4 ms·

How is the link relevant to the topic at hand?

by F3nd0 9d ago

ChickeNES 9d ago
How is RMS's connection/response to Epstein not relevant?
- F3nd0 9d ago
  The topic seems to be warnings and predictions coming true even if they seem far-fetched at first. The linked article doesn’t talk about any warnings or predictions. It only recounts (in a way) how RMS, while discussing the topic of Epstein’s abuse, said some things which many people found offensive, leading to his resignation. I guess it is marginally relevant; it just seems odd to drop a marginally relevant link unaccompanied by further comment. Usually people seem to mention what brought it to mind, or which part they found particularly interesting.
blagie 9d ago
I think it's a good, analogous, contemporary example of how RMS tends to be misunderstood. In this context, his comments tend to be: a) Correct, if you read them precisely (which is how RMS writes -- precisely) b) Horrible, if you read them with the subtext implied in mainstream culture (which is how people read what RMS writes) That combination results in "with the terrorists" in 2001, "with Epstein" in 2026, and a lot of similar things in between. Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong. All the people thrown under the bus by MIT were either the people who acted ethically and came forward or, like Minsky, were dead. All the people who did unethical things didn't come forward, and are in the Epstein files. Not all the MIT folks in the Epstein files did unethical things, but many presumably did.... The MIT transparency report is worth reading in the light of the release. MIT had most of that information about its faculty at the time.
- beedeebeedee 9d ago
  > Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong. Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. I think no matter how you look at it (even if she was technically above the age of consent in the jurisdiction of Epstein's island), it is still wrong and he absolutely should have known that. I am a big fan of Stallman's work and his views considering computer science and its role in society, but his views are not precise or correct in this matter.
  - worik 9d ago
    > but his views are not precise or correct in this matter. The views he expressed re sexual assault were abhorrent I have huge respect for RMS. Being this wrong once shows the bad way (we) men of a certain age were raised. The idea that sexual assault must involve violence or the threat of violence is old, out of date, and at one point RMS held it along with society at large Times change, and as we get older we need to change with them.
    - F3nd0 9d ago
      In this instance, Stallman was arguing semantics. His long-term criticism [1] is that ‘sexual assault’ is being used to cover a wide range of wrongful actions, where a more nuanced terminology to distinguish between them would be more appropriate. That in itself doesn’t imply he finds any of those actions acceptable, only that he’d like them to have more specific names. He might not have picked a good time and place to share his terminological views, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them per se. [1] https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assault https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assault
      - beedeebeedee 8d ago
        From the article, Stallman said "We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing." That expresses an extreme obtuseness about human behavior and a lack of nuance. A 17 year old is a child.
        blagie 8d ago
        This is not correct. This expresses an extreme inability to properly communicate subtext, which is common for autistic individuals, or ones autism-adjacent. Stallman's comments, if read logically like a computer, are generally strictly correct. Stallman's comments, if read inferentially like a human might, often imply abhorrent things. This is called a miscommunication.

How is the link relevant to the topic at hand?

by F3nd0 9d ago

How is the link relevant to the topic at hand?

ChickeNES 9d ago

How is RMS's connection/response to Epstein not relevant?

F3nd0 9d ago
The topic seems to be warnings and predictions coming true even if they seem far-fetched at first. The linked article doesn’t talk about any warnings or predictions. It only recounts (in a way) how RMS, while discussing the topic of Epstein’s abuse, said some things which many people found offensive, leading to his resignation. I guess it is marginally relevant; it just seems odd to drop a marginally relevant link unaccompanied by further comment. Usually people seem to mention what brought it to mind, or which part they found particularly interesting.

blagie 9d ago

I think it's a good, analogous, contemporary example of how RMS tends to be misunderstood. In this context, his comments tend to be: a) Correct, if you read them precisely (which is how RMS writes -- precisely) b) Horrible, if you read them with the subtext implied in mainstream culture (which is how people read what RMS writes) That combination results in "with the terrorists" in 2001, "with Epstein" in 2026, and a lot of similar things in between. Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong. All the people thrown under the bus by MIT were either the people who acted ethically and came forward or, like Minsky, were dead. All the people who did unethical things didn't come forward, and are in the Epstein files. Not all the MIT folks in the Epstein files did unethical things, but many presumably did.... The MIT transparency report is worth reading in the light of the release. MIT had most of that information about its faculty at the time.

beedeebeedee 9d ago
> Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong. Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. I think no matter how you look at it (even if she was technically above the age of consent in the jurisdiction of Epstein's island), it is still wrong and he absolutely should have known that. I am a big fan of Stallman's work and his views considering computer science and its role in society, but his views are not precise or correct in this matter.
- worik 9d ago
  > but his views are not precise or correct in this matter. The views he expressed re sexual assault were abhorrent I have huge respect for RMS. Being this wrong once shows the bad way (we) men of a certain age were raised. The idea that sexual assault must involve violence or the threat of violence is old, out of date, and at one point RMS held it along with society at large Times change, and as we get older we need to change with them.
  - F3nd0 9d ago
    In this instance, Stallman was arguing semantics. His long-term criticism [1] is that ‘sexual assault’ is being used to cover a wide range of wrongful actions, where a more nuanced terminology to distinguish between them would be more appropriate. That in itself doesn’t imply he finds any of those actions acceptable, only that he’d like them to have more specific names. He might not have picked a good time and place to share his terminological views, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them per se. [1] https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assault https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assault
    - beedeebeedee 8d ago
      From the article, Stallman said "We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing." That expresses an extreme obtuseness about human behavior and a lack of nuance. A 17 year old is a child.
      - blagie 8d ago
        This is not correct. This expresses an extreme inability to properly communicate subtext, which is common for autistic individuals, or ones autism-adjacent. Stallman's comments, if read logically like a computer, are generally strictly correct. Stallman's comments, if read inferentially like a human might, often imply abhorrent things. This is called a miscommunication.