5 ms·
Seems reasonable to me, though I am among the crowd who didn't read his initial statement as anything resembling a defense of Epstein.
by jMyles 6y ago
Seems reasonable to me, though I am among the crowd who didn't read his initial statement as anything resembling a defense of Epstein.
- curiousgal 6y agoIt irks me to a great extent how you cannot debate certain topics without immediately being labelled as an apologist or a supporter. Nuance no longer exists.
- devilduck 6y agoIt does it's just that people falsely equate "playing devil's advocate" as nuance, when it's not, at all.
- sneak 6y agoNuance never existed for those who see the world in black and white. Fortunately, most of us aren't in that category.
- luckylion 6y agoYou can debate them, just not with everyone. Chatham House Rules should be applied to all discussions as well, and it's probably wise to shun those who don't want to follow those.
- DanBC 6y agoMost people didn't read it as a defence of Epstein, but (as RMS says) as a defence of Minsky. It's that defence of Minsky that's a huge problem.
- javagram 6y agoAll the evidence we have public is that Minsky was innocent. He wasn’t even accused of doing anything bad. The victim stated Epstein asked her to proposition Minsky, but she did not say he accepted. Stallman’s defense was a hypothetical that probably would have been very similar to a courtroom defense of Minsky, that said since Minsky is both dead and not actually accused of the crime, no such courtroom scene would ever take place.