objectionable by contemporary human rights standards, even if they don't act on them. How many of the people offended by RMS has ever confronted American Muslims who hold such beliefs?
- rbanffy 6y ago
  > It may be a statutory definition, but marriage means "matrimony" such as Christian "Holy matrimony" to a lot of people and for them "gay marriage" is simply an oxymoron. Other religions have marriages. What the law says cannot be restricted to what Christianity (some of it) believe to be the Only Right Thing.
belorn 6y ago
There are people in the world who interpret words literally. They are wrong. Words are part of language and does not have absolute interpretations, but rather is about communication of concepts and ideas between humans that is derived through context and common culture and religious beliefs. What should we do about those people? To have their views questioned, challenged, and criticized can be used to flag to the rest of society that percived social norms has been violated, and it might inform the party at fault that their literally interpretation is wrong. However some people either has personality trait or disorders that commonly get stuck on interpreting words literally, and strangely they seem to be more common in academic and religious environments.
- vimacs2 6y ago
  It makes sense that for people who struggle with subtlety, the explicit world of academia and religion would be highly appealing. It's difficult to reverse engineer the dynamics of the subtle in the language of the literal but I suspect it is not impossible. There are people with social disorders that had to learn all the social cues that we take for granted as intuition, explicitly but many end up having better social skills than the average. Why? Because by being forced to learn these skills in an explicit way, they have to come to a higher level understanding than that of the average sociable person. The same is true for the artist with aphantasia or the mathematician without the ability to do mental arithmetic. In many cases, the same systematic study that people with these unique deficiencies have to undergo to learn those skills must be done by even average people to acquire real proficiency in that area, except average people have less of a blank canvas to work with which is both an advantage (there is already a bit of mileage in terms of practice) and a disadvantage (suddenly, you have to unlearn biases and bad habits that you have been unknowingly reinforcing). This was a bit of a rant and a half but I just wanted to put down the train of thought your comment put me under.

maratc 6y ago

> Minsky organized two academic symposia on Epstein's private island Little Saint James, one in 2002 and another in 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky#Association_with_Jeffrey_Epstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky#Association_with... > Born Virginia Louise Roberts — August 9, 1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Roberts_Giuffre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Roberts_Giuffre Someone born in 1983 was either 18 or 19 in 2002. I'm not that supportive of RMS, or his habits, or his goals, but even if there was sex between Minsky and Guiffre — and no allegations of it ever being occurred have been brought up so far — no statutory rape could have happened.

brnt 6y ago
I would find any older man hanging out with 18-19 year olds sufficiently weird to raise my guards. I can imagine just a single reason that makes them think its a good idea to skirt the line that closely. You're right, in the end you need proof for a conviction. We however don't need that high a bar to get a pretty good measure of a person, and we're free to dislike someone for manoeuvring themselves into situations where abuse of power imbalance is made so easy. I'm always open to correction in particular cases, but my default will always be to be aware of the decreased barriers of committing abuse.
- vimacs2 6y ago
  To play a little bit of defense here, there was definitely a bit of manipulation here by Epstein himself by gathering all these scientists and engineers, many of whom were assured that their colleagues would be there - framing it as a convention instead of what it actually was. Once you have everybody in the Island, just insert these beautiful women and try to get either entrapment or at the very least a photo or recording that looks compromising. I don't buy that everybody in Epstein's contact list were ignorant of the true nature of his enterprise but one-off academic guests probably were.
  - brnt 6y ago
    Perhaps they were not aware beforehand, but I find it difficult to believe that on the island it wouldn't be. It provides a confronting look into ones character. Minsky went there a second time. I'll need proof to convict him, I'll also need proof to exhonorate him. I looks like I'll get neither proof.
- vfclists 6y ago
  > I would find any older man hanging out with 18-19 year olds sufficiently weird to raise my guards Weird is not a crime and how old is older? In many societies including within the US, being with an older man may be seen as providing financial security and stability and is not considered as inherently wrong.
  - brnt 6y ago
    I was specific: I understand the inverse reason and find it more valid and as such don't have nearly the size of a beef with it and therefore didn't mention it. I'm also not saying it's inherently wrong, I'm only saying that I find it sufficiently deep into suspicious territory to raise my guards. And I explained why I think that: because it lowers thresholds for committing abuse. The young person in this scenario is not in the position of power after all.

mc32 6y ago

I understand the pint regarding the intersection of free will coercion prostitutes and pimps. But... are they going to cancel all Hollywood actors caught with prostitutes, male or female? Do you recall ‘rape-rape Whoopi? Sure, unrelated industries, but where is the media on this? They cover both but are only interested in one.

vimacs2 6y ago
How can you seriously claim that there is somehow more media attention on the sexual misconduct of software engineers than Hollywood? There is probably more articles and news coverage on the acts of Harvey Weinstein alone than every sexual abuse case in the software world combined. They probably are not talking that much about Hollywood actors being caught with prostitutes specifically because they are preoccupied with the rampant sexual abuse that goes on between actors themselves including towards many child actors.

vfclists 6y ago

> I'm fairly supportive of RMS and his movement but are you seriously failing to see why someone who is not "woke" might have a problem with somebody playing apologetics for their friend for committing statutory rape? What apologetics are there here? What is there to apologize for? Sex with a physically mature person male or female who proffers themselves voluntarily is not considered rape in any social settings. The fact that the "rape" has to be prefixed by "statutory" only shows that it is not rape in the colloquial sense. There is nothing to defend in regards to such an opinion. "Statutory rape" with a consenting 17 year old is like "gay marriage". It may be a statutory definition, but marriage means "matrimony" such as Christian "Holy matrimony" to a lot of people and for them "gay marriage" is simply an oxymoron. Statute is not the sole arbiter of morality. You are simply demanding that people conform to moral sensibilities which are not universally hled. Consider the concept of trying juveniles as an adult. How many people who consider that there is no such thing as consensual sex with a 17 year old ever object to the concept of trying the same juveniles as adults? Apparently teenagers are mature enough to be tried as adults when it suits them and immature youths being preyed upon by older people when it doesn't. If Victoria Giuffre had a normal life which did not involve being pimped by wealthy socialites and committed a cold calculated murder at the age of 17 would any of the people yelling "statutory rape" object if she was tried as an adult? The very same society which yells statutory rape is the very same one which applauds and fetes entertainment stars like Beyonce, Rihanna, Ariana Grande etc, singing saucy lyrics and gyrating to preteens and feigns shock when the very same girls engage in those acts with adults. Why the double standards? Offending sensibilities is not a crime. It is actions that constitute crime and whether he has different opinions on sex with legal minors and has no objections to necrophilia does not necessarily mean an interest or commitment to participating in them. Many American Muslims in believe in Islamic teachings on homosexuality, sex with in minors and a whole load of edicts which are objectionable by contemporary human rights standards, even if they don't act on them. How many of the people offended by RMS has ever confronted American Muslims who hold such beliefs?

rbanffy 6y ago
> It may be a statutory definition, but marriage means "matrimony" such as Christian "Holy matrimony" to a lot of people and for them "gay marriage" is simply an oxymoron. Other religions have marriages. What the law says cannot be restricted to what Christianity (some of it) believe to be the Only Right Thing.

belorn 6y ago

There are people in the world who interpret words literally. They are wrong. Words are part of language and does not have absolute interpretations, but rather is about communication of concepts and ideas between humans that is derived through context and common culture and religious beliefs. What should we do about those people? To have their views questioned, challenged, and criticized can be used to flag to the rest of society that percived social norms has been violated, and it might inform the party at fault that their literally interpretation is wrong. However some people either has personality trait or disorders that commonly get stuck on interpreting words literally, and strangely they seem to be more common in academic and religious environments.

vimacs2 6y ago
It makes sense that for people who struggle with subtlety, the explicit world of academia and religion would be highly appealing. It's difficult to reverse engineer the dynamics of the subtle in the language of the literal but I suspect it is not impossible. There are people with social disorders that had to learn all the social cues that we take for granted as intuition, explicitly but many end up having better social skills than the average. Why? Because by being forced to learn these skills in an explicit way, they have to come to a higher level understanding than that of the average sociable person. The same is true for the artist with aphantasia or the mathematician without the ability to do mental arithmetic. In many cases, the same systematic study that people with these unique deficiencies have to undergo to learn those skills must be done by even average people to acquire real proficiency in that area, except average people have less of a blank canvas to work with which is both an advantage (there is already a bit of mileage in terms of practice) and a disadvantage (suddenly, you have to unlearn biases and bad habits that you have been unknowingly reinforcing). This was a bit of a rant and a half but I just wanted to put down the train of thought your comment put me under.