I've seen some online cheering Stallman's resignation from MIT. I suspect they'll also be cheering about this resignation as well.
But this is nothing to cheer about.
Regardless of what low regard the man might be held as a person, he's being persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating for objective standards, and asking questions. These are all hallmarks of scientific inquiry.
It sets a precedent that will absolutely lead to self-censorship on a topic that really requires the disinfecting power of sunshine.
This strengthens the power of those who have no use for scientific inquiry and are more interested in inquisition.
I too, am a fan of Stallman's accomplishments and I am sad that debate on this topic essentially can't happen.
That said, I think Stallman's position really is fundamentally wrong and problematic.
Legally, sex with underaged people is rape regardless of consent. Morally, that stance really is justified in the most common circumstance - when the non-underaged person has more power and experience than the underaged person. In the case under discussion, you have that in spades, double spades.
The sad thing is that individuals interested in freedom, who make serious contributions to some things called free, don't notice that the massive imbalances of wealth today have produced a situation where simple "free choice" is made a mockery of.
And yeah, the thing about inquisition atmosphere, imo, is that it doesn't reveal the rot behind all the "mere" abuse of power.
He seems to have expressed a couple distinct arguments:
1. It isn't pedophilia if the person is sexually mature. Pedophilia is sex with prepubescent children.
2. He draws a distinction between statutory rape (can't legally say yes according to the law, but otherwise willing and sexually mature) and forcible rape (when someone says no). He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if the person's birthday were slightly adjusted.
I agree with you that in the Epstein case you have a situation with a dramatic power imbalance. Stallman seems to consider Epstein a serial rapist (possibly for that fact?). He seems to be more pushing back on the pedophilia accusations.
Also - there seems to be a thread lost. It really looks like Epstein was a US Intelligence Officer filming powerful people having sex with young women (including foreign officials) to obtain leverage on them for the United States. This whole aspect of the conversation seems to have melted away in the various other controversies.
> He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if the person's birthday were slightly adjusted.
I understand what RMS is trying to say, but this strikes me as an incredibly weak argument. All laws are arbitrary, but pointing that out isn't a meaningful defense of someone who broke one.
It's like contesting a parking ticket by saying "well if parking had been allowed on that street at that time then I wouldn't have done anything wrong."
> Also - there seems to be a thread lost. It really looks like Epstein was a US Intelligence Officer filming powerful people having sex with young women (including foreign officials) to obtain leverage on them for the United States.
I agree that the reporting silence on this aspect of the case is odd. The federal prosecutor who worked out Epstein's plea deal (Alexander Acosta) appears to have told the press that the deal was done because he was told "Epstein belonged to intelligence". This was widely reported in July (https://www.google.com/search?q=acosta+epstein+intelligence), and then this revelation was almost completely dropped when Acosta resigned from his position as Secretary of Labor due to fallout from his involvement with the plea deal.
I'll note though that Acosta did not explicitly claim that Epstein was working for the US intelligence services...
I'm not going to argue one way or the other. But for those saying legally it's one way or the other.
In Germany (and I find this disturbing) the legal age under which a grown up (over 21 years) can have sex with a kid is 14[1][2]. Of course a judge can find that the child or their legal representative not having been capable of giving consent in which case it's still considered child abuse.
Western societies themselves have such vastly different legal definitions of consent. To be honest I find germanies version to be the weirdest I've seen although I don't know much about the other european countries.
To defend Minsky and Prince Andrew, there’s no evidence they knew she was underage. She also appeared in a photo with Andrew and Ghisline Maxwell. Perhaps he knew she was underage but for a member of royalty to fly to a private island and have underage sex with 8+ girls at once is a serious allegation which is what she claimed. Maybe it’s true but at least one of the accused by her (the famous lawyer involved) has claimed to have evidence that she is lying — or more precisely, exaggerating her story.
My ex-girlfriend dated Prince Andrew (she was in her late 20s). I’ve been around some of these people in South Florida and LA. A lot of allegedly good people will ignore red flags but people openly targeting underage girls seems to be isolated to only one or two principals.
Of course, all of this is wrong —- even this concept of pleasure parties where young (over 18) girls are brought to billionaire parties often by younger guys. Turning regular girls into “sugar babies” or prostitutes is a major problem.
> Maybe it’s true but at least one of the accused by her (the famous lawyer involved) has claimed to have evidence that she is lying — or more precisely, exaggerating her story.
Ah, Dershowitz. The one who says, yes, he got a massage at Epstein's Palm Beach place, but it was from a 52-year-old woman named Olga and he kept his pants on the whole time.
I'm sure we'll see his exculpatory evidence any day now.
>That said, I think Stallman's position really is fundamentally wrong and problematic.
So you have the default opinion anyone in our society will have. I'm interested in what the heretic has to say why we are wrong.
However with what has happened to Stallman I doubt I ever will. A shame because something has gone hugely wrong when half of all children are thinking of suicide.
Er, sorry, no. A public mailing list is not the correct venue for this discussion. Supposing as you do that society currently holds the wrong opinion on "does sex with minors constitute sexual assault?", the right answer is unlikely to be hashed out on a MIT list for CS activities.
You also lend Stallman more weight than he deserves. His resignation will go unnoticed by all outside of our specific tech sphere and certainly will not "set a precedent that will absolutely lead to self-censorship" (???).
Should we cheer his resignation? It's undoubtedly a sad moment for him and his supporters, but Stallman's behavior quite likely has held back the FSF for some time. He's an ideologue, not a leader.
1. His post was not an out of context rant on an unrelated school mailing list. He was criticizing the words used by MIT students in connection with a protest at MIT, and that mentioned his ex-colleague. The MIT students posted this in the first instance, and it was a direct response to them. It seems to me like an appropriate forum.
2. Stallman's argument was simply to call a spade a spade, and not a defense of Epstein or Minsky. If you told 10 people (each unaware of any of the facts alleged) that Minsky sexually assaulted a girl, and then asked them to describe what they imagine occurred after hearing he sexually assaulted some, many might assume he violently assaulted someone. The degree of differences in guesses that you might receive makes the word functionally prone to tarnishing someone with a reputation for a different crime than the one they committed.
Stallman therefore asked for the incident to be described in unambiguous terms; for example, that Minsky had sex with a sex trafficked 17-year old 50 years his junior on Epstein's island. That does not mean he defends that scenario -- you can still view it as reprehensible, and condemn it, but at least you are not engaging in "accusation inflation", where you are condemning someone for a potentially worse crime than they committed.
3. I agree that Stallman is unnoticed outside this sphere, but this is part of a continued trend of threatening people's reputations and livelihoods for stating an opinion. I created a throwaway for the first time ever simply for this comment (which I think is relatively benign), so yes, I think this trend will continue to lead to self-censorship.
> ... Supposing as you do that society currently holds the wrong opinion on "does sex with minors constitute sexual assault?", the right answer is unlikely to be hashed out on a MIT list for CS activities.
I expressed no opinion either way on that topic. I don't even consider the topic relevant to my position, which is that once we agree that merely asking some questions will result in harsh punishments, we're hosed as a society.
Today, it's the question you hate that gets punished. Tomorrow it will be the question you hold most dear.
>>I expressed no opinion either way on that topic. I don't even consider the topic relevant to my position, which is that once we agree that merely asking some questions will result in harsh punishments, we're hosed as a society.
Imagine a person emails a large distribution group at their office with the following question: "I notice we have many black employees: does anything think it might be beneficial if we return to chattel slavery and own them? Could lower our bottom line"
Would that person be fired? Should that person be fired? Are there questions that shouldn't be asked? Is everything fair game?
The punishment is not the result of asking questions. The punishment is for his poor judgement of where to ask those questions - namely a mailing list owned and operated by MIT on which he served as a representative of while posting to that list.
So your premise is flawed and thus your position is (ironically) irrelevant to the topic.
Who decides which are the questions that a representative of the university can ask and which will lead to punishment?
As far as I can tell, the discussion was on-topic given that a former professor, Minsky, was being accused of "assault." Stallman's questions and statements revolved around the use of that term and the trouble that its lack of specificity brings.
The university is (ideally) full of scholars holding controversial views, asking uncomfortable questions, and being accused of all manner of crimes. If one of them (Minsky) can be tarred and feathered without a trial, any of them could be.
I don't know what kind of world you want to live in, but I enjoyed my university experience where most of my professors were scholars holding more or less banal views and, to the best of my knowledge, not a one being accused of "all manner of crimes." I don't think professors being accused of crimes is either common or beneficial to the spirit of learning and scientific inquiry.
It's crazy to see people taking this stance on a public forum for tech companies. He's talking about Minsky just like you're talking about Stallman. What makes this the correct venue for you but not that for him?
In its most literal form I don't know if I would say I disagreed with the core of what Stallman was saying in the email (that "sexual assault" should perhaps be revised in its usage), but Stallman was tone-deaf at best to have pontificated on such a comparatively minor (and highly arguable) matter when he did and where he did. Worse, with what he wrote, there is a reading of the email where the subtext is that Stallman was trying to mitigate Minsky's culpability. I won't comment on whether I think that was indeed what he was trying to do, but it's not a good look, regardless of whether that is indeed what he was trying to do.
Many people will acknowledge the value of Stallman's stubborn, iconoclastic opinions. I'd count myself among them, and it's a little sad to see Stallman go from his pulpits. But on the other hand, I'm relieved: it might be in Stallman's constitution to be at all times a rational reasoning machine, impervious to emotion and sentiment, but this is not how most people are, and on many occasions Stallman has shown that he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about this. There are times when one should refrain from saying something that is merely correct because of the symbolic meaning it would have, or the emotional responses it would elicit.
> In its most literal form I don't know if I would say I disagreed with the core of what Stallman
You qualify this, but that is basically the core of what Stallman supporters are looking at.
Saying something that is literally true, in an industry which is known to be stuffed with some very literal minded people, should not be grounds for anyone resigning. It should be grounds for doing nothing, apologising or clarifying depending on what was said.
It is risky to punish people for what they did not literally say. Particularly if they are the sort of person who is well known for striving to be literally correct.
It is rather hard to support his statement of his "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
Forget about the content of the statements for a moment.
Imagine a person expresses skepticism of an idea you consider "settled." Do you:
1. demand the person be let go from his/her current position
2. provide evidence that counters the skepticism
If the correct response is (1), then you yourself are at risk of a Stallman exit. Every one of us holds at least one point of skepticism that one or more groups will be deeply offended by.
The liberal idea, under assault form all shades of the political spectrum, depends on (2) being the correct response.
This may be an appealing idea in the abstract, but there are people who sincerely hold the view others are subhuman and deserve to be raped and killed, and there are people who believe it’s fine to have sex with kids.
Society can absolutely decide not every point of view is worth debating.
If there is a belief that is backed up by evidence (and in this case there is) then the first response should always be to provide that evidence.
Just because someone sincerely believes that others are subhuman doesn't mean the conversation ends immediately. We could try providing evidence and clarifying whether they are dead-centre wrong or just dealing with a technical detail before turning to exclusionary tactics.
I mean, seriously. If the choices are (1) end the conversation, try and get someone to resign and (2) try and convince someone to take a different view through conversation over a few days then (2) is far superior. We have a lot of people working in, eg, law and the upper echelons of business who are fantastic contributors to the general good despite having extremely questionable moral stances.
> Just because someone sincerely believes that others are subhuman doesn't mean the conversation ends immediately.
Holocaust deniers used this very tactic under the banner of "skepticism".
They wrote books, they gave speeches. They participated in "academic debate" as if the authenticity of the holocaust was something to be debated.
And they caused a lot of pain to those that did live through the holocaust -- only to hear from someone making false claims that it did not, in fact, happen.
> Society can absolutely decide not every point of view is worth debating.
We could have decided that three hundred years ago too, in which case the divine right of kings would still be a thing.
EDIT: A lot of people seem to think that the divine right of kings would not have been a thing worth strongly defending back in the early 1700s - and certainly far more than they would have defended the rights of people in the west indies or far east to not be "raped and killed". Do you have any argument to back this up? Would bumping things to five hundred years change that?
Maybe some ideas are in fact so "settled" that anyone being seriously skeptical of them is either trolling (and not worth our time) or frighteningly unethical (and should not be in a position of power).
For example:
1) Men should be dominant over women. Women should have no rights, and be little more than property.
2) Certain races are inferior and should be put back into chattel slavery.
3) Eating toddlers is fine, actually.
Would you bother trying to counter those ideas in good faith? Or should the people expressing those views maybe be fired/punished/etc.
Most of us are at risk for losing our jobs over far less. Our boss can decide he doesn’t like the way we dress, and we’ll be looking for a new job before the end of the day.
Millions of workers labor under threat of starvation just for standing up for themselves a little bit. Expressing a straightforward opinion like “it is illegal to work off the clock” or “a 30 minute lunch break is mandatory in this state” can be enough to provoke retaliation.
Why are people so eager to spend so much energy defending a guy who, at the very least, wrote a bunch of inappropriate things in a completely inappropriate place?
What’s the slippery slope here? “If a man can’t rant about the unfairness of statutory rape laws on a computer science mailing list, then....” I don’t know how that sentence is supposed to end.
There are so many more important things to worry about. A kook is losing his platform. He’ll have to shout into the void like the rest of us. Oh, the horror!
It's not just about free speech, it's about his position of leadership in those organisations. He needs to either moderate his public viewpoints in order to look out for the best interests of the people there, which is what a good leader would do, or he needs to resign because he clearly doesn't understand his job.
When you're the head of the FSF, or any other organisation really, you can't just be some kind of agitator, throw out a bunch of controversial nonsense, and then expect it to not look bad for the people you're supposed to represent. It's not an "assault on free speech" to get kicked to the curb for making your organisation look bad, it's cause and effect.
He does it using his alternative to singular they: "Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically." Doesn't really seem sincere when he's grinding another axe at the same time. https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html
Another variant of his invented nomenclature besides per is perse which I'd rather not be called. It sounds like a child of purse and hearse.
you must not be very familiar with rms if you think he's not being sincere for "grinding another axe at the same time". stallman has been grinding all of his axes, at all times, without exception.
this is the only time to my knowledge that stallman has ever gone back on one of his fundamental positions.
I've argued couple into doing things my way; the typical pattern is that they disagree vehemently in conversation for a few hours and then a few days later start doing what I asked them to do. On rare occasions it takes a few months. And I've occasionally been on the receiving end of that treatment.
Minds don't change in seconds, particularly around what language to use to describe an issue; it usually takes a few days of thinking.
It might be damage control, but realistically this whole blow up is absurd for a few emails on an academic mailing list. Academic mailing lists are supposed to be the best place in the world to encounter views that will change people's minds.
Perhaps the "issue at hand" can be as simple as software for you.
Most people kinda rank pedophile apologia--and, yes, I did read what he wrote, and yes, the chinstroking "most plausible scenario" is pedophile apologia--above that, though, and I would hope that you would at minimum grant that the level of understanding you seek to demand of everyone else.
> Perhaps the "issue at hand" can be as simple as software for you.
Ok. You're actually right. I regret saying that software is the only important thing.
Honestly, I guess that part of my comment was a post-rationalization, but what actually bothers me is the hypocrisy of the media and society in general, because they don't apply the same rigor when an institution or person does or says much more despicable when they like those things. But that has nothing to do with this specific issue.
>the chinstroking "most plausible scenario" is pedophile apologia.
Nope, it isn't. Many of his comments actually are, but if you analyze the "most plausible scenario" quote, it has nothing to do with it.
The FSF is foremost about community, and only incidentally about software. He is, to put it absurdly nicely, not the sort of people person who should be leading such an organization.
> The FSF is foremost about community, and only incidentally about software
I fear that this has become true, but the only reason anybody gives a damn about the FSF and hte only reason this is even newsworthy is because of the software and licenses produced by the FSF.
If you take the software away the FSF is nothing, so I don't understand how you can claim it's primarily a community.
I don't think the many people who have experienced his abuse directly, or the victims he is trying to minimize, would agree with your assessment of what's important.
>Regardless of what low regard the man might be held as a person, he's being persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating for objective standards, and asking questions. These are all hallmarks of scientific inquiry.
Defending the rape of trafficked children is not a "hallmark of scientific inquiry".
I read the full thread, and I didn't see anything that I would consider "defending rape". It seemed pretty clear that he thinks Epstein was a bad person and that what happened to Giuffre is not good. The closest thing to defending rape is him trying to give Minsky the benefit of the doubt (e.g. stating that Minksky may not have known Giuffre's age or situation, and IIRC in her deposition she was careful to avoid saying whether or not she actually had sex with Minsky, only that Epstein wanted her to).
I guess I'm not up to speed and haven't read everything he said, can you quote his exact words he said on Thrusday that led you to conclude he was "Defending the rape of trafficked children"?
Stallman has just said he's having to resign after being accused over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations, is this an example of a mischaracterization of what he said or did he really say he defended raping trafficked children?
Demanding the same standard of evidence we demand in court and science to disrupt human power structures helps those with power retain it and use it against those who have less power.
Also what he said is fully public, so I don't understand what you, or he, is objecting to.
> Demanding the same standard of evidence we demand in court and science to disrupt human power structures helps those with power retain it and use it against those who have less power.
Okay sure, but you're talking about loosening a standard for accuracy of conviction... This means that you can decrease failures to convict truly guilty people—but in equal proportion you will also increase convictions of innocent people.
This does not sound like a well thought out strategy.
The standard of evidence is lower in civil cases than criminal ones. Taking away someone's bodily autonomy is different than saying you can't have a prominent role at a prestigious institution. You don't (or shouldn't) have an inalienable right to power.
> The standard of evidence is lower in civil cases than criminal ones.
That's probably because the standard of accuracy is tied to severity of punishment (they're will to pay more for a higher standard in cases where it's more damaging to be wrong). Are you arguing that someone losing their job or other position of influence is low-enough severity that we don't need a high standard? That seems reckless to me.
> Taking away someone's bodily autonomy is different than saying you can't have a prominent role at a prestigious institution.
Agreed. Putting someone in jail is more severe than taking someone's job. I don't think this is controversial.
> You don't (or shouldn't) have an inalienable right to power.
Nobody has claimed this.
> And, again, the facts aren't even in dispute.
This entire thread is a massive contradiction of that claim.
Their exact words are "court and science"—and the bigger point from the gp comment was about evaluating these things in the spirit of "scientific inquiry".
Yes — they are saying that we should require a lower standard of evidence to disrupt human power structures (e.g. ask someone to resign) than we should for court and science (e.g. convicting someone of a crime or accepting a scientific theory).
The comment they are replying to isn't requesting a similar standard to that for accepting a scientific theory—it was pointing out the danger of punishing people for assessing controversial events with an attitude of scientific inquiry.
> he's being persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating for objective standards, and asking questions. These are all hallmarks of scientific inquiry.
And the reply to this is that we shouldn't have such high standards for deciding to punish people in power? If nothing else it's a non-sequitur.
Any my original comment still stands: if you do that, you're going to punish more innocent people too.
> Any my original comment still stands: if you do that, you're going to punish more innocent people too.
Is this a bad thing? Different courts also have different standards of proof. Are you saying that you should have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt in civil court? If your friend tells you an acquaintance said something mean to them, are you going to gather evidence and do cross-examinations before you'll believe them?
He’s being forced to resign from an advocacy organization for being a shithead who defends child rape. It sets the precedent that you can’t defend reprehensible acts and still be considered a community leader. We are all better off for it.
"Asking questions" that deny people's humanity over and over isn't exactly a positive intellectual exercise.
We pretty conclusively decided that race based chattel slavery was wrong a while ago. But why? Can we keep expressing ideas and demanding proof of these claims? Can we do it forever? Can we do it while holding positions of power at institutions that are attended by black students?
> We pretty conclusively decided that race based chattel slavery was wrong a while ago.
Hilarious that you should use this example since slavery was abolished precisely because people kept "asking questions" about why slaves did not enjoy the same rights as other humans.
Never has then been a clearer demonstration of why the "stop asking questions" advocated by progressives is intellectually bankrupt.
> We pretty conclusively decided that race based chattel slavery was wrong a while ago. But why? Can we keep expressing ideas and demanding proof of these claims?
Obviously yes? How else would we know that we are right?
I want to agree with you in some aspects of this, but the history of this topic has been so severely lopsided that the current cleansing was due and is helping. As a man, I can only imagine the shit women put up with on a daily basis.
Here's a direct quote from one of his recent emails:
> “I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
Is this really a topic that "requires the disinfecting power of sunshine"? Do we really think we've gotten the topic of statutory rape so wrong that we need to rethink it from first principles?
His point, as far as I can tell, is that in different countries legally define rape in different ways, but that shouldn't change what we find morally wrong.
To extend on what I think he is saying, he thinks it should be possible to say a thing was morally wrong regardless of which country it happened in.
If we're discussing if we think a person did something morally wrong, I'd rather talk about why we think that rather than pointing out there is a law against it (especially when the laws are different in different places).
He's being pushed out for decades of being creepy, and especially so to women. At some point you have to say "enough", and that point is always going to look somewhat arbitrary. It's too bad MIT had to wait so very long to do this.
For what it's worth, those are also hallmarks of crankery. A creationist will happily express ideas, ask questions, and demand proof of claims until the Second Coming. An anti-vaxxer will argue for more research and more caution and advocate for what they themselves regard as objective standards before letting their children be vaccinated - and all the time be effectively telling people that it's better to be dead than autistic. Supporting them for their apparent scientific interests is merely supporting their message. A homeopath has an entire field of professional associations, licensing, and regulation to point to.
What determines whether you're advocating for scientific inquiry is whether you're arguing in good faith for positions that are in genuine need of inquiry, not whether you have the trappings of scientific research.
I'm sorry, did you read his blog post? It was disgusting. He was trying to argue the subtleties of child rape. There are no subtleties. Minor's cannot consent.
Ok. I am not sure that I should be writing this response...but with the madness prevalent in the world today, I don’t care anymore that this is on some random online nook..because I want to heard.
To say that minors cannot consent is absolutely horrifying to me. I would have felt ‘raped’ of my free agency to choose if I had been told as a minor that I ‘cannot consent’.
I was a minor. I consented. I was a sexual being just as I was a human being. Minors have to do non sexual adult things ALL the time. I still see adults well into their 40s and 50s who are immature compared to me when I was a minor. So age is a non-factor.
While I DO acknowledge that child sexual abuse occurs as does trafficking and that paedophiles exist out there, when my thoughts and actions and consent when I was a minor is ERASED and my decisions deemed irrelevant, I don’t know how to feel about it.
Reactions in the exact order of how I felt when I read ‘Minors cannot consent’ : Confusion. Anger. Understanding. Annoyance. Anger.
Some minors do adult non sexual things and make adult non sexual decisions all the time..sometimes because they don’t have a choice. Why is it that when it comes to sexual consent, the same minor does not have any agency?
I am trying to understand. It is difficult for me to accept that I am a non-being as a minor.
Please don’t start a flame war. I really want to understand why this is so and communicate as to why the blanket ‘minors cant consent’ is disempowering and has not really made the world a better safer place.
I also want to know what is a better and more effective solution to child sexual abuse(or any kind of sexual abuse) to replace ‘minors cannot consent’.
Minors cannot consent because they, in general, have a mental deficiency called "being young". They also, in general, are in the lowest power position of any potential relationship.
It isn't that minors are non-beings - it is that they're not fully developed yet, so they need protections. Where we draw that line is up to the law and culture of any location, but it exists.
Minors cannot consent because they, in general, have a mental deficiency called "being young".
Being young is not a mental deficiency. There are 17 year olds smarter than a legion of 70 year olds will ever be. Saying all young people have a mental deficiency has no bearing on reality.
I don't event want to weigh in on the age of consent debate here, I've just always hated the constant shitting on young people and their intellect just because their young. I hated it when I was young and grown adults who weren't that smart were clearly threatened by me, and I still hate it now that I'm older.
It sucks to be the female of this species, let me tell you.
When we are minors, we are mentally deficient to be sexual beings. When we are adults, we are also told that we have no control or reproductive choice over what we do with bodies.
I hate to sound like this..because I don’t think of myself as a vocal feminist..I have always considered myself a rational being.
With that hat on, it seems to me that the female human being has no choice or agency and their physical bodies are mere vessels for the male of the species to fornicate, procreate and to be generally unobtrusively abiding by the rules made by the opposite gender.
I think your response is very self centered at best. Feeling of being "`raped` of your free agency" is not enough to make a law unjust. It certainly doesn't outweigh the actual exploitation that was what led to these laws to be written to begin with.
The bottom line is that your agency wasn't removed as a minor, you were just left with the same choice as many other minors, to obey the laws regarding drinking, smoking, pornography, etc. Or to break them in order to gain whatever you felt you were being denied. The laws were written to punish people who exploit minors, and the consequences of those crimes pretty much always fall on the adult in the situation (for good reason).
When I was 17, and unable to vote or see certain movies, or 20 and unable to legally buy alcohol, I definitely felt like my freedom was abridged, but it didn't make the laws behind those immoral, it just made them slightly unfair. And that was for some low stakes stuff compared to sex trafficking or adult exploitation of children.
Minors cannot consent because they can be convinced by someone more mature. Here's a simple example: let's say a 20 year old wants to have sex with a two year old. Would you accept that the two year old consented because the 20 year old got them to say "yes"?
The natural next question is, "where's the line?" A 20 year old and a two year old is obviously wrong, but a 25 year old and a 75 year old seems okay, if a bit weird. And yes, not every person the same age has the same amount of experience and maturity.
But here's the thing: the law can't take that into account. The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it. And so even though there's not really a difference between 17 years 364 days vs. 18 years, one can consent to sex with an adult while the other cannot. Just like one day makes the difference between being able to vote, or drink, or get a driver's license.
You didn’t address the case where two kids of the same age had sex. If the law cannot take that into account, both are responsible of a crime. Also many states have age difference exceptions as well (so an 18 year old can have sex with a consenting 17 year old); the federal government most definitely has this (4 year delta).
I'm not trying to comprehensively define what does and does not qualify as statutory rape, just explain the general logic behind "minors cannot consent".
I'm sure there's plenty I've omitted; again, I'm explaining why "minors cannot consent", not trying to comprehensively describe statutory rape laws in the U.S.
> But here's the thing: the law can't take that into account.
Why?
> The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it.
Why does that need a "bright and clear line"? There are plenty of things that are illegal where there is no "bright and clear line" in that same sense, and that seems to work just fine, and actually even better in many cases. Like, I dunno, tax fraud is in principle tax fraud even at a single cent, but it's absolutely not "you paid all the taxes you owed, you are fine, you under-reported one cent of your income, now you lose your job and go to jail".
> And so even though there's not really a difference between 17 years 364 days vs. 18 years, one can consent to sex with an adult while the other cannot.
Which seems to be the case. Now, why is that a good approach?
> Just like one day makes the difference between being able to vote, or drink, or get a driver's license.
So, maybe we should fix those as well? Why shouldn't you get a fractional vote starting at age 10, increasing linearly to a full vote at 18, say?
There are subtleties about what constitutes a minor. The age of consent varies from 12 to 21 depending on the country [0]. That appears to include variation even in the US.
On the one hand, the law is very clear because there needs to be a clear line in the sand to decide if people get sent to jail or not. On the other hand, there are clearly open cultural questions about what we should get angry about. Pick any standard you like, and the majority of the world currently disagrees.
In my country of Australia we seem to be using 16. So in Australia maybe there was no crime at all. I dunno, I havn't looked in to this sort of law very deeply.
Wow, wait. I get what your point is, but minors will continue doing it, and it is only with adults who they can’t consent with. Obviously minors can consent in some contexts, otherwise it would be a huge mess morally and legally (if two 14 year olds have sex, do they both go to jail because neither can consent? Also see the mess we’ve got into with kids sexting each other).
Let’s not criminalize kids being kids because of some strict morality code.
Alternatively, the 2 14 year olds can’t consent to the act, but are also not liable for the act?
I think this way of describing it expresses more the position that the occurrence is unfortunate, and all else being equal, best avoided.
To say “two 14 year olds had entirely consensual sex with eachother” seems to possibly express that the occurrence described is not unfortunate.
Also, If a 12yo and a 15.5 yo did, I think we very well might say that the 15.5 yo committed rape, even though neither person was an adult, Yet if both were 12, people wouldn’t call it that.
So, I don’t think it is only if one party is an adult. Also if one party is substantially closer to being an adult.
If one of those 14 year olds sends nude pictures to the other one, is that not distribution of child pornography? I've certainly read that minors have been charged as such, but I'm not capable of verifying the veracity of those charges (I just honestly don't want to Google for this shit).
I get what you're saying, but minors can and do legally consent under various close-in-age laws, and the age of consent is usually lower than the age of legal majority anyway. I certainly don't agree with Stallman's comments, but the law is subtle.
A 'minor' is a societal construct that varies over cultures and time. In Biblical Jewish cultures this was set at puberty ~ year 12. In some modern Islamic cultures its may be ~ year 9. In japan it used to be 13.
Minors cannot consent because society has removed that right from them.
Now I suspect we may agree on the general outcome of these rules, but I do find these 'religious' arguments distasteful, regardless from which camp they get issued.
> A 'minor' is a societal construct that varies over cultures and time.
Agreed. And if a war, plague, or comet wipes out 80% of the population tomorrow, suddenly "minors" will be 13, and no one of these people so adamant here will bat an eye.
Here's a chance to have a reasoned debate about an important issue, where constructive conversations and solutions could be devised. But instead, the conversation devolves into a flame war.
If anyone is interested in spitballing some type of new novel restrictive grammar to enable having constructive conversations about hot-button issues, I'd love to help: https://github.com/treenotation/jtree/issues/52
But he's a freethinker, and freethinkers necessarily exist outside the mainstream. So, despite not liking him, I also don't like this turn of events.
It does seem arbitrary to me that the same sexual encounter is classified as rape in Arizona and not rape in Virginia. I suppose we have to draw that line somewhere arbitrary. But I wonder if it was a mistake to classify what is called "statutory rape" as "rape" at all. We can make it illegal without calling it rape.
That said, to me, this doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on. But then Stallman is not known for being picky about hills. People like him (or loathe him) because he's principled, and therefore no hill is too small.
The "turn of events" in this case is losing his job because he made the organisations associated with him look bad. And I think it's completely fair for them to kick him to the curb in this case. No one person too important to lose if they turn into a liability. And in this case, I think RMS was well past that point.
> That said, to me, this doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on
I don't think he saw it as a hill worth dying on, just a random hill he happened to be shot on. It's part of a random scattering of thoughts he makes public.
Either way, I'm cancelling my FSF donations for caving into this witch hunt.
I think it is unfair to hound him over his latest statement about sexual assault. He is absolutely right that the term sexual assault includes actions that are so different that it can be used to unfairly destroy people's reputation. And if you are going to call someone a monster, it is better to more precisely define what type of sexual assault he did.
I myself was sexually assaulted some time ago. I was in an ordinary nightclub, I went to the mens room, and on walking out of the mens room some a-hole decided to slap my ass on the way out. I gave him a dirty look, maybe I should have had him kicked out of the club, but I don't think it was necessary to have him fired from his job or ruin his career.
This was the kind of gray area people dealt with on their own and cannot IMO be regulated by law (because it's just barely possible to define). There are limits though but today it's becoming too binary and myopic. Weird era.
Not unexpected, but I'm surprised it happened so soon after he resigned from MIT/CSAIL.
Earlier today the director of the GNOME Foundation requested that RMS resign from the FSF, and said severing ties with the FSF could happen if he didn't step down.
I think there was more social pressure for him to resign from FSF, and more institutional pressure for him to resign from MIT/CSAIL. The institutional pressure probably wasn't as painful, but was more forceful. I think he'd probably been holding back the pressure he felt to get the FSF thing over with for a while, but hoping for the controversy to die down, but when he was forced (or practically forced) to resign from MIT/CSAIL it became clear he wasn't going to win, and he decided to get it over with. Perhaps he'll be sleeping better tonight.
It is clear RMS was stunningly clueless to write anything about this, but surely we all know of similar engineers that would make a similar error? If everyone were held up to the same moral standard, we wouldn't have many people left in power! Just to be clear: I'm definitely not supporting hurting children (directly or indirectly) - I hope I'm not falling into the same tar pit.
I certainly respect RMS for what he created and his idealism (although last time I saw him talk he spent about half the time negatively pontificating about Linus and Linux, which seriously damaged his credibility IMHO).
It must be devastating to be on the receiving end of such ire.
Because RMS isn't just another socially awkward engineer. He is a leader and a part of a larger community and is therefore held to a higher standard. The reason for the higher standard is simple, leaders are entrusted with power and need to wield that power better than others. RMS has failed that test today.
> He is a leader and a part of a larger community and is therefore held to a higher standard.
I see plenty of political and tech leaders set extremely low moral standards. Why is RMS being used to set an example? Do you think RMS actually hurt any children?
His comments are tragically inept - but this seems to boil down to being targeted by breaking headlines such as the New York Post: "MIT scientist says Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’".
Saying we wouldn't have anyone left in power of they were held up to this standard seems more damning to our current power structure than the moral standard at play here
it's rather interesting how all the information technology (social media, etc...) is slowly moving our culture towards increasing self-censorship. One has to have the right opinion or stay quiet.
Having the wrong opinion about certain topics is getting more expensive. Stay away from taboos or else... never mind the fact that what we regard as wrong changes across different societies over time.
Weirdly all the information technology is steering towards being more similar in our opinions and in what we can say without facing consequences.
Recently I started to thing about how in spite of having the ability to share, and change, and store information better and with more ease than ever, we seem to be going in the opposite direction. Instead of having more transparent institutions, everything is getting more "opaque" (so to speak) towards the public (even it this is happening due to overload).
does anyone remember "information wants to be free"? I don't think anybody says that anymore, but I remember reading that a bunch on slashdot in the early 00s
RMS's definition of pedophile doesn't include people who feel sexuall attraction on person who has puberty and is sexual maturity.
I think that's a fair definition.
He also argues that 17 years old has ability to consent.
Since I'm from a country of consent age of 13 years, I agree.
RMS don't encourage to violate the law, merely presenting the opinion. This opinion isn't blaming certain group like James Watson and his comment on race and intelligence.
I guess some people aren't civil enough to discuss theoretical problems.
This is actually the best outcome for the FSF. Unwittingly, the FSF might now need to find a leader who isn't a known weirdo/creep who's "genius" people merely tolerate. This might be the best news for FSF fans like me.
I kind of agree. As another free software fan, I've been uncomfortable with a number of things that RMS has been doing. Free software is good, no compromise/no surrender is good, and fighting against proprietary software is good. Doing it the ways RMS has been doing it is often not good.
Before jumping to criticize Stallman, be aware: there is a big difference between what today's round of headlines claim Stallman wrote, and what he actually wrote. Given the relatively clear-cut nature of the lies the press has told about him, I think he ought to be suing for libel.
What is the counter argument for what Stallman wrote? I've seen that the "press is going too hard on him", but, honestly, I think they were justified. What is the "big difference" to you? If someone, personally, said to me that that someone be absolved of a crime, because the other, coerced, party was "willing" at that moment, I'd seriously question their morals.
Stallman wrote: "We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates."
These headlines do not match what Stallman wrote. They wrote awful words, and put them in his mouth, in order to support a narrative in which he said something which he didn't. That's not okay.
Stallman conjured up a thought experiment where Minsky is innocent because the minor was "entirely willing." That was the defense Stallman decided, even if those aren't his exact words. His exact words aren't any better then whatever the media decided to run with, at the end of the day his intent was identical. The headline could have been "MIT scientist says you shouldn't get punished for raping minors as long as they present themselves as entirely willing." Do you believe I have gotten that wrong? And if not, can you argue why that is any better than what the media put out?
If Minsky could show up to court for his crimes and he said "Your honor, I didn't know she was 15", he would still go to jail.
Having sex with someone who is underage (in this case, 17, in a jurisdiction where the legal age is 18) is a strict-liability crime, meaning the prosecution doesn't have to prove that you knew. But be aware that, while Minsky is dead and unable to defend himself, there is apparently a witness who claims that Minsky is innocent--specifically, that Giuffre was directed to have sex with Minsky but Minsky turned her down. Since dead people can't have trials, we will probably never learn the facts of the matter.
That’s not his defense. Stallman never disputed the lack of consent of the minor. He’s saying the minor might have been coerced by Epstein to “present herself as entirely willing”, i.e. she _looked like_ she’s willing when she’s really not. Minsky would have no way of knowing.
You are making the same defense that you are claiming "that's not his defense." You both are making the same statement that "its ok, because he didn't know.", just in a very roundabout manner.
If Minsky were tried in US, he would be convicted. Ignorance is not a defense.
> If Minsky were tried in US, he would be convicted. Ignorance is not a defense.
This is correct, at least for many US states (22, according to Wikipedia’s article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal) ) . You can meet someone under the age of consent in a bar, see them drinking alcohol, even have them show you their license and be fooled by a fake ID, and still be liable under the law to go to jail for statutory rape.
According to that Wikipedia article though, in some other U.S. states ignorance would be a defense. Whether that’s the case for the U.S. Virgin Islands isn’t clear.
I’m not saying it’s ok because he didn’t know. It’s certainly still rape, but I’d say the criminal in that case would be Epstein, not Minsky. If he sincerely thought she was a sex worker who’s over 18 and willing, why is he at fault? He might have done everything right and have gotten (what looked like) informed consent, for all we know.
You don’t have to agree with this idea (it’s not like we have any evidence after all), but I hope we can agree that it’s not entirely unreasonable.
I'd say the big difference is that the press is accusing him of defending Epstein when in fact he's defending Minsky. Of course people may think that's still problematic, but that's not what the headlines are accusing him of doing.
I mean, let's put aside whether the person might have reasoned the other party was willing. This line of reasoning is ridiculous. If someone appears 100% willing to you, and there's absolutely nothing different from a genuinely willing person, why should you be at fault because somebody else put that person under duress, or because they were lying (under duress or otherwise).
If someone does a 100% legal thing according the information they know, and is not otherwise negligent, there is no crime they should be charged with. As it happens, in the US, statutory rape is the only one I'm aware of that does not follow this criterion; even manslaughter requires negligence (although I'm not making a point about that).
Even if the person who commited the crime had no knowledge that the other party was coerced? Why are they at fault because they were lied to and tricked into commiting a crime?
First, claiming ignorance isn't a strong defense. It wouldn't hold up in any court in America, so I have no reason to buy it as an argument.
However, if it did, to be fair, you would have to seriously consider if it is reasonable to assume that person was ignorant. For example, if you know your friend is a drug dealer and he asks you to "drop off a bag at another house", you would get the book thrown at you even if you didn't know they were drugs in the bag.
Having sex with a minor is a crime, regardless of coercion, because a minor is not capable of giving consent to sex with an adult, because of both cognitive differences and power imbalances.
If someone Minsky's age went out and started dating and having sex with high schoolers, he would go to jail. Period. Regardless of the exact social dynamics.
There are certain crimes for which intent doesn't matter, legally. This is one of them.
And likewise from a moral perspective: Minsky did harm her. Regardless of his knowledge of the situation at the time, I would expect him (were he still alive) to apologize and do whatever he could to try and heal the pain he caused.
However, I do also think it would reflect much differently on his character if he knew all the details of the situation he was in vs. if he did not. That, from what I've seen, is still unclear.
He'd have a very hard time winning. In many jurisdictions there is a "substantial truth" doctrine: if a statement gives an impression that's substantially close to the truth, it's considered OK, even if technically false. Once you add in how many people typically react to this sort of thing...
I’m allowed to criticize him after reading what he actually wrote, right? Because I did and came away from it with the conclusion that he’s evil and shouldn’t be anywhere near anything resembling a leadership position.
He is many things, and shouldn't have been in a leadership position for a long time, but he is definitely not evil.
I have a hard time even imagining how you reach the conclusion that he might be evil. Even the worst out of context headlines on his recent quotes just put him in the "gross" category.
I say this, and I'm very glad he stepped down. I've argued for years that he should have stepped down a long time ago.
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
Evil is fundamentally a lack of empathy and I see no empathy from this man. He’s not a cackling crazy Hitler figure, but he seems to have a difficult time figuring out just what the problem is with having sex with children and with child slaves, and chooses to dedicate a great deal of mental energy defending the more powerful people in this scenario.
The definition of evil is always … a heated topic, but the common theme usually is that the suffering evil inflicts is not accidental.
In your reply here, you're describing sociopathy. I wouldn't describe Stallman as a sociopath but I could definitely see the arguments for it. But even the most repulsive things I've seen this man say/do never got me to think "Yeah, this dude wants others to suffer".
Edit: And no, I don't think he has a difficult time "figuring out what the problem is".
I think that’s a facile Hollywood idea of evil. People like that exist, but plenty of evil people don’t care about suffering.
A psychologist assigned to the Nuremberg trials put it better than I ever could. “In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949) I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
Fair. Putting aside the word itself though, I don't think Stallman lacks empathy.
What he does lack, IMHO, is a huge amount of basic, day-to-day understanding of how the world works. Such as the power dynamics of teenagers in the modern world. Things he's completely incapable of understanding because he chooses to isolate himself and live in an absurdly eccentric way. For fucks sake, have you seen how he browses the internet? [1]
He chooses to live that way because, for him, every single issue seems to be a hill he's ready to die on. It was only a matter of time until the hill was bad enough for this to happen.
Still, I maintain he's not evil, neither by your definition nor mine.
Freedom of speech means that people are free to defend what other people find morally objectionable. The idea that the "leaders" should be morally pure is understandable, but ultimately very elitist.
RMS was defending Minsky, awkwardly. As someone who has a history of social awkwardness, he should be forgiven for this. He's been a good steward of the FSF, which has doing important work in the service of free (read: non-backdoored) hardware lately. I know there are good people still at the FSF, but I can only hope they are as incorruptible and dogged as RMS.
The way this attack came suddenly out of the depths makes me suspect something coordinated. It's too similar to how Tor was seized, and how Linus was almost dethroned. There's something nasty afoot, and I don't like it one bit.
"Accountability" for an awkward statement? You'll have to excuse me if I don't think someone deserves a public flogging for poor phrasing and awful timing.
When you're talking about organizations that are CRITICAL to software freedom, I'd much rather have an incorruptible but thoroughly awkward ideologue in charge than an unknown quantity. Who comes next? Will they compromise on things that shouldn't be compromised? It's another thing to worry about.
Sometimes yes. Leaders are always accountable, but not always responsible for outcomes, RMS was responsible for his actions, now he must be held accountable.
Sure there is. How about: "the deposition never actually accuses Minsky of having sex with anyone in the first place"? Or how about, "Greg Benford says (https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/) he was personally present at the incident and witnessed there was no sex"? Wow, who knew it was so easy to defend 'a child molester' for whom there's 'no way to defend' them.
Does it really matter? He was human garbage and it was shit like what he did that drove women out of tech for decades and I hate myself for ever having respected him. Which is the proper response to these revelations, not RMS's ridiculous hairsplitting "actually it's ephebophilia" nonsense.
The pendulum has swung from "we give powerful, highly skilled, or accomplished people a carte blanche license to be total assholes" to a mentality where we're willing to ostracize people for certain types of assholery.
Has it swung too far? Perhaps. I have a rule: "society always over-corrects."
Should it swing back? No. Some moderation might be in order, but I'm not interested in going back to the time of "but Michael Jackson was so talented!"
(I'm not comparing Stallman to Michael Jackson, just using the latter as an example of a mentality.)
I don't personally have a dog in this fight, but I do get the sense that perhaps this was not an isolated incident but more of the straw that broke the camel's back.
I find the volume of the noise being made over whether or not the "entirely willing" bit was quoted out of context by the media for sensationalist purposes — which it 100% was — quite curious. To me, the place Stallman screwed up was in trying to quibble over terms in defense of a man who we have reason to believe had sex with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that might have constituted rape.
Because that's what it's about: he said, "But is it really?" — literally, in fact — about something which, for legal purposes, his opinion is irrelevant. To wit:
> Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
Stallman said that. He went there. He quibbled over whether something constituted rape, as if the Virgin Islands cares one whit what rms thinks of their laws. That's where he screwed up, and people in the thread said so at the time, too. So people now can try to make this shit-show about his being quoted out of context about "entirely willing" — which, again, it was — as much as they want, but that just won't make it so.
This is entirely about Stallman having quibbled over rape, not whether he was selectively quoted in the course of quibbling over rape.
Hell yes he did. Wouldn't you? If I made my own country where "rape" was defined as "sex without first doing twenty jumping jacks," wouldn't you "quibble"?
>everyone admits knowingly slept with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that constituted rape.
So what? I drove 37 in a 35 today, who cares? You can't outsource your morality to the legal system like that.
If Minsky did something bad, say he did something bad. But don't launder your outrage through the VI's laws.
> If Minsky did something bad, say he did something bad. But don't launder your outrage through some country's laws.
It's hard for anyone to that because everything is speculation. The whole thing about Minsky stems from a single sentence in an enormous deposition ( https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/1159946492871938048 ) where one of Epstein's victims included Minsky in a list of people that epstein's assistant directed her to have sex with. She wasn't asked if sex actually happened with Minsky, and didn't claim it did, she was asked about the dates and couldn't recall.
A witness who claims to be present reported Minsky turning her down and complaining about the advance, additionally on the date that conference was held-- in 2002, the Epstin's victim was 18. ( https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ )
But since there are essentially no facts, not even concrete allegations-- people seem to feel free to make up their own version of events which are exactly as awful or harmless as they want them to be.
.... God save you if your imagination comes out different from the angry mob's and you dare share it with others.
Because Minksky has been dead for a few years there doesn't seem to be much interest in actually setting the facts straight, but there seems to be a lot of interest in using it as an excuse to be abusive to fellow humans.
Knowing how stubborn and aloof Richard tends to be, it is a huge surprise that this has happened at all, let alone so quickly. I can only imagine there was an immense amount of pressure from the board, partner projects, and sponsors.
Very unrelated issue - he resigned after the flamewars regarding PEP 572 (the addition of an assignment expression ':='). After it had gone on for a while, he finally used his BDFL authority to shut down debate and approve the PEP, and then resigned shortly after. In particular, he felt that the Python Code of Conduct's requirement for civility was being completely ignored in attacks on him in social media.
More information on‒what I guess‒is the relevant backstory (RMS making reprehensible statements related to the Epstein scandal) can be found (among other places) in this blog post [1] by Matthew Garrett (original source referenced in the post is [2]).
1. It totally ignores the fact that it's possible to be highly respectable for some things and not for other things. Stallman has always been a jerk, but he's also always been trying to fight the good fight. Washington had slaves, that doesn't mean we should hate him.
2. You don't get to call out people for indicating that men are better at some things, and then point out that women are better at some things. Either you're allowed to believe in differences based on sex or you aren't.
I've never been a big fan of Stallman because I think he's a little to far into the realm of zealot. However, he is good for society as a whole because, in general, he's fighting for the right things. I don't think it's right to condemn him, throw the baby out with the bath water, because he's an idiot about some things.
> Washington had slaves, that doesn't mean we should hate him.
Counterpoint: yes it does.
Judging Washington by the standards of his time and his peers, slavery was abhorrent. Take the case of Quock Walker, who sued for his freedom in 1781, for instance. The chief justice of Massachusetts (and later Washington's own nominee for chief justice of the US) wrote:
> As to the doctrine of slavery and the right of Christians to hold Africans in perpetual servitude, and sell and treat them as we do our horses and cattle [...] nowhere is it expressly enacted or established. It has been a usage -- a usage which took its origin from the practice of some of the European nations, and the regulations of British government respecting the then Colonies, for the benefit of trade and wealth. But whatever sentiments have formerly prevailed in this particular or slid in upon us by the example of others, a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion, or shape of noses-features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this ground our Constitution of Government [...] sets out with declaring that all men are born free and equal [...] and in short is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature [...]
As recorded by Washington's contemporary James Madison, Washington's contemporary Gouverneur Morris denounced the three-fifths compromise during the 1787 constitutional convention:
> He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people, with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. [...] Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. [...] The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.
We should not so facilely dismiss the difficult challenge that Washington is seen as the father of this nation and yet owned slaves. Other founding fathers understood that the American norm of liberty was clearly incompatible with holding slavery in anything other than contempt. Other founding fathers called his behavior "repugnant" and "nefarious" - why should we shy away from criticizing him? It seems far more sensible to me to worry that Washington (along with many others) led our nation into believing a compromised, twisted view of liberty and the natural rights of man, with lasting consequences for the country which hardly ended in the Civil War.
I'm not saying that Washington thought he was right to have slaves. He was wrong to have slaves and it reflects poorly on him that he did. Rather, I'm saying the amount of good he did for this country far outweighs his wrongs.
I'm making a subtler point: the good he did for this country was inescapably intertwined with his ownership of slaves.
One view you can take, which seems defensible, is that he grew to agree with the anti-slavery view late in life, yet as a calculated measure to hold the country together when half the economy was dependent on slavery, did nothing about it, and also was too weak to give up his own station in life which was similarly dependent on slavery. Yet he freed his slaves both for their own sake and in the (ultimately vain) hope that he would inspire others to do the same.
The other view is that he never actually believed it, or he would have made freeing human beings a political priority. He was embarrassed into freeing his slaves after Martha's death, but he fundamentally thought that it was more important for himself and Martha to live their last years in comfort than for his slaves to live in freedom, and that the negative peace of the new country holding together was preferable to the positive peace of meaningful liberty. And that therefore the "good" he did for this country was to set us up for the Civil War and for many more decades of viewing certain people as not fully deserving of human rights.
And relevantly to RMS and the free software movement - if Washington hadn't been there, if instead William Cushing or Gouverneur Morris had been in a similar role, what would they have done? Or even if Washington were still there but he did not use his leadership position to say, "I don't like slavery, but we have to keep it for now," what could Cushing or Morris have accomplished? Washington presided over the convention where Morris made his ultimately ineffective argument.
Washington wasn't the only founding father, nor the only skilled military leader among the revolutionary forces. In a world without him, would the US still have won and would it have been better set up to fight slavery? (Would the revolutionary forces have allowed black soldiers in earlier, and moreover had more morale among the black soldiers, thereby leading to an earlier victory?) If such a scenario is plausible, then the good he did didn't outweigh his wrongs.
You're speaking as if love and hate should cancel out, like weights balancing. But having a love/hate understanding of a person is extremely common. If I were teaching a person who could not understand both (such as a young child) I would start with only the good things about Washington, because that's more accurate if you absolutely had to choose. But, we're all adults here.
>Again, this mailing list has undergraduate students on it. It is likely some of them are “18 years old or 17”.
What a horribly asinine point. If you’re an undergraduate student and unable to deal with uncomfortable opinions, you are too immature to be a university student. The further infantilization of college students, and worse, college staff, never ceases to amaze me.
Is there an original source anywhere? Was this a private mailing list thread? I’d just like to see the content on its own not surrounded by a medium blog or vice commentary.
There is a mailing list thread that was copied and sent to VICE.
Note, the headline and article body of this post contain lies to make the story more clickable, but if you scroll to the bottom there is a widget that contains the 20 page mailing list thread. The other participants’ names besides RMS were redacted. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
"Waded in" is exactly the right phrase. RMS is neither a legal expert nor a moral philosopher. Commenting on the definition of assault and the nature of consent is outside his field of expertise and he should have just replied with a curt "I will not be attending".
My personal takeaway is that it's important to understand the limitations of your own knowledge before succumbing to the urge to comment on something.
Question for those who think Stallman getting forced out is great news: There are people in this forum arguing that Stallman's statements weren't that bad. Should they be fired from their jobs?
Well, I'm now going to be following Stallman without the FSF around. His (admittedly) iconoclastic views are important, and I appreciate what he says about technology and privacy. His legal views are questionable, yes, but I don't accept the idea that he should be removed from the FSF.
The Internet doesn't forget, so everyone can be branded mysogynist/mysandry/pedophile/etc.. just by making mistakes or having taken quotes out of context. People have limited attention and the media profits on showing the ugliness of others. This is not how it should be but I don't know how to fix that...
In my original post, 'making mistakes' was put before 'out of context', the Internet doesn't allow anyone to have a 2nd chance of doing anything. Once you are branded as something, it will stuck with you forever, erasing any previous achievement or contribution you have done. And I don't like that.
Yeah, his comments were absolutely disgusting. People here are acting like the media is railroading him. No, he was quite literally defending child rape.
The internet _does_ forget though. Brendan Eich was forced out of Mozilla, a project he co-founded, and now nobody seems to bat an eye at him being at Brave.
The chatter around this event seems to focus on the moral objection perspective or the misinterpretation of his comments at large.
This, to me, misses the larger thread. I feel as if freethinking is under attack. Someone please expand my perspective.
I'm in full support of powerwashing out the abusers like Epstein, and pedophiles who assault children can burn ad infinitum as far as I'm concerned. We should believe victims, and we should also understand that people will lie. There are no easy solutions, and the cultural revolution that's underway will not go away.
Bill Clinton was actually on the Loli Express with Epstein & Co. Multiple times. Where's the "Remove Bill Clinton" op-ed? Can/should we pick-and-choose? Is an opinion, problematic and poorly defended by a famous greybeard, more damning than photo evidence of direct contact with Epstein himself? It seems so.
---
We are living within and alongside planes of reality that are so novel that we have no historical context to understand their potential implications, good or bad. We're running the first few cycles of this interconnected experiment.
We seem to exist in an era where holding controversial opinions, or simply exploring a problematic train of thought in public, can be grounds for a vicious public lashing. This doesn't sit well with me, it's clear I'm not the only one disquieted as of late. I'd love to engage in some conversation...
---
My questions for this community:
- What's the appropriate difference in response to a person who holds (or held) problematic opinions if said person is a person-in-power or just some anon who did the same?
- In a global, public context, should an entity decide what is correct or incorrect for public-power-people to say?
- Should the Internet be a place for free discussion? Is it a place for enclaves of magnified tribalism?
I'm not being facetious. I'm hoping for earnest discussion about the virtues of free speech in a modern global society and not about whether rms has the right stance on assault, rather.
I'm compelled to disclaim that I am a (likely privilege-blind) white American middle-class male guy man.
A good comparison by another poster today here between RMS’ statements on the mailing list and the lies the news media published about them https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990426
I wonder what this means for the influence of the FSF in general. And will RMS stop working on emacs and other software?
> and will RMS stop working on emacs and other software?
Has he still been contributing code? My impression was always that he wrote the first versions of emacs,gcc,... many years ago, and many other people have taken over in the intervening decades. I'm quite confident he isn't working on gcc anymore.
I knew he no longer works on GCC and many other projects but I thought he still contributed to emacs. Looking at the recent commits on GitHub, it appears I was wrong about that.
Did he have mainly a supervisory role at the FSF or was he just giving talks lately and no longer actively contributing?
RMS is indeed a visionary and deserves credit for the good works he's done in his life. He may also be a bad person. Or maybe he's a good person who shows extremely poor judgment. I don't really know much about the allegations so I won't defend him or persecute him.
But this is a good move for FSF. RMS must have realized (or been made to realize) that he is now a net-negative contribution to FSF.
I'm obviously late to the party and I have no idea what happened there and what are you talking about, so let me express my sincere condolences in case if this is another SJW victory or something, but more importantly: what did he do as a president and a member of board of directors of FSF anyways? I never quite understood what is it's actual real-world function for the last like 20 years.
For those, like me, who missed the story behind this story... TL;DR: Richard Stallman has resigned from MIT and the FSF over comments he made defending Marvin Minsky "partying" with Epstein, and donations made to MIT. Joi Ito, the Media Lab director resigned over covering up the donations. Nicholas Negroponte "shocked" with his defense of these donations. Lawrence Lessig wrote about trying to rationalize the donations.
When you've made statements about "voluntary pedophilia" in the past, and you decide to voluntarily wade into the Epstein scandal, that's probably better termed character suicide.
There are different types of right, like there are different types of freedom. I would rather be Richard than any of the village idiots who are villifying him. I would rather be Batman and take the bad image for sticking up for what is right, and I would rather be Jesus than some moron casting the whip. There is unbias correctness and there is political correctness, libre software and gratis software. I understand, Richard. If only people were smart enough to realise they are villifying the best of us.
People have to have a path to redemption. Stallman apologized and admitted he was wrong. Why is it not acceptable to make a mistake with words? Isn't it impractical to expect everyone to never say something they regret? These are words we're talking about. It's not like Stallman raped a child.
Kicking him out of FSF and MIT seems quite excessive for somebody saying something and then apologizing for it. Whether they are Stallman, a student, or anyone really.
Do the people involved at FSF and MIT hold themselves to the same standard they're holding Stallman to? We'll surely find out because humans tend to say a lot of stupid shit over the course of their lifetime.
Constructing a situation in which Marvin Minsky somehow was blameless for his relationship with a known pedophile and child sex trafficker and situations directly resulting from that relationship, then projecting the reactions of other people through that situation, is not merely a mistake with words. Coupled with his at-best-real-gross chinstroking about minors, consent, and statutory rape in the past, it demonstrates a pattern. And it's a pattern that, obviously, made enough people uncomfortable as to want to not associate with him--as is their right.
MIT doesn't have to give Richard Stallman a do-nothing job. The FSF doesn't have to give Richard Stallman a (nearly) do-nothing job. Everybody makes mistakes, sure. You make up for those mistakes by doing good and doing right and if Stallman wants redemption, literally nobody is stopping him from going after it. They're just not bankrolling it. There's a difference here.
My goodness, Stallman just got cancelled. I think it's absolutely fair to criticize statements he's made (I absolutely disagree with his statements on pedophilia), but not to pressure him out of the work to which he's devoted his life. Kicked out of MIT and the FSF? That's gotta be rough for the guy.
Always nice to see a few angry people on the 'net with out-sized voices manage to bring down an icon of computer science. No one should have his life ruined by a kangaroo trial in the court of public opinion. People don't make good decisions when they try to react and "do something"; it would make more sense to let things die down a little and get the facts on what actually happened. Then make a decision on how best to go forward.
I have no doubt there will be one of these incidents where the mob mentality that is out for blood leads to catastrophic consequences. I have a hunch that perhaps then people will approach these situations with at least a bit of caution. The guy messed up, but it does not change his contributions. When is his punishment going to be seemed sufficient?
I've always heard the person who brings a company to a turning point might not be the one to make the turn. Maybe it's the same for movements. Open source went a long way with his poor behavior, but now it's likely to become a liability as open source spreads further into a world of collapsed context and diverse experiences.
Throw this guy under a bus and force him to resign, but accidentally accepting donations from a child trafficker and then accidentally writing him a thank you letter is just normal mistakes for staff at prestigious technology schools. Bravo academia. So sophisticated. Oh and good on the neoliberal media establishment for memory-holing the sex trafficking ring established by billionaires, but keeping the pressure up on some guy who just commented. Absolute hypocrisy. The people running things are abject trash.
Stallman has been a liability as a figurehead for a long time, and software freedom deserves better standard-bearers.
I saw Stallman once at a public lecture. He was incredibly rude, but is seemingly oblivious to how obnoxious he is being (he struck me as somebody heavily on the spectrum).
I hate to think how many people have written off the cause of software freedom as a joke because of his conduct.
People around him ought to be telling him in stronger terms that his views and general manner are unacceptable.
you know, i saw Stallman at a conference once and the nice people at FSF were also there. FSF as a whole is doing important work and liked the talks they gave and how they were talking about some of the issues ivolved.
Stallman on the other side came across as a nutjob. And it wasn’t because of his principles (which if you think about it are great and something to actually aspire to - at least in connection to software) but because of his behavior. Being antisocial or making a claim without paying attention to the social context or the setting the way he managed to do leads me to believe that he may have some sort of mental health issues. again: all respect for his work and principles when it comes to software dissolved by anti-social behavior.
I believe it. I mean, he's the same guy who picked something off his foot and ate it[0]. He clearly doesn't understand or care about behaving in a socially acceptable way.
This is very sad that the leader of the FSF took such actions. We benefited from his insights and advocacy on software, but the defense of Epstein, who essentially had a child abuse production line and defense of pedophilia is not something I can support and it is proper that someone new takes over.
Stallman's views were a variety of American libertarianism. While there are a few good points within that tradition regarding personal freedom, it's kind of sad that he carried some of the other baggage with his obsession with age of consent laws.
From reading his comments isn’t he defending someone named Minsk who had sex with a 17 year old and didn’t know she was being coerced into it by Epstein?
It seems to be a bit of a far fetched theory to me that this guy would meet a 17 year old through Epstein and not really be aware of what Epstein was doing, but it doesn’t really seem to be a defense of sexual trafficking, pedophilia or rape.
That being said this is from my reading of the above thread so maybe I’m not getting the full picture here.
In they were in Massachusetts, Minsky might have asked, "Are you here willingly, and how old are you?" And he could have received the reply, "Absolutely, I'm having the time of my life with Jeffrey and all the famous people he introduces me to, and I'm 16."
And the sex might then have seemed consensual and legal to Minsky, because even now in 2019, the age of consent in Massachusetts is 16.
That's not what I see when I click on that link! Just in case we're seeing different page-versions, what does a frozen copy of the Wikipedia page from a third site show? Also "16":
His comments were disgusting. There's no room for misunderstanding here. If you have sex with an underage sex slave, it is assault. Inarguable. But he tried to argue that.
Unfortunate witch hunt against an innocent, if strange, man. I could go on but people don't want to hear anything other than the hateful things that they believe.
Nobody’s burning him at the stake or putting him in jail. He can go on living a perfectly good life. What he can no longer do is act in a leadership role in the community and corrupt that community with his crap.
But this is nothing to cheer about.
Regardless of what low regard the man might be held as a person, he's being persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating for objective standards, and asking questions. These are all hallmarks of scientific inquiry.
It sets a precedent that will absolutely lead to self-censorship on a topic that really requires the disinfecting power of sunshine.
This strengthens the power of those who have no use for scientific inquiry and are more interested in inquisition.
reply