6 ms·

What part of "Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein" (the title of the Daily Beast article) do you have trouble understanding?

meowface 6y ago
I'd also say the Vice headline is almost as dishonest, even if it's not saying he defended Epstein: "Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'". Stallman did use those two scare-quoted words, but the headline is trying to paint it in a completely, fundamentally different light from the point he was attempting to make. He may have been insensitive (as he says in this statement), but he wasn't arguing anything close to what that headline is trying to imply. It's not just a typical case of a misleading headline taking a quote out of context. There isn't any conceivable context where it's justified to call rape and sex trafficking victims entirely willing; of course the victims are by definition unwilling. So it's an especially wrong and deceptive portrayal of what he was saying. They wrote it that way knowing the audience's immediate gut reaction will be the last sentence of the previous paragraph.
- Udik 6y ago
  > almost as dishonest, even if it's not saying he defended Epstein: "Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'". Why "almost"? It's false, and clearly so for anyone who has the literacy needed to write that piece. It's entirely dishonest.
  - jraph 6y ago
    Did you read "almost as dishonest" as "almost dishonest"?
    - Udik 6y ago
      No, I read it as "somewhat less dishonest". But since anyone who is able to read and understand English at a high school level knows that "presented herself as entirely willing" means something different from "was entirely willing", both statements ("defends Epstein" and "says she was entirely willing") are deliberately stating complete falsehoods. Which is entirely dishonest.
      - meowface 5y ago
        You're right; I probably should have said "almost as destructive". They're equally dishonest. I just think "defends Epstein" is even more of an insult, even if they're both awful.

meowface 6y ago

I'd also say the Vice headline is almost as dishonest, even if it's not saying he defended Epstein: "Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'". Stallman did use those two scare-quoted words, but the headline is trying to paint it in a completely, fundamentally different light from the point he was attempting to make. He may have been insensitive (as he says in this statement), but he wasn't arguing anything close to what that headline is trying to imply. It's not just a typical case of a misleading headline taking a quote out of context. There isn't any conceivable context where it's justified to call rape and sex trafficking victims entirely willing; of course the victims are by definition unwilling. So it's an especially wrong and deceptive portrayal of what he was saying. They wrote it that way knowing the audience's immediate gut reaction will be the last sentence of the previous paragraph.

Udik 6y ago
> almost as dishonest, even if it's not saying he defended Epstein: "Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'". Why "almost"? It's false, and clearly so for anyone who has the literacy needed to write that piece. It's entirely dishonest.
- jraph 6y ago
  Did you read "almost as dishonest" as "almost dishonest"?
  - Udik 6y ago
    No, I read it as "somewhat less dishonest". But since anyone who is able to read and understand English at a high school level knows that "presented herself as entirely willing" means something different from "was entirely willing", both statements ("defends Epstein" and "says she was entirely willing") are deliberately stating complete falsehoods. Which is entirely dishonest.
    - meowface 5y ago
      You're right; I probably should have said "almost as destructive". They're equally dishonest. I just think "defends Epstein" is even more of an insult, even if they're both awful.