6 ms·

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 ma

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
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  > 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. What ??? How ??? Are we supposed to assume that every accusation we hear about is true, and everyone is guilty until proven innocent?
  - asdfman123 3y ago
    No, but he’s defending something that’s still pretty damn bad. The guy was clearly there and participating.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Are we supposed to assume that every accusation we hear about is true, and everyone is guilty until proven innocent No. Not publicly* commenting on an accusation is very different from blindly accepting it. (Note the caveats: moral crime and your having no new information.) * I recognise he made these comments on a “private” mailing list, but I have to assume someone like RMS understands the futility of trying to keep a mailing list of all things private.
    - freilanzer 3y ago
      So, you think this statement should not be made publicly but also not in private since a private statement is just a public statement yet to be leaked? Bollocks.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > you think this statement should not be made publicly but also not in private since a private statement is just a public statement yet to be leaked I think it’s fair to discuss with people you trust. A mailing list between friends could be that. But I know of no reasonable expectation of privacy on anything referred to as a mailing list. (If you don’t know everyone on the list, it may be confidential, but it isn’t a personal conversation.)
  - 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 3y ago
> You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. “Much better” in what sense? I think Minsky is guilty because using sex workers is categorically immoral. But most on HN don’t agree with me, and think that it would’ve been no problem had Virginia Giuffre been 18 and willing. In that case, doesn’t Minsky’s moral culpability turn on whether he knew Giuffre was 17 and unwilling rather than 18 and willing?
- minerva23 3y ago
  That's not the dichotomy. It's whether or not she was coerced, and there's a presumption of coercion with minors. It's still wrong if she's 18 and being trafficked.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > because using sex workers is categorically immoral Disagree, but voted up. Unless using any workers is immoral, in which case I may agree . . .
  - tentacleuno 3y ago
    In what way do you disagree with the above? Could you elaborate?
    - sph 3y ago
      Categorically immoral, really? Utter nonsense. Morality is a cultural construct, that radically changes over time. Whoever thinks otherwise is simply ignorant there is a wider world outside their reality bubble.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
        I think "don't have sex with teenagers if you're a middle aged man" is pretty far from some sort of categorical dilemma.
csomar 3y ago
My understanding that this was a private communication that got leaked? I don't think it should stand up in court, you know, like as evidence.
noobermin 3y ago
How about you don't vaguely gesture to what he said and state what you understand he said?
- gattilorenz 3y ago
  "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing" means that "most likely she told Minsky that she was entirely willing [and not being coerced, and Minsky didn't doubt that]". I can't see any other intepretation of the statement. Whether that's a reasonable things to expect from Minsky (or whether we want to hypothesize at all on what happened) it's up for debate, but the formulation doesn't seem ambiguous.
flappyeagle 3y ago
You didn’t finish the sentence: “what he says (about the subject that he’s the leader of) matters” What he says about other things probably doesn't matter as much

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
Georgelemental 3y ago
> 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. What ??? How ??? Are we supposed to assume that every accusation we hear about is true, and everyone is guilty until proven innocent?
- asdfman123 3y ago
  No, but he’s defending something that’s still pretty damn bad. The guy was clearly there and participating.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Are we supposed to assume that every accusation we hear about is true, and everyone is guilty until proven innocent No. Not publicly* commenting on an accusation is very different from blindly accepting it. (Note the caveats: moral crime and your having no new information.) * I recognise he made these comments on a “private” mailing list, but I have to assume someone like RMS understands the futility of trying to keep a mailing list of all things private.
  - freilanzer 3y ago
    So, you think this statement should not be made publicly but also not in private since a private statement is just a public statement yet to be leaked? Bollocks.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > you think this statement should not be made publicly but also not in private since a private statement is just a public statement yet to be leaked I think it’s fair to discuss with people you trust. A mailing list between friends could be that. But I know of no reasonable expectation of privacy on anything referred to as a mailing list. (If you don’t know everyone on the list, it may be confidential, but it isn’t a personal conversation.)
- 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 3y ago

> You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. “Much better” in what sense? I think Minsky is guilty because using sex workers is categorically immoral. But most on HN don’t agree with me, and think that it would’ve been no problem had Virginia Giuffre been 18 and willing. In that case, doesn’t Minsky’s moral culpability turn on whether he knew Giuffre was 17 and unwilling rather than 18 and willing?

minerva23 3y ago
That's not the dichotomy. It's whether or not she was coerced, and there's a presumption of coercion with minors. It's still wrong if she's 18 and being trafficked.
drewcoo 3y ago
> because using sex workers is categorically immoral Disagree, but voted up. Unless using any workers is immoral, in which case I may agree . . .
- tentacleuno 3y ago
  In what way do you disagree with the above? Could you elaborate?
  - sph 3y ago
    Categorically immoral, really? Utter nonsense. Morality is a cultural construct, that radically changes over time. Whoever thinks otherwise is simply ignorant there is a wider world outside their reality bubble.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
      I think "don't have sex with teenagers if you're a middle aged man" is pretty far from some sort of categorical dilemma.

csomar 3y ago

My understanding that this was a private communication that got leaked? I don't think it should stand up in court, you know, like as evidence.

noobermin 3y ago

How about you don't vaguely gesture to what he said and state what you understand he said?

gattilorenz 3y ago
"the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing" means that "most likely she told Minsky that she was entirely willing [and not being coerced, and Minsky didn't doubt that]". I can't see any other intepretation of the statement. Whether that's a reasonable things to expect from Minsky (or whether we want to hypothesize at all on what happened) it's up for debate, but the formulation doesn't seem ambiguous.

flappyeagle 3y ago

You didn’t finish the sentence: “what he says (about the subject that he’s the leader of) matters” What he says about other things probably doesn't matter as much