The problem is that not getting those people to stop doing that - or, if necessary, excluding them - causes them to exclude other people.
And getting those people to stop excludes people who don't like for anyone to force them to stop and to cave to the mobs.
I have yet to see a mob mentality like that which forms to defend Richard Stallman at all costs.
I think it’s easier to be inclusive by people’s preference to join rather than to try to guess about unknown groups that may be be comfortable enough to participate but since we don’t know them we can’t query them.
I don’t think RMS is scaring off good developers. I also don’t understand what kind of developer would be put off by his statements so much they would not collaborate on a project.
I’ve worked on a lot of projects and software is weird and awesome because the impact of one person is so amazing. Lots of people can come and go without making a difference. So discouraging participation isn’t some absolute evil to be avoided. Sometimes it actually helps cut down on noise per the whole Brooks Law kind of thing.
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
Does our current handling thereof help or harm?
If those questions are not answered, we're flying blind.
Also there are some stupid things done like putting 18 y.o. boy in jail for sleeping with his 16 y.o. girlfriend, consensually.
Someone should do actual not politically correct and not victim culture motivated research.
It would be hard work, reaching out to the victims and running longitudinal observation.
If there is such research, I'd like to read it.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...
> Someone should do actual not politically correct and not victim culture motivated research.
Someone should take a few minutes to read the reams of research that has been written about this rather than parotting NAMBLA discussion points.
If someone has sex with a woman in a coma, there's no harm to the woman. There's no need for physical force. It's still sexual assault.
Unconscious people, children, and sex slaves are not able to give meaningful consent.
Stallman doesn't appear to understand the role of consent in these laws.
"The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.Only that they had sex. 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."
In Poland, it requires use of force or coercion on part of the person doing the sexual act. Without it, say drugging and then letting someone else do it, it's "just" assault. (The other person is committing sexual assault.)
What Epstein did is called pimping and also punishable by law. Potentially also abduction or assault. Forcing a minor to commence a sexual act is a separate category of pimping (pimping a minor) that's yet more harshly punished.
Sex with minor is also punishable by law separately. (With some exceptions and discretion by the judge.) Now there is a strong association with sexual assault, though circumstances can leave it as just sex with minor. Depends on prosecutor and judge.
So it is likely Epstein would be convicted of multiple crimes and potentially recidivism (repeat offense) and organized crime, while Minsky would be convicted for sex with minor, not any kind of assault.
Note that repeat offense means Epstein would not be offered bail nor allowed a reduced sentence.
No, the everyday English word "assault" doesn't have to include "use of violence". RMS has wrongly said it does.
The context is an underage sex slave. Having sex with her is rape by definition in two different ways.
Stallman emailed a big mailing list for a computer science department the following about a child sex trafficking victim:
"The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem…Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). ...
We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing."
Is this acceptable to you?
Epstein liked to film his visitors and use the material to blackmail them. Knowing that, it's not unreasonable to assume that he ordered his slaves to behave nice and inviting.
You should be very careful about drawing lines between what you can and can't think. Once you do that, it doesn't really matter if you call it Religion or Science; you're still hosed.
I didnt read that in the email thread. Human trafficked sex slaves appearing willing to Minsky does not mean everything is totally cool.
It seems to me that Stallman is saying that qualifying language is valuable as statutory rape in USVI (and most other jurisdictions) has a much smaller penalty than other forms of sexual assault. So using the same word for Epstein and Minsky is not fair, I think, to their victims.
But saying “use more accurate language” is not the same as saying what Minsky is accused of is totally cool.
Not to mention that if Minsky did in fact have sex with a slave who was forced to do it, that’s real actual rape, and the best thing you could say there is that Minsky was somehow tricked into committing rape.
I think the risk I run is in characterizing acts incorrectly. I’m not aware of anyone being charged with “actual rape” for having sex with human trafficked prostitutes in USVI. So it depends a lot on the facts of the case, etc etc.
We will have a tough time knowing what Minsky knew and didn’t know. I think it’s reasonable to know if a sex partner is legs age, but it’s much harder to know whether someone was exploiting someone against their will. But legally I’m not sure he would be charged with being “unwilling rape” or whatever crime you think he committed.
What I’m trying to point out is that someone can be against statutory rape, even against rape tricking, and not think it is “totally cool.”
Logically, it is not appropriate to make such leaps unless we have more info.
See for example this from England:
That's probably not the case. At the time, 2001, the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands was 16. Around the middle of that year the legislature said they wanted to raise it to 18, but I don't think they actually accomplished that until the passage of the Child Protection Act of 2002.
(For comparison, it varies from 16 to 18 for US states. 16 in 31 states and DC, 17 in 8 states, and 18 in 11 states).
1. The sex they are talking about was in 2001, which was before there were any criminal cases or charges or civil cases against Epstein. Is there any reason for Minsky to have suspected that the girl he met at Epstein's place then was being coerced?
2. Stallman and Minsky were good friends.
If I buy a car cheaply at auction that was seized as part of a drug-dealing crime and then get busted for having drugs still stashed in the doors, I am now a drug offender. I did not knowingly do it nor did I mean to hurt people with drug trafficking so should I lose my livelihood and reputation?
If buy a unknowingly stolen Gucci handbag on the street for a cheap price (thinking it could be a knockoff).... you get the picture.
I’m not defending drug traffickers, child rapists, or appropriating stolen goods, I am wondering if knowingly participating in the moral violation that defines the crime should make the reputational difference... or should you be persona non grata regardless? Is that Stallman’s question?
Because applying metered justice and preventing ongoing escalating feuds is the entire point of the justice system. We're in this clusterfuck because people don't feel it is working, and they are not wrong. Specifically here, we all expect Epstein's close associates to reliably quash deeper investigation - investigation into their guilt went cold with Epstein's body.
And I'm generally for grassroots direct action, but this frenzy doesn't seem directed towards making up for the failings of the system, but rather scoring points against easy targets for the thrill of it. RMS himself was nowhere near this island, rather he simply had the audacity to question the lynch mob's narrative! With a reaction like this, how can it be said that these pitchforks are in the service of justice?
Yeah, you can't even condone raping children anymore. What has the world come to?
More seriously, the point is that this topic is not enough of a hot potato if RMS is comfortable talking about it in public.
> having sex with a 17 year old girl who is being abused and manipulated by a billionaire pedophile [...] makes you a sleezeball
Not the greatest way to put this, I think.
Programmers I know are frequently doing thought exercises so even something like “what if murder were legal” would need to be taken in the context of the conversation to even understand what the author was advocating.
The context is Epstein and RMS claiming that this woman trafficked by him was willing. We don't need to pontificate about all these hypothetical scenarios; this concrete thing that he's defending is pretty disgusting.
RMS surmised that the woman "presented herself as willing" to Minsky. His point is that Minsky likely (in his estimation) was not aware of the coercion. He did not defend the coercion.
It's no wonder that instead of staying quiet, many wind up at echo chambers like Voat and Gab.