> 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.

Why are the people who object to Stallman's views "mobs" - a rabble mindlessly driven by rage and conformity - but "ignorant, rude and sexist" people who agree with him are not?

I have yet to see a mob mentality like that which forms to defend Richard Stallman at all costs.

I don’t buy that. Or at least I don’t buy that more are being excluded by RMS remaining vs banishment.

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.

People have literally talked about how they left the field because of RMS's behaviour. This isn't a case where we're randomly guessing that he discourages participation, we know he does.

“People” is not very specific. This is a tricky discussion topic because I don’t really care if people left the field without more info. Were they awesome programmers? We’re they mean people? Was it a net positive that they left the field? I have no way of knowing this.

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.

Who are the people thus excluded by RMS?

People who aren’t comfortable associating with someone who defends child rape.

Which - to the best of my knowledge - Stallman has never defended.

“ I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children.”

https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...

It does, but how badly, it depends? What are the worst kinds, what are relatively harmless if any?

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.

Child sexual abuse is strongly linked to a range of mental illness later on in life.

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.

I'll add that "harm" doesn't make a difference - lack of consent is what's at issue.

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.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci... has a redacted email thread.

For those who might prefer unredacted, here's what Stallman is reported to have said:

"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."

The issue in a nutshell, right here: Primary source evidence is downvoted in favor of complaints about fabricated statements made by chopping up sentences and adding different words to them.

Of course, the definition of "sexual assault" presumes no such thing.

The law definition in the United States, you mean.

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.

> The law definition in the United States, you mean.

No, the everyday English word "assault" doesn't have to include "use of violence". RMS has wrongly said it does.

Maybe read the link about which we are all talking.

A less condescending tone would be appreciated. I read that article - and formed certain opinions about it - long before it was posted to HN.

The whole thing is about RMS defending child rape on the basis that legal age limits are stupid and that it’s not rape if the child is willing. If you managed to miss all that then maybe try again.

If you could kindly point me to the passage where Stallman talks about rape, I would be much obliged.

“...the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.”

The context is an underage sex slave. Having sex with her is rape by definition in two different ways.