8 ms·

"The original Remove Richard Stallman post contained leaked communications from a private mailing list. In it, the author quotes an email from Stallman where he

by myshpa 3y ago

"The original Remove Richard Stallman post contained leaked communications from a private mailing list. In it, the author quotes an email from Stallman where he explains that Marvin Minsky likely wouldn’t have known that the woman on Jeffrey Epstein’s island was coerced: …the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. A paragraph later, the author summarizes Stallman’s view as: …he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. This is the opposite of what Stallman said, but this lie was repeated by the press. An article in the Daily Beast said: Stallman wrote that “the most plausible scenario” for Giuffre’s accusations was that she was, in actuality, “entirely willing.” An article in Vice spread the same lie: Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. There are two possibilities here. Either the author of the Medium post was not capable of correctly parsing the sentence, or she didn’t care about truth and was leveling as many accusations as possible in the hope that one would stick. In other words: she is either foolish or malicious. The same goes for the writers of the Vice and Daily Beast articles. To describe what they did as journalism would be an insult to journalists." "By satisfying the mob today, we are sacrificing our future. That’s the real risk." https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman/ https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stal...

jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
[flagged]
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Then condemn him for the things he actually said or did (and I agree, there are valid reasons to distance oneself from him), not on account of misinformation.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    While i agree in principle, in practise it is very human nature that once someone does enouh questionable things people will stop rushing to that person's defense, and it starts to matter much less if the current thing is true. It is sort of reverse boy who cried wolf.
    - brickteacup 3y ago
      > in practise it is very human nature yes, it's human nature to be intellectually lazy; that doesn't mean it's a good thing or that it should be encouraged
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      The fact that it's in human nature doesn't make it any less reprehensible. Physical violence is in human nature, too.
- pen2l 3y ago
  We talk about inclusivity here all the time, but what about being inclusive of neuroatypical folks who have quirks that don't come off as being polished and PC in current social code du jour? This all so so grates on me because it means we are wasting all this time and energy on things that don't matter all the while the real monsters of society go unchecked because with their psychopathic streak they know how to play a convincing PC game on the outside while committing real atrocities. The thought-leader of the FSF might be socially awkward, but no, people, he is not the great Public Enemy No. 1 some people are making him out to be.
  - kdkdjdjdndnfn 3y ago
    [dead]
  - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
    There is nothing about neurodiversity that requires tolerating apologetics for peadophilia. As a child sexual abuse victim myself I assure you, this matters far far more than RMS making another one of his stump speeches. He played an important role in software yes. He also burned his reputation purely through his own choices and convictions, not any mental condition. He can fade away and the computing world will be just fine.
    - pen2l 3y ago
      My understanding is that he has been misquoted (as OP explained), and anytime he did attempt to make a "defense" for Minsky it was all full of "Yeah technically" in the way that autistic folks tend to process things. The only problematic thing he said, to my knowledge, he recanted and then explained he learned better after engaging with sexual abuse victims to learn more of their experiences. It's hard for me to see autistic people as actual predators, because in my experiences they are almost always the victims who have their intents and words mischaracterized and misconstrued for a dozen and more reasons.
  - userbinator 3y ago
    [flagged]
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  Then why include it in a lambaste of Stallman? All it does is detract from anyone who knows the full quote and context of Stallman's statement.
- Ygg2 3y ago
  Look at any public/historical figure and they probably had unsavory stuff to fill bookcases. It rarely cancles their positive contributions.
- scythe 3y ago
  >Stallman's poor behavior over the years could fill a bookcase if written down. If that's true, then you can write informatively rather than with hand-waving. >the narrow contrived defense you're making here. The argument above is specific and detailed, not "contrived".
  - blagie 3y ago
    > If that's true, then you can write informatively rather than with hand-waving. He is neuro-atypical in some not-well-defined way. His behavior is perceived as anti-social by the typical person who interacts with him. He's pushy, abrasive, and doesn't follow American mainstream social norms. He also has real enemies (douchebags like ESR who tried to steal credit for his work), who up-play this. You'll see attacks on TMI or personal hygiene. He's also brilliant, devoted his life to making the world a better place, and was largely successful. I had a lot more respect for EPFL before this.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
asdfman123 3y ago
You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. The problem with a lot of these sorts things is intentionally making yourself blind to the emotional impact, pretending not to know, when some part of you does understand what you’re doing. It’s all just plausible deniability. We get it quite clearly, we don’t need it explained to us. You might say this is tone policing but he’s a prominent leader of the open source movement. What he says matters.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better Agree. Broadly speaking, if someone is accused of a moral crime about which you have no privileged information, publicly hypothesizing about how they might be innocent is tantamount to a defence. It's a limit on free speech. And in private circles, it could be debated responsibly. But when stated publicly, the argument's components of character defense and appeal to rationality are confusingly (possibly inextricably) balanced, which should be obvious ex ante.
  - handoflixue 3y ago
    > And in private circles, it could be debated responsibly. To quote the original comment in this thread: ""The original Remove Richard Stallman post contained leaked communications from a private mailing list."
    - martinjacobd 3y ago
      csail-related really wasn't all that private. Anybody at MIT could add themselves to it (and perhaps could add others to it) and many undergraduates did just to see Stallman make the comments he did. (Long before this scandal, he had several amusing habits and mannerisms on this particular list.) It wasn't exactly public, but it wasn't really private either. And there had been prior scandals from it that had been made public ("a mailing list" in this article but I remember it happening on csail-related): https://thetech.com/2017/04/20/egg-donor-advert https://thetech.com/2017/04/20/egg-donor-advert
rayiner 3y ago
> he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. I think the real problem is that the journalist lacks the moral vocabulary to explain why RMS and Minsky are both wrong, and must resort to nonsensical legalisms. Virginia Giuffre was 17 when this happened, making her, in the words of the author, “an enslaved child.” But according to sex-positive feminism a mere year later she could’ve be an empowered sex worker. Under that logic, whether Minsky could tell the difference between those is dispositive of his moral culpability. And of course that’s ridiculous. The real explanation is that a 17 year old is a child and cannot meaningfully consent to sex with a 73 year old man. Nor can an 18 year old. Or a 21 year old. It’s inherently coercive and wrong. And Minsky sure as hell knew that Giuffre was young and not on equal footing with himself.
- davidktr 3y ago
  Is it established that Minsky did, in fact, have sex with Giuffre? She said so in her deposition, and said it would have been on the island. But Minsky's wife said that was impossible because they were always together.
  - arp242 3y ago
    She said Epstein "directed her" to have sex with Minsky, but if I'm reading this right she didn't say she actually did have sex with him; copying from Wikipedia: "Virginia Giuffre testified in a 2015 deposition in her defamation lawsuit against Epstein's associate Ghislaine Maxwell that Maxwell "directed" her to have sex with Minsky among others. There has been no allegation that sex between them took place nor a lawsuit against Minsky's estate. Minsky's widow, Gloria Rudisch, says that he could not have had sex with any of the women at Epstein's residences, as they were always together during all of the visits to Epstein's residences." In [1] it says "she was forced to have sex with MIT professor Marvin Minsky", but if you read the actual records that's based on then it's very vague and unclear if she was only "directed" and it never happened, or if it did. This makes it quite different from Prince Andrew for example, where she stated she did have sex with him in clear terms. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...
xinayder 3y ago
So, in the end, RMS lecture in 2023 was cancelled because of a controversy that happened 2 years ago that since then has been solved? IMO it just looks bad for EPFL if they decided to cancel the lecture based solely on this. If they knew about it, then why tell RMS he could hold a lecture only for them to cancel it on the last minute to bring back this topic again? Exaggerating a bit but this is like inviting Linus Torvalds for a lecture, then cancelling it at the last minute because of his previous attitude towards the Linux git repository. EDIT: I just read their response and they are boldly assuming that RMS would divert the topic from free software and open source during his lecture, which I find it very difficult to do so, unless asked, given what I know of his persona.
- ilceltico 3y ago
  EPFL PhD student here. This lecture was organised, and then canceled, by a student association called CLIC, not by EPFL. Notice that the linked website is not EPFL's
  - tpoacher 3y ago
    what is CLIC?
    - ElDji 3y ago
      As stated, a student association : https://www.google.com/search?q=epfl+clic+student+association https://www.google.com/search?q=epfl+clic+student+associatio...
  - huhtenberg 3y ago
    It was organized by Ynternet [1]. CLIC, I'm guessing, was mainly used for logistics, which is why their withdrawal ultimately pulled the rug from under everyone. [1] https://ynternet.org/detail-de-la-conference/epfl-conference-richard-stallman https://ynternet.org/detail-de-la-conference/epfl-conference...
    - ilceltico 3y ago
irthomasthomas 3y ago
At least we can link to this thread, now, whenever any one asks if cancel-culture is even a real thing.

by myshpa 3y ago

jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago

[flagged]

Manuel_D 3y ago
Then condemn him for the things he actually said or did (and I agree, there are valid reasons to distance oneself from him), not on account of misinformation.
- bawolff 3y ago
  While i agree in principle, in practise it is very human nature that once someone does enouh questionable things people will stop rushing to that person's defense, and it starts to matter much less if the current thing is true. It is sort of reverse boy who cried wolf.
  - brickteacup 3y ago
    > in practise it is very human nature yes, it's human nature to be intellectually lazy; that doesn't mean it's a good thing or that it should be encouraged
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    The fact that it's in human nature doesn't make it any less reprehensible. Physical violence is in human nature, too.
pen2l 3y ago
We talk about inclusivity here all the time, but what about being inclusive of neuroatypical folks who have quirks that don't come off as being polished and PC in current social code du jour? This all so so grates on me because it means we are wasting all this time and energy on things that don't matter all the while the real monsters of society go unchecked because with their psychopathic streak they know how to play a convincing PC game on the outside while committing real atrocities. The thought-leader of the FSF might be socially awkward, but no, people, he is not the great Public Enemy No. 1 some people are making him out to be.
- kdkdjdjdndnfn 3y ago
  [dead]
- jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
  There is nothing about neurodiversity that requires tolerating apologetics for peadophilia. As a child sexual abuse victim myself I assure you, this matters far far more than RMS making another one of his stump speeches. He played an important role in software yes. He also burned his reputation purely through his own choices and convictions, not any mental condition. He can fade away and the computing world will be just fine.
  - pen2l 3y ago
    My understanding is that he has been misquoted (as OP explained), and anytime he did attempt to make a "defense" for Minsky it was all full of "Yeah technically" in the way that autistic folks tend to process things. The only problematic thing he said, to my knowledge, he recanted and then explained he learned better after engaging with sexual abuse victims to learn more of their experiences. It's hard for me to see autistic people as actual predators, because in my experiences they are almost always the victims who have their intents and words mischaracterized and misconstrued for a dozen and more reasons.
- userbinator 3y ago
  [flagged]
oh_sigh 3y ago
Then why include it in a lambaste of Stallman? All it does is detract from anyone who knows the full quote and context of Stallman's statement.
Ygg2 3y ago
Look at any public/historical figure and they probably had unsavory stuff to fill bookcases. It rarely cancles their positive contributions.
scythe 3y ago
>Stallman's poor behavior over the years could fill a bookcase if written down. If that's true, then you can write informatively rather than with hand-waving. >the narrow contrived defense you're making here. The argument above is specific and detailed, not "contrived".
- blagie 3y ago
  > If that's true, then you can write informatively rather than with hand-waving. He is neuro-atypical in some not-well-defined way. His behavior is perceived as anti-social by the typical person who interacts with him. He's pushy, abrasive, and doesn't follow American mainstream social norms. He also has real enemies (douchebags like ESR who tried to steal credit for his work), who up-play this. You'll see attacks on TMI or personal hygiene. He's also brilliant, devoted his life to making the world a better place, and was largely successful. I had a lot more respect for EPFL before this.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

asdfman123 3y ago

You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. The problem with a lot of these sorts things is intentionally making yourself blind to the emotional impact, pretending not to know, when some part of you does understand what you’re doing. It’s all just plausible deniability. We get it quite clearly, we don’t need it explained to us. You might say this is tone policing but he’s a prominent leader of the open source movement. What he says matters.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better Agree. Broadly speaking, if someone is accused of a moral crime about which you have no privileged information, publicly hypothesizing about how they might be innocent is tantamount to a defence. It's a limit on free speech. And in private circles, it could be debated responsibly. But when stated publicly, the argument's components of character defense and appeal to rationality are confusingly (possibly inextricably) balanced, which should be obvious ex ante.
- handoflixue 3y ago
  > And in private circles, it could be debated responsibly. To quote the original comment in this thread: ""The original Remove Richard Stallman post contained leaked communications from a private mailing list."
  - martinjacobd 3y ago
    csail-related really wasn't all that private. Anybody at MIT could add themselves to it (and perhaps could add others to it) and many undergraduates did just to see Stallman make the comments he did. (Long before this scandal, he had several amusing habits and mannerisms on this particular list.) It wasn't exactly public, but it wasn't really private either. And there had been prior scandals from it that had been made public ("a mailing list" in this article but I remember it happening on csail-related): https://thetech.com/2017/04/20/egg-donor-advert https://thetech.com/2017/04/20/egg-donor-advert

rayiner 3y ago

> he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. I think the real problem is that the journalist lacks the moral vocabulary to explain why RMS and Minsky are both wrong, and must resort to nonsensical legalisms. Virginia Giuffre was 17 when this happened, making her, in the words of the author, “an enslaved child.” But according to sex-positive feminism a mere year later she could’ve be an empowered sex worker. Under that logic, whether Minsky could tell the difference between those is dispositive of his moral culpability. And of course that’s ridiculous. The real explanation is that a 17 year old is a child and cannot meaningfully consent to sex with a 73 year old man. Nor can an 18 year old. Or a 21 year old. It’s inherently coercive and wrong. And Minsky sure as hell knew that Giuffre was young and not on equal footing with himself.

davidktr 3y ago
Is it established that Minsky did, in fact, have sex with Giuffre? She said so in her deposition, and said it would have been on the island. But Minsky's wife said that was impossible because they were always together.
- arp242 3y ago
  She said Epstein "directed her" to have sex with Minsky, but if I'm reading this right she didn't say she actually did have sex with him; copying from Wikipedia: "Virginia Giuffre testified in a 2015 deposition in her defamation lawsuit against Epstein's associate Ghislaine Maxwell that Maxwell "directed" her to have sex with Minsky among others. There has been no allegation that sex between them took place nor a lawsuit against Minsky's estate. Minsky's widow, Gloria Rudisch, says that he could not have had sex with any of the women at Epstein's residences, as they were always together during all of the visits to Epstein's residences." In [1] it says "she was forced to have sex with MIT professor Marvin Minsky", but if you read the actual records that's based on then it's very vague and unclear if she was only "directed" and it never happened, or if it did. This makes it quite different from Prince Andrew for example, where she stated she did have sex with him in clear terms. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...

xinayder 3y ago

So, in the end, RMS lecture in 2023 was cancelled because of a controversy that happened 2 years ago that since then has been solved? IMO it just looks bad for EPFL if they decided to cancel the lecture based solely on this. If they knew about it, then why tell RMS he could hold a lecture only for them to cancel it on the last minute to bring back this topic again? Exaggerating a bit but this is like inviting Linus Torvalds for a lecture, then cancelling it at the last minute because of his previous attitude towards the Linux git repository. EDIT: I just read their response and they are boldly assuming that RMS would divert the topic from free software and open source during his lecture, which I find it very difficult to do so, unless asked, given what I know of his persona.

ilceltico 3y ago
EPFL PhD student here. This lecture was organised, and then canceled, by a student association called CLIC, not by EPFL. Notice that the linked website is not EPFL's
- tpoacher 3y ago
  what is CLIC?
  - ElDji 3y ago
    As stated, a student association : https://www.google.com/search?q=epfl+clic+student+association https://www.google.com/search?q=epfl+clic+student+associatio...
- huhtenberg 3y ago
  It was organized by Ynternet [1]. CLIC, I'm guessing, was mainly used for logistics, which is why their withdrawal ultimately pulled the rug from under everyone. [1] https://ynternet.org/detail-de-la-conference/epfl-conference-richard-stallman https://ynternet.org/detail-de-la-conference/epfl-conference...
  - ilceltico 3y ago

irthomasthomas 3y ago

At least we can link to this thread, now, whenever any one asks if cancel-culture is even a real thing.