4 ms·

> completely independent of whether he's the best choice as leader for the FSF It's not independent, you can't just drop the context. RMS the 9-5 software dev

by Osmose 6y ago

> completely independent of whether he's the best choice as leader for the FSF It's not independent, you can't just drop the context. RMS the 9-5 software dev at some nameless corporation having this discussion is, while still unacceptable (because the relevant society has decided that it is obvious why sex with minors is harmful), not nearly as impactful as RMS the respected-by-many leader of the free software movement. The clout he has from that position and work makes him influential even outside of the sphere, as well as affecting people who might join the movement but are pushed away because they find his other opinions unacceptable. That's why we're talking about it in this comment thread instead of ignoring it like we do most of the weird takes on the internet. > I'm also not sure why "inclusive" is a good criterion for FSF leader, it seems like just a hollow shibboleth buzzword at this point. People who harp on "inclusion" are usually the most interested in exclusion. The paradox of tolerance explains why it might feel like being inclusive of many groups of people involves exclusion.

NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I think the problem in it with respect to mine lies here: "because the relevant society has decided that it is obvious why sex with minors is harmful" But it's not obvious who is a minor or when a minor having sex is wrong. I commented elsewhere, but what about two 15 year olds? A 15 and a 20? In some country X where age of consent is 14, vs. in some country Y where age of consent is 18--is there a moral difference? Where is the real moral line that society has decided upon, according to you? 17.375 years? The Minsky / RMS thing involved this sort of question. The girl was 17.
- seoaeu 6y ago
  That was the question RMS asked, but it is oblivious of a way more relevant point: the girl was a victim of human trafficking. Regardless of age a sex slave cannot consent. Not to mention how clueless you have to be to discuss age of consent laws on a many-thousand person workplace mailing list with teenagers on it.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
    ...right, but you can't look at someone and based on looks end up thinking, "That person is a victim of human trafficking!" in the same way you might look at someone and think, "That person might be younger than 18 [or whatever the local law says]!". It might be possible to blame Minsky for the second thing, but the first seems completely crazy to me.
    - seoaeu 6y ago
      Um, what? I must be misunderstanding you because rape isn't OK just because the perpetrator has plausible deniability about whether it was intentional. Doubly so when there is a strong case he knew or should have known something something was wrong.
      - NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
        Yeah, I think there's a misunderstanding. Basically, there is no possible way to know by looking at 17-y-o girl at some island party that she has been "sex trafficked". But there is a reason to suspect that a 17-y-o girl is less than 18 by looking...she looks about 17. So it makes sense to consider blaming Minsky for failing on the second thing, but to consider blaming him for the sex trafficking aspect doesn't make any sense at all. Edit: and I should be fair to Minsky's memory, there is no evidence he had sex with the 17-y-o, and significant evidence that he did not.
africanboy 6y ago
that's completely fair! but on the other hand some might think that the FSF is becoming one of those organizations were "social indignation" has more importance than "due process" and it might alienate old and new contributors that value that aspect. Politics is always a trade off, you can't make everybody happy.
concordDance 6y ago
> because the relevant society has decided that it is obvious why sex with minors is harmful Society declares a lot of things obviously wrong and most of us never really examine why they are wrong, particularly from first principles. I think being willing to examine and question these kinds of assumptions fosters a very open culture where people aren't afraid to speak up (unlike the other 99% of the world where you live in fear). E.g. I'm in the same boat Stalman was in that I've never recieved a satisfactory exaplanation from first principles about why mutually agreed (using that term because "consensual" has legal meanings) non-penetrative sexual interaction between a child and an adult is harmful. I've just been told to take it on faith that it causes horrible damage (and ignore the obvious confounders in the "studies"/anecdotes and the surrounding society working hard at placing the victim label on the child, which could easily cause damage itself).

by Osmose 6y ago

NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I think the problem in it with respect to mine lies here: "because the relevant society has decided that it is obvious why sex with minors is harmful" But it's not obvious who is a minor or when a minor having sex is wrong. I commented elsewhere, but what about two 15 year olds? A 15 and a 20? In some country X where age of consent is 14, vs. in some country Y where age of consent is 18--is there a moral difference? Where is the real moral line that society has decided upon, according to you? 17.375 years? The Minsky / RMS thing involved this sort of question. The girl was 17.

seoaeu 6y ago
That was the question RMS asked, but it is oblivious of a way more relevant point: the girl was a victim of human trafficking. Regardless of age a sex slave cannot consent. Not to mention how clueless you have to be to discuss age of consent laws on a many-thousand person workplace mailing list with teenagers on it.
- NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
  ...right, but you can't look at someone and based on looks end up thinking, "That person is a victim of human trafficking!" in the same way you might look at someone and think, "That person might be younger than 18 [or whatever the local law says]!". It might be possible to blame Minsky for the second thing, but the first seems completely crazy to me.
  - seoaeu 6y ago
    Um, what? I must be misunderstanding you because rape isn't OK just because the perpetrator has plausible deniability about whether it was intentional. Doubly so when there is a strong case he knew or should have known something something was wrong.
    - NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
      Yeah, I think there's a misunderstanding. Basically, there is no possible way to know by looking at 17-y-o girl at some island party that she has been "sex trafficked". But there is a reason to suspect that a 17-y-o girl is less than 18 by looking...she looks about 17. So it makes sense to consider blaming Minsky for failing on the second thing, but to consider blaming him for the sex trafficking aspect doesn't make any sense at all. Edit: and I should be fair to Minsky's memory, there is no evidence he had sex with the 17-y-o, and significant evidence that he did not.

africanboy 6y ago

that's completely fair! but on the other hand some might think that the FSF is becoming one of those organizations were "social indignation" has more importance than "due process" and it might alienate old and new contributors that value that aspect. Politics is always a trade off, you can't make everybody happy.

concordDance 6y ago

> because the relevant society has decided that it is obvious why sex with minors is harmful Society declares a lot of things obviously wrong and most of us never really examine why they are wrong, particularly from first principles. I think being willing to examine and question these kinds of assumptions fosters a very open culture where people aren't afraid to speak up (unlike the other 99% of the world where you live in fear). E.g. I'm in the same boat Stalman was in that I've never recieved a satisfactory exaplanation from first principles about why mutually agreed (using that term because "consensual" has legal meanings) non-penetrative sexual interaction between a child and an adult is harmful. I've just been told to take it on faith that it causes horrible damage (and ignore the obvious confounders in the "studies"/anecdotes and the surrounding society working hard at placing the victim label on the child, which could easily cause damage itself).