5 ms·

I don't remember who led that effort, but Stallman's statement that Epstein's victims likely presented themselves as willing is obvious. He was pushed out for h

by ewzimm 3y ago

I don't remember who led that effort, but Stallman's statement that Epstein's victims likely presented themselves as willing is obvious. He was pushed out for his hypothetical claim that if Minsky wasn't aware of the coercion and did have sex (nobody ever claimed he did), that he was innocent. Did this end up protecting Minsky and others like Stallman wanted? His claim here that generative AI shouldn't be called intelligent because it generates bullshit is funny because isn't that ~95% of published human writing, like much of what he's experienced directly?

FireBeyond 3y ago
You can debate what "presented as willing" means, and other things, but then you get to the point that many of these girls were 13-16 years old, and generally "looked young" - that was Epstein's modus operandi - he didn't want "plausibly adult" girls (either as a result of his own proclivities, or to further his (alleged/hypothesized) attempts at blackmail, or both). As Donald Trump famously said, "many of them on the younger side". Ghislaine Maxwell was introduced to Trump at 14 - and said she was 14 at the time. So then you run into this awkward thing of how many plausible deniability criteria are we going to work with? "Presented as willing"? "Never asked age"? What else?
- ewzimm 3y ago
  These are all valid points, but Stallman never said anything to defend either Epstein or his associates. I’m not advocating for Stallman’s position either by questioning if it was effective or by laying it out here, but this is the subject that got him in trouble Stallman basically believes in freedom, love, and the precise use of language. He doesn’t even like people using “they” pronouns, preferring other gender-neutral pronouns like “pers,” because it’s singular. That’s the kind of argument he usually gets into. Here, he was objecting to the use of the term “sexual assault” for people who had only been accused but not found guilty of anything because it carries so much force. He attempted to show that most plausible situations didn’t involve force or coercion on the part of the accused in this case. He doesn’t care about the consensus popular or legal definition of “sexual assault,” only the most precise one.
local_crmdgeon 3y ago
His job is to be a gigantic neckbeard. That he is uncouth and pedantic is not only expected, but the reason that many of us have jobs. I don't agree with what he said, but I also don't give a shit what someone completely unrelated to the Epstein stuff says at all
- cedilla 3y ago
  That this is the first thing people talk about now is the point. It's not even relevant if RMS was right or wrong, it was that he lacked any awareness of how his argument must look to most bystanders.
  - vasac 3y ago
    As Cardinal Richelieu said: If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. It's perfectly clear what Stallman said and what he meant by it. But if there are bystanders with their own agendas, perhaps Stallman isn't the problem here.
    - cedilla 3y ago
      It's not at all clear to me. I still don't get why he elaborated on his naive nonsense instead of just sticking with "let's maybe not judge dead people when they can't defend themselves for things that have not yet been proven even in other cases".
- bitwize 3y ago
  His problem is he doesn't know when to keep his Goddamn mouth shut. Talking about free software is one thing. Holding forth on the nuance of what is and isn't child abuse, in a society where anything more moderate than "feed the pedos feet first into a woodchipper and let God sort 'em out" is fundamentally untenable, is quite another. Even if he were technically right, especially given his history of massive faux pas in this particular area, he should have kept his opinions to himself.
- krapp 3y ago

by ewzimm 3y ago

FireBeyond 3y ago

You can debate what "presented as willing" means, and other things, but then you get to the point that many of these girls were 13-16 years old, and generally "looked young" - that was Epstein's modus operandi - he didn't want "plausibly adult" girls (either as a result of his own proclivities, or to further his (alleged/hypothesized) attempts at blackmail, or both). As Donald Trump famously said, "many of them on the younger side". Ghislaine Maxwell was introduced to Trump at 14 - and said she was 14 at the time. So then you run into this awkward thing of how many plausible deniability criteria are we going to work with? "Presented as willing"? "Never asked age"? What else?

ewzimm 3y ago
These are all valid points, but Stallman never said anything to defend either Epstein or his associates. I’m not advocating for Stallman’s position either by questioning if it was effective or by laying it out here, but this is the subject that got him in trouble Stallman basically believes in freedom, love, and the precise use of language. He doesn’t even like people using “they” pronouns, preferring other gender-neutral pronouns like “pers,” because it’s singular. That’s the kind of argument he usually gets into. Here, he was objecting to the use of the term “sexual assault” for people who had only been accused but not found guilty of anything because it carries so much force. He attempted to show that most plausible situations didn’t involve force or coercion on the part of the accused in this case. He doesn’t care about the consensus popular or legal definition of “sexual assault,” only the most precise one.

local_crmdgeon 3y ago

His job is to be a gigantic neckbeard. That he is uncouth and pedantic is not only expected, but the reason that many of us have jobs. I don't agree with what he said, but I also don't give a shit what someone completely unrelated to the Epstein stuff says at all

cedilla 3y ago
That this is the first thing people talk about now is the point. It's not even relevant if RMS was right or wrong, it was that he lacked any awareness of how his argument must look to most bystanders.
- vasac 3y ago
  As Cardinal Richelieu said: If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. It's perfectly clear what Stallman said and what he meant by it. But if there are bystanders with their own agendas, perhaps Stallman isn't the problem here.
  - cedilla 3y ago
    It's not at all clear to me. I still don't get why he elaborated on his naive nonsense instead of just sticking with "let's maybe not judge dead people when they can't defend themselves for things that have not yet been proven even in other cases".
bitwize 3y ago
His problem is he doesn't know when to keep his Goddamn mouth shut. Talking about free software is one thing. Holding forth on the nuance of what is and isn't child abuse, in a society where anything more moderate than "feed the pedos feet first into a woodchipper and let God sort 'em out" is fundamentally untenable, is quite another. Even if he were technically right, especially given his history of massive faux pas in this particular area, he should have kept his opinions to himself.
krapp 3y ago