6 ms·

Who cares what he thinks about Minsky paying for sex? It’s hard to imagine something less relevant to his job.

danpalmer 5y ago
I think people care more about the child sex trafficking than the paying for sex. Also your job doesn't have to be about child safety for it to be an issue if you excuse child sex trafficking.
tsimionescu 5y ago
His job is entirely ideological, so his ideology receives due scrutiny, even if this were an entirely unrelated field. But, given that Minsky is a significant name in the compiter science communities, and that Stallman continues to deny that Minsky's behavior (having sex with a 17 year-old unwilling sex worker while he was 70? 80?, even though he may have thought she was an 18-year old willinh sex worker) is not emtorely unrelated to questions of women's treatment in the computer science and opem source community.
- guenthert 5y ago
  When did you stop beating your wife? Minsky did not have sex with an underage sex worker. Allegedly Epstein directed that woman to offer sex to Minsky, but that didn't occur. It is mind boggling how readily some people throw mud here.
  - newacct583 5y ago
    We don't know that it didn't happen either. My understanding is that the relevant section of the deposition in question (which was part of a civil suit, not a criminal matter) is redacted. The unredacted contents were reported via a leak to a journalist. And it's not clear if Giuffre was even asked if sex occurred, as it wasn't relevant to this particular suit and the attorneys present weren't law enforcement or prosecutors with a mandate to chase the kind of evidence. A reasonable guess is that Minsky probably did have sex, he just wasn't ever actually accused by anyone (being dead by the time this blew up). Could that be wrong? Sure. But jumping in to argue that the absence of evidence proves innocence while failing to recognize the gravity of the crime involved is EXACTLY the rake that RMS stepped on.
    - horsawlarway 5y ago
      How fucking far we've fallen from "innocent until proven guilty".
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        Innocent until proven guilty is the standard for a trial, not for public opinion.
        horsawlarway 5y ago
        I'm literally responding to this line - >But jumping in to argue that the absence of evidence proves innocence That line is a fucking disaster philosophy. "I can't prove he did anything, and no one has accused him, but I hereby declare him not-innocent" --- Next up we can debate how the child should pay for the crimes of his father.
        throwaway8581 5y ago
        "The prohibition on corruption of blood only applies to the government. Private corporations can and should punish the children and grandchildren of racists."
        newacct583 5y ago
        How did you get onto this tangent? Minsky isn't on trial here. He's dead. The point wasn't to determine whether or not the accusation against him merits a conviction, but to point out that this isn't a license to (1) make excuses for the crime of which he was accused or (2) (from upthread) declare that the crime definitely didn't even happen, when it's pretty clear that it probably did.
        horsawlarway 5y ago
        Nor does it excuse a descent to mob justice (from either side). Our law is based on procedural justice because it turns out that societies run on mob justice are fucking terrible. Basically - I'm on this tangent because I find your line of reasoning distasteful. The answer right now is that we don't know. Unlike both you and those you disagree with, I don't think it's appropriate to make any judgement on this from our armchairs on the internet. At best, we're in the "trust, but verify" stage of this with regards to a single accusation with no confirmed time or location (or any other detail, as far as I'm aware) - Yet I see a whole lot of folks happy to be judge, jury, and executioner (again, on both sides). With basically no one suggesting that maybe we should do our due diligence first. He might be dead, but his wife isn't, his friends aren't, his memory isn't. And while I sure agree that RMS is one tonedeaf motherfucker, I have at least some empathy for the impulse to defend a close friend (although lord knows I wouldn't have gone about it the same way...). Particularly given it happened when the friend wasn't around to defend himself. Now - having said that, I chose to comment here because while I fault both sides for jumping to conclusions, I find it MUCH more ethically troubling to jump to a conclusion of guilt. Mobs don't lynch people they've decided are innocent, they lynch the ones they've decided are guilty. I judge that much more harshly.

I think people care more about the child sex trafficking than the paying for sex. Also your job doesn't have to be about child safety for it to be an issue if you excuse child sex trafficking.

tsimionescu 5y ago

His job is entirely ideological, so his ideology receives due scrutiny, even if this were an entirely unrelated field. But, given that Minsky is a significant name in the compiter science communities, and that Stallman continues to deny that Minsky's behavior (having sex with a 17 year-old unwilling sex worker while he was 70? 80?, even though he may have thought she was an 18-year old willinh sex worker) is not emtorely unrelated to questions of women's treatment in the computer science and opem source community.

guenthert 5y ago
When did you stop beating your wife? Minsky did not have sex with an underage sex worker. Allegedly Epstein directed that woman to offer sex to Minsky, but that didn't occur. It is mind boggling how readily some people throw mud here.
- newacct583 5y ago
  We don't know that it didn't happen either. My understanding is that the relevant section of the deposition in question (which was part of a civil suit, not a criminal matter) is redacted. The unredacted contents were reported via a leak to a journalist. And it's not clear if Giuffre was even asked if sex occurred, as it wasn't relevant to this particular suit and the attorneys present weren't law enforcement or prosecutors with a mandate to chase the kind of evidence. A reasonable guess is that Minsky probably did have sex, he just wasn't ever actually accused by anyone (being dead by the time this blew up). Could that be wrong? Sure. But jumping in to argue that the absence of evidence proves innocence while failing to recognize the gravity of the crime involved is EXACTLY the rake that RMS stepped on.
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    How fucking far we've fallen from "innocent until proven guilty".
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      Innocent until proven guilty is the standard for a trial, not for public opinion.
      - horsawlarway 5y ago
        I'm literally responding to this line - >But jumping in to argue that the absence of evidence proves innocence That line is a fucking disaster philosophy. "I can't prove he did anything, and no one has accused him, but I hereby declare him not-innocent" --- Next up we can debate how the child should pay for the crimes of his father.
        throwaway8581 5y ago
        "The prohibition on corruption of blood only applies to the government. Private corporations can and should punish the children and grandchildren of racists."
        newacct583 5y ago
        How did you get onto this tangent? Minsky isn't on trial here. He's dead. The point wasn't to determine whether or not the accusation against him merits a conviction, but to point out that this isn't a license to (1) make excuses for the crime of which he was accused or (2) (from upthread) declare that the crime definitely didn't even happen, when it's pretty clear that it probably did.
        horsawlarway 5y ago
        Nor does it excuse a descent to mob justice (from either side). Our law is based on procedural justice because it turns out that societies run on mob justice are fucking terrible. Basically - I'm on this tangent because I find your line of reasoning distasteful. The answer right now is that we don't know. Unlike both you and those you disagree with, I don't think it's appropriate to make any judgement on this from our armchairs on the internet. At best, we're in the "trust, but verify" stage of this with regards to a single accusation with no confirmed time or location (or any other detail, as far as I'm aware) - Yet I see a whole lot of folks happy to be judge, jury, and executioner (again, on both sides). With basically no one suggesting that maybe we should do our due diligence first. He might be dead, but his wife isn't, his friends aren't, his memory isn't. And while I sure agree that RMS is one tonedeaf motherfucker, I have at least some empathy for the impulse to defend a close friend (although lord knows I wouldn't have gone about it the same way...). Particularly given it happened when the friend wasn't around to defend himself. Now - having said that, I chose to comment here because while I fault both sides for jumping to conclusions, I find it MUCH more ethically troubling to jump to a conclusion of guilt. Mobs don't lynch people they've decided are innocent, they lynch the ones they've decided are guilty. I judge that much more harshly.