4 ms·

> Where and how he said what he said was almost impossible to not be misunderstood. He was reported as saying a girl was "willing". What he said was "probably

> Where and how he said what he said was almost impossible to not be misunderstood. He was reported as saying a girl was "willing". What he said was "probably presented as willing" - i.e. Minsky was likely unaware she was coerced. When it takes four words to give enough context, but journalists repeat only one, that goes beyond reckless disregard for the truth, and into malice. It was not impossible to be misunderstood. It was impossible for smear merchants to resist. Don't let the Gell-Mann amnesia make you forget this when you read another hit job that has had context surgically removed, or even the offending words themselves, and we are simply to trust the writer that something was e.g. "hateful".

cedilla 3y ago
This is one of stallman's blunders. This was impossible to be not misunderstood. Posts aren't read carefully and completely. That's just a fact of life, no surgical removal necessary. when people read about "willing" in context of trafficked rape victims, they ask themselves what the fuck the point of mentioning that is. Is it okay to rape a teenager if they represent willing? Of course that is not at all what Stallman was implying, and if he was just some dude I would have been very sympathetic. But he was the president of a lobby organisation. He can't go around being completely unaware that it's not only about what you say, but also how you say it and what words you use. He can't believe in a world where everyone else will calmly and carefully engage with the whole of his argument. Also, for a lot of people, "perceived willingness" is just too high concept - especially when the topic is as sensitive as this. Stallman was, again, 100% in the right but the way he made is argument could only lead to this outcome.
- SenAnder 3y ago
  > for a lot of people, "perceived willingness" is just too high concept But the smear merchants couldn't take the risk. I agree, Stallman shouldn't have been commenting on it - as the face of free software, he needs to think carefully about appearances, regardless of being technically correct. Where we disagree is in presenting journalists repeating the smears as merely confused. They can write 1000+ word articles about the statement, but can't spend more than one word quoting the statement itself?
- t-3 3y ago
  Willfully misrepresenting someone and accidentally misreading them are not at all the same. The campaign against Stallman was obviously not one angry person who didn't read his words closely and ended up arguing against something he never said. It was a coordinated smear campaign to remove people who believe in free software from public view.

cedilla 3y ago

This is one of stallman's blunders. This was impossible to be not misunderstood. Posts aren't read carefully and completely. That's just a fact of life, no surgical removal necessary. when people read about "willing" in context of trafficked rape victims, they ask themselves what the fuck the point of mentioning that is. Is it okay to rape a teenager if they represent willing? Of course that is not at all what Stallman was implying, and if he was just some dude I would have been very sympathetic. But he was the president of a lobby organisation. He can't go around being completely unaware that it's not only about what you say, but also how you say it and what words you use. He can't believe in a world where everyone else will calmly and carefully engage with the whole of his argument. Also, for a lot of people, "perceived willingness" is just too high concept - especially when the topic is as sensitive as this. Stallman was, again, 100% in the right but the way he made is argument could only lead to this outcome.

SenAnder 3y ago
> for a lot of people, "perceived willingness" is just too high concept But the smear merchants couldn't take the risk. I agree, Stallman shouldn't have been commenting on it - as the face of free software, he needs to think carefully about appearances, regardless of being technically correct. Where we disagree is in presenting journalists repeating the smears as merely confused. They can write 1000+ word articles about the statement, but can't spend more than one word quoting the statement itself?
t-3 3y ago
Willfully misrepresenting someone and accidentally misreading them are not at all the same. The campaign against Stallman was obviously not one angry person who didn't read his words closely and ended up arguing against something he never said. It was a coordinated smear campaign to remove people who believe in free software from public view.