4 ms·

> 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

> 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 The idea that sexual assault must involve violence or the threat of violence is old, out of date, and at one point RMS held it along with society at large Times change, and as we get older we need to change with them.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.
      - beedeebeedee 8d ago
        > 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. That's not true. I understand the drive to categorize it as such, but if you look at the context of what he said, which is even mentioned in that article, you will realize that this is not a "definitional" issue or have anything to do with strict precision of terms. That is a red herring that you are getting stuck on and using to defend him. I don't care about whether or not he thinks they are applying a word that he disagrees on the definition. I will cede that if you wish, because it is besides the point and not what he is actually arguing. He (like you) is making the claim: > Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong. That is demonstrably an incorrect statemet. We may not a definitive morality that I can point to you and we both agree to the letter, but a 73 year old man should have the wisdom to recognize that sleeping with children is damaging to children even if they appear willing. I will grant that Minsky's participation was probably not the most damaging thing in her life, but he chose to participate and he harmed her, contrary to what you and Stallman are claiming. It is unfortunate that we have many men (and women) who believe and like Stallman and Minsky. It shows that we need to address this and train ourselves better, so that everybody is on the same page when it comes to how we let children develop in our culture.
        blagie 7d ago
        I'm not sure how to respond to this, except to point out that in a second comment, you finally conceded this: > Minsky's participation Did not happen. The polite thing would be to apologize. And this: > if you look at the context of what he said Would require you to share context. People have a history of sharing an article about an article about an article about what Stallman said. When I go back to the source, he does have an extreme case of foot-in-mouth, but I have seen nothing from primary sources which would justify the smear campaign. Usually, the "context" is a conversation about terrorists or whatnot, Stallman making some academic point, and the "context" labelling him as "with the terrorists." Stallman: - Can't read the room - Doesn't follow the context - Speaks precisely Let me be blunt: You're smearing good people who worked to improve the world. That's not cool. It's also something which does broader harm than you might imagine. It means all but the most thick-skinned won't want to get into positions like Minsky or Stallman. The Minsky situation was MIT looking for a fall-man. The Stallman one dates back to Microsoft's engineered astroturf campaign, back when they were anti-FLOSS. Why the fuck would I ever want to pick a fight with a corporation doing something nasty, if the result would be people like you calling me a pedophile? The reason I give people a very large amount of benefit-of-the-doubt is because I've seen the effect these engineered smear campaigns have on individuals. I've also seen the amount of crazy that happens when one is famous. If a million people know who you are, and 0.01% do something crazy -- obsessive false accusations, bomb threats, or whatnot -- that's still a hundred people. Britney Spears or Zuckerberg will have security teams, legal teams, and PR teams to handle that. People who, like Stallman, are fundamentally doing something for the public benefit have the same pressure from crazies, astroturf, and whatnot, but without the ability to afford a defence.
- beedeebeedee 8d ago
  > > but his views are not precise or correct in this matter. > The views he expressed re sexual assault were abhorrent Hi, yes, I think we agree- I was using those terms because that was what the commenter above was claiming
blagie 8d ago
> 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. This statement is factually false. She said she was asked to offer herself for sex to Minsky. People inferred from this that sex happened, but Virginia did not say this. Read the full file. Accounts from Minsky's wife say that Minsky declined. Accounts from Minsky's friends say he was very monogamous. No one close to the situation supports an account of Minsky having sex with Virginia Giuffre. The natural next step should not have been to indict Minsky's reputation, but to ask Virginia Giuffre the natural follow-up: How did Minsky react when you made the offer?
- beedeebeedee 7d ago
  In the deposition in Giuffre v Maxwell, she says she was directed by Maxwell to have sex with Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, Marvin Minsky and others. In those remarks, she is usually asked if she was sent or directed, presumably because they were concerned with Maxwell's involvement, and less concerned with the actual acts. > Accounts from Minsky's wife say that Minsky declined. That statement is factually false, unless you have a source that is not publicly available. The only accounts I can find is that his widow said it couldn't have happened because she said she was always with him, not that he declined.
  - blagie 7d ago
    Everything you wrote is materially correct. Given that you have this background, can you please explain how this: > Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. Was not a lie? Also: Yes, I do have sources which are not publicly available, but the difference between "declined" versus "it couldn't have happened because she said she was always with him" is within the spectrum of ambiguity of real-world human speech and memory. It is not materially different. The material point is there are multiple witnesses (at least the widow, in public sources) that say he did not have sex. If you want proof of MIT folks covering up: a) Read the MIT Transparency Report b) Look at photos on archive.org from people who went to Epstein island and events whom MIT did not reveal. All this was public at the time. Compare. But MIT also has travel records, so most of the people in the Epstein files, MIT knew about and chose to omit.

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.
    - beedeebeedee 8d ago
      > 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. That's not true. I understand the drive to categorize it as such, but if you look at the context of what he said, which is even mentioned in that article, you will realize that this is not a "definitional" issue or have anything to do with strict precision of terms. That is a red herring that you are getting stuck on and using to defend him. I don't care about whether or not he thinks they are applying a word that he disagrees on the definition. I will cede that if you wish, because it is besides the point and not what he is actually arguing. He (like you) is making the claim: > Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong. That is demonstrably an incorrect statemet. We may not a definitive morality that I can point to you and we both agree to the letter, but a 73 year old man should have the wisdom to recognize that sleeping with children is damaging to children even if they appear willing. I will grant that Minsky's participation was probably not the most damaging thing in her life, but he chose to participate and he harmed her, contrary to what you and Stallman are claiming. It is unfortunate that we have many men (and women) who believe and like Stallman and Minsky. It shows that we need to address this and train ourselves better, so that everybody is on the same page when it comes to how we let children develop in our culture.
      - blagie 7d ago
        I'm not sure how to respond to this, except to point out that in a second comment, you finally conceded this: > Minsky's participation Did not happen. The polite thing would be to apologize. And this: > if you look at the context of what he said Would require you to share context. People have a history of sharing an article about an article about an article about what Stallman said. When I go back to the source, he does have an extreme case of foot-in-mouth, but I have seen nothing from primary sources which would justify the smear campaign. Usually, the "context" is a conversation about terrorists or whatnot, Stallman making some academic point, and the "context" labelling him as "with the terrorists." Stallman: - Can't read the room - Doesn't follow the context - Speaks precisely Let me be blunt: You're smearing good people who worked to improve the world. That's not cool. It's also something which does broader harm than you might imagine. It means all but the most thick-skinned won't want to get into positions like Minsky or Stallman. The Minsky situation was MIT looking for a fall-man. The Stallman one dates back to Microsoft's engineered astroturf campaign, back when they were anti-FLOSS. Why the fuck would I ever want to pick a fight with a corporation doing something nasty, if the result would be people like you calling me a pedophile? The reason I give people a very large amount of benefit-of-the-doubt is because I've seen the effect these engineered smear campaigns have on individuals. I've also seen the amount of crazy that happens when one is famous. If a million people know who you are, and 0.01% do something crazy -- obsessive false accusations, bomb threats, or whatnot -- that's still a hundred people. Britney Spears or Zuckerberg will have security teams, legal teams, and PR teams to handle that. People who, like Stallman, are fundamentally doing something for the public benefit have the same pressure from crazies, astroturf, and whatnot, but without the ability to afford a defence.
beedeebeedee 8d ago
> > but his views are not precise or correct in this matter. > The views he expressed re sexual assault were abhorrent Hi, yes, I think we agree- I was using those terms because that was what the commenter above was claiming

blagie 8d ago

> 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. This statement is factually false. She said she was asked to offer herself for sex to Minsky. People inferred from this that sex happened, but Virginia did not say this. Read the full file. Accounts from Minsky's wife say that Minsky declined. Accounts from Minsky's friends say he was very monogamous. No one close to the situation supports an account of Minsky having sex with Virginia Giuffre. The natural next step should not have been to indict Minsky's reputation, but to ask Virginia Giuffre the natural follow-up: How did Minsky react when you made the offer?

beedeebeedee 7d ago
In the deposition in Giuffre v Maxwell, she says she was directed by Maxwell to have sex with Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, Marvin Minsky and others. In those remarks, she is usually asked if she was sent or directed, presumably because they were concerned with Maxwell's involvement, and less concerned with the actual acts. > Accounts from Minsky's wife say that Minsky declined. That statement is factually false, unless you have a source that is not publicly available. The only accounts I can find is that his widow said it couldn't have happened because she said she was always with him, not that he declined.
- blagie 7d ago
  Everything you wrote is materially correct. Given that you have this background, can you please explain how this: > Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. Was not a lie? Also: Yes, I do have sources which are not publicly available, but the difference between "declined" versus "it couldn't have happened because she said she was always with him" is within the spectrum of ambiguity of real-world human speech and memory. It is not materially different. The material point is there are multiple witnesses (at least the widow, in public sources) that say he did not have sex. If you want proof of MIT folks covering up: a) Read the MIT Transparency Report b) Look at photos on archive.org from people who went to Epstein island and events whom MIT did not reveal. All this was public at the time. Compare. But MIT also has travel records, so most of the people in the Epstein files, MIT knew about and chose to omit.