Thread

Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties (2001)

154 points · 106 comments · B1FF_PSUVM

xlayn · 1789667839 · focus · HN ↗
Every time "these type of people" are dismissed as lunatics, as extremist and alarmist, time comes back to prove they were right.
I frankly dismissed the idea of "a group of extremely powerful and rich pedos" under a pizza store... and yes there were none under any pizza store.
1. sroerick · 1789669857 · focus · HN ↗
  <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pioneer-quits-mit-over-his-comments-on-epstein-sex-trafficking-cas" rel="nofollow">https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pione...
  1. F3nd0 · 1789670343 · focus · HN ↗
    How is the link relevant to the topic at hand?
    blagie · 1789671986 · focus · HN ↗
    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 · 1789673050 · focus · HN ↗
    > 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 · 1789674727 · focus · HN ↗
    > 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 · 1789679486 · focus · HN ↗
    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] <a href="https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assault" rel="nofollow">https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#assault
    beedeebeedee · 1789706886 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    F3nd0 · 1789745207 · focus · HN ↗
    It does seem entirely possible (not sure about ‘most plausible’) she would have presented herself as entirely willing. I see no fundamental problem with that statement. (Note that there’s a huge difference between ‘presented herself as entirely willing’ and ‘was entirely willing’, which I should hope you’re keeping in mind.)
    Legally, a 17 year old may be a child in many jurisdictions, but that fact alone has little bearing on their appearance and maturity, so how is it relevant to the topic here? Had she been several months older at the time, would that have had any bearing on her interactions with Minsky, given her situation?
    beedeebeedee · 1789762042 · focus · HN ↗
    The above commenter and others have made the claim that Stallman is just being "precise" and "correct" about a misapplication of what sexual assault means, which is exactly besides the point and a red herring. They have also made the claim that "she would have presented herself as entirely willing". That is also besides the point. A 17 year old is a child, and that should have been enough for Minksy to not have engaged with her like that, and to recognize that Epstein was taking advantage of her (and in fact, trying to take advantage of him by offering her to him). That should have been enough. Making arguments about definitions or that she appeared "willing" are illegitimate attempts to deflect a serious moral failing. That in and of itself is a moral failing of Stallman, compounding Minsky's failing by trying to defend it.
    F3nd0 · 1789777799 · focus · HN ↗
    Unless you mean to imply that any sexual acts between a young person and a remarkably older one ought to begin with the former showing their ID to prove they are in fact of age, the fact that she was legally ‘a child’ is irrelevant to the moral failing at hand. (Because it would be absurd for the morality of the act to radically shift based on whether it takes place a couple of months later or earlier.)
    I do agree it was a significant moral failing (assuming he did go through with it), even if she did indeed present herself as willing and appeared of age. I don’t agree that trying to differentiate it from other related moral failings (even if it’s in a better light) constitutes a moral failing in itself, though. It is beside the point and not helpful to the matter at hand, but I don’t see much harm in it.
    beedeebeedee · 1789832491 · focus · HN ↗
    > Because it would be absurd for the morality of the act to radically shift based on whether it takes place a couple of months later or earlier.
    The morality of this is that you should not take advantage of and harm a vulnerable person. In this case, being a child makes them deeply vulnerable. It doesn't matter if it is "a couple of months later or earlier".
    F3nd0 · 1789846378 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, that’s exactly my point. Law usually draws a (somewhat arbitrary) line between child and adult, but what really happens is that people mature gradually, so while the practical difference between a 10-year-old and a 30-year-old is great, the practical difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old is minuscule.
    beedeebeedee · 1789854657 · focus · HN ↗
    Then your argument about this is a red herring
    F3nd0 · 1790433239 · focus · HN ↗
    You kept bringing attention to the fact that ‘a 17 year old is a child’, as if the legal distinction was relevant to a discussion on morality. I addressed it because it was beyond the point. What happened to her was morally equally bad whether she was 17 or 18 at the time.
    beedeebeedee · 1790481094 · focus · HN ↗
    Earlier I mentioned that the legal age was 16 in the Virgin Islands. I was emphasizing that the legality of age was not the primary issue; the issue was the morality of taking advantage of a vulnerable person. I think we may be on the same side of this.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.