I don't really see how this is so hard. Don't treat women poorly, in person or online. Don't talk authoritatively about subjects you don't understand, especially when those subjects (like rape and human trafficking) cause people intense pain.
If you really do want to act this way, then you probably should exercise some self-censorship, and rethink your views, perhaps.
> ...in what we can say without facing consequences.
What you say should have consequences. No one should censor you (what you say should be up to you), but you don't live in a vacuum. What you say has a real effect on others, and if that effect is bad, you should be held accountable.
Morality is constantly changing and what is considered treating someone poorly changes too. More recently it appears to be changing faster than ever. That can make it hard to remain with the bounds of what is in the current instance of time considered socially acceptable by the majority. There is no absolute morality even though it may seem like it if you are thinking with the span of an hour or a day. Stretch it out and it's a constant shifting. In any case, I don't think anyone should be silenced. If they say something that the majority feels is foolish, they can be considered a fool, or a debate can be had to convince them of why they may be wrong, but to silence externally, or increasingly, self silencing with self censorship, in my opinion is dangerous as that means ideas cannot be discussed openly.
Then it's time to just shut down HN in general, eh?
Speech is just a tool to share a thought, if a thought effects some one it is for them to bare alone.
The idea that sharing thoughts should have consequences upsets me greatly, maybe it shouldn't but it does. Your speech has filled me with bad feelings and troubling thoughts is that burden mine to bare alone or should I hold you responsible?
The sword you are flailing is sharp at both ends.
Thus you probably want to avoid growing in the only global circle we have. With smaller circles, getting cut off (as always has happened) is less of big deal.
In a similar vein, I'm fine with scientists exploring "IQ of the races" in their work. But going on a podcast and sharing that with a more general audience while not understanding its role in broader society while washing concerns away with "this just facts" is fine to have consequences.
Do you think having norms that advocate hiding knowledge that someone could argue is dangerous from the public will do more good than harm and won't backfire in the form of public distrust of experts?
I think as well that we as a society should learn to be more empathic, more tolerant, to learn how to forgive, and to avoid mob judgements.
Both, are my opinions. I don't know if there are any studies or references to this.
I would advise not speaking authoritatively even if you are an authority. People are less likely to offer suggestions and ideas you didn't consider if you act like you know what you're talking about. I learn all kinds of things by not sounding as certain as I usually am.
...they said, authoritatively. I'm a work in progress.
No one is allowed to have an opinion unless they're an "expert"
(Sarcasm)
Maybe we should start an experts registry, so there is no confusion about who can speak.
I think the trend's moving more quickly towards self-censorship than anyone realizes. How can we even quantify that? Those who censor just disappear?
What stands out for me is the obvious monoculture we're developing.
I miss custom PHPBB boards for every little interest and opinion.
The phpbb forums tend to be a lot more ruthless in self-moderation and probably a fair amount of gatekeeping too. But the content is significantly better than reddit, which I believe is a source of pride for many of the participants. I also get the impression that there is a growing sense of “coolness” using a crappy outdated UX. I predict the return and rise of the niche community sites will happen before its total disappearance.
some did close but the reason is facebook sucked people in its time consuming spiral of irrelevant noise.
I really wish you'd have to write a reason when downvoting.
If you won't have one-on-ones over issues that are personal and sensitive, and force them to be dealt with “in an open office with plenty of witnesses”, then, yeah, there will probably be things you can be accused of on that basis alone.
What sort of problems? I don't hear about many cases of women accusing other women of using their status as manager for sexual harassment.
There is also a history of controversial stuff related to his time at the FSF which meant that probably wouldn't settle for a simple apology either (not that RMS seemed willing to give one).
As organisations change over time, what they need in leadership also changes. In this case, they didn't need an ideologue with a history of generating controversy, they needed someone who can keep the ship going forward so that the projects they are overseeing don't lose enough talent that they become irrelevant.
Calling him an ideologue in contrast to current pioneers in the software industry is a bit much, maybe he just had some hard principles.
> wouldn't settle for a simple apology
To whom? To those that endorsed questionable business relations that drew attention in the first place that still are in leading positions at the MIT?
> need in leadership also changes
Visionaries and thought leaders can probably have a positive influence. I doubt we will get a adequate replacement. There also is no strong leader/mentor that can make you magically smart. He would need to inspire you to learn yourself which I would argue Stallman did pretty well.
"Controversies" are seldom intellectually engaging and if you look at the core of his statements, the subject and reactions become quite ridiculous.
You probably have been in a bubble all this time. I grew up in former Soviet Union without an internet connection with whatever software I was able to buy around the corner. It wasn't Linux and GCC, it was Windows 9x, Delphi, then MSVC, and so on.
I think the first time I've used (any) FOSS application was after 4 or 5 years of using computers. I had the fundamentals more or less covered by then.
This only strengthens your point though.
Side note: Ito, at least, is out at MIT. Others may be as well.
As far as to whom, it would have been to "anyone who was harmed by his statements". This could include those at the FSF who he represented, the students and researchers at MIT, who also were associated with the statements, and to people victimised by Epstein and others like him.
It's not as hard to find someone to apologise too, as it would be for the guy to actually admit he's wrong in the first place.
FSF entire purpose is to push for the adoption of Free Software licensing (in opposition to Both "Open Source" and Commercial licensing)
If you or I said what Stallman said, but to a coworker or to the boss, we would get fired - justifiably. This is not a new concept unique to the digital age, nor is it a concept that should be done away with. The popularity of your comment depresses me deeply.
Suppose there's a boxer, "Joe", and he has a scheduled fight against a named opponent. It's set in a legitimate venue, is freely advertised as if the promoters have nothing to hide, includes a normal ref & audience, and then proceeds like any other boxing match, including the traditional cordialities between opponents before and after. To "Joe", nothing's wrong. But then, years later, it's discovered that the opposing boxer was coerced into fighting, perhaps with threats of violence or blackmail.
Is "Joe" now guilty of physical assault, for repeatedly punching the other boxer, even if to "Joe" at the time it seemed like a normal voluntary encounter, no seedier than any other boxing match?
Maybe RMS's take was dumb. Maybe my analogy is dumb! But it's not "shameful" to try to work out the reasonable characterizations, given Minksy's possible mental state, the law, or common-sense. It might even be possible, under formal legal definitions, for Giuffre to have been "assaulted" while at the same time Minsky's actions don't rise to the level of "assault".
(Of course, there's also reasonable debate as to whether or not Minsky actually had sex with her. One person who was present at the gathering claims Minsky didn't.)
But how do you know Minsky didn't "ask[] some very hard questions"?
At the time of the alleged sex, 2001-2002, Epstein's cover as an investment billionaire who threw money around to win the attention/affection of young-but-legal women was still secure. He'd been a recent repeat visitor to the Clinton White House, and President Bill Clinton's multiple trips in Epstein's plane were contemporaneous or followed soon after.
The thinking at the time would have been: "If an ex-President (and husband of sitting Senator Hillary Clinton) can hobnob in public with this guy Epstein, he can't be into anything too shady, can he?"
Legitimate question, I haven't been following this closely enough to know. If it was reasonable to assume she was an adult I don't see an issue with it, but I don't have a moral objection to prostitution
> The word "assaulting" presumes he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way.
And then Stallman goes on to point out there is no evidence to suggest that Minksy acted violently toward the victim, and may have been unaware that the victim had been coerced by Epstein.
Given that the definition of "assault" is "a physical attack", I can't really disagree with him from a purely semantic perspective. And I would agree that there are other terms terms such as "statutory rape" and "soliciting prostitution" that may better describe what Minsky is accused of.
Is it "shameful" for me to see some merit in his argument?
And to make matters worse, he tried to quibble about the definitions of "sexual assault" and "statutory rape", which is pretty insulting and hurtful to people who have been victims of those situations.
Now, I don't necessarily see that this should definitively add up to RMS being forced out of MIT and the FSF, but this, combined with decades of awful behavior around women and some pretty messed up attitudes around what he called "voluntary pedophilia", is an understandable camel's-back-breaking straw.
It also confuses me to see people talk about stallman's language tricks as pedantry when he spends a lot of energy redefining terms or trying to pull out alternate meanings -- kind of the opposite of pedantry. Or a pedantry against his private dictionary.
Laws are notoriously complex (it’s why we have lawyers), and if you are going cite “a legal definition” that conflicts with the common definition of a word (e.g. assault), I think that carries a burden of actually citing the applicable law that was violated. But that’s simply not possible with in Minsky’s case as there are just not enough details in the deposition where he is named, and he was never formally charged with any crimes.
In none of them does the law say "let's break the phrase up into two words, sexual and assault, now, assault implies violence, and was this violent?"
That's not pedantry, that's playing word games.
I’m not playing word games here, this is just how I understand the English language to work and sexual assault to be defined.
I understand that in certain legal settings, any sexual interaction with a minor is deemed a sexual assault due to the fact that a minor cannot legally give consent. But as mentioned above, the laws in the US dealing with sex crimes are actually quite complicated, and details of what actually occurred between Minsky and the victim are few and far between, so I don’t know if that term would apply in Minsky’s situation.
Maybe I am wrong or maybe we just have different understandings of the phrase (possible given the vagaries of the language). But I think accusing people of “playing word games” and trying to “move the goal posts” is not constructive. You’re assuming bad intent where it could just be something as simple as a difference in understanding.
I do not believe the same is true of stallman, after having watched him redefine terms for decades, offer his own set of meaning for jargon in common use elsewhere, and so on. I think his frequent stance of "we must examine what this means" is more often than not a distraction, because sometimes he takes a technical meaning, sometimes he substitutes his own, and it never seems like his goal is a shared understanding; just that we should accept his.
I greatly dislike the new emphasis on feelings and image over accuracy and truth that has entered the tech sector in the last decade or so.
^ not particularly directed at your comment, it just inspired the thought
(Check your local statutes!)
I mean, given everything in the news these days, this is blatantly untrue. I suspect it wasn't ever quite that true before either. Maybe it should be but I don't think it's quite that easy.
> The wrong opinion? Stallman questions whether the victim, who he admits was coerced into sex, was actually sexually assaulted. This is an incredibly shameful take on the situation. [...] There are people trying to downplay sexual assault.
I'm hesitating to respond to this (self-censorship and all) but I'm not a public figure so I can risk being wrong, right? Right?!?
This isn't exactly what RMS was getting it and you're kinda missing the point in the same way RMS kinda missed the point. He didn't get why we use the term "sexual assault" as broadly (and reasonably so) as we do, and it doesn't sound like you get why he decided to argue the semantics of it.
His point was that he felt calling what Misnky had done "sexual assault" seemed to imply that Misky hadviolently attacked and raped her in a physically restraining sorta way instead of, to his best knowledge, in a "she was coerced by a third party without his knowledge" sort of way.
He missed the point that regardless of those details she was sexual assaulted. Further, he seems oblivious to the fact that splitting hairs defending his friend distracts from the real issue: that this isn't about any of them, it's about what happened to the victims. I think that take is fair enough but I agree making that case is bone headed. Not because he shouldn't speak his mind, but that it's just besides the point.
I think you're missing the fact that at all RMS was about was just clearing up the record of what Minsky did and didn't do. Not even that he was fully innocent. I agree it was in poor taste but I think if he was any less a public figure it would have been read more charitably with an awkward sigh instead.
I don't know... to me it seems totally understandable (even somewhat admirable) that Stallman would stand up for a deceased friend/colleague and try to set the record straight.
The fact that he thinks people don't have issues with that, but with the fact that he may have forced himself on her, is what makes him a piece of shit.
To be clear, I think Epstein committed some terrible crimes and I am glad he was eventually brought to justice. And based on the limited details available surrounding Minsky’s involvement, it certainly looks bad for him as well. And my heart goes out to the victims for the terrible exploitation they were subjected to... I literally can’t even imagine what that must have been like as I have never experienced anything even remotely comparable in my life.
But that doesn’t change the fact that I think some acts of sexual misconduct are worse than others. That I think details and precision matter when accusing someone of a crime. Or that I think the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Does that make me a “piece of shit” too?
Sure, but no permutation of details could make an actual sexual encounter, which is the hypothetical RMS is talking about (what really happened isn't even relevant when assessing what RMS said), benign or okay. It could be even worse, sure, but not really good.
> whether he knew she was under age
The only way to not know that would be to not care.
Saying that one crime is less severe than another does not imply that the lesser crime is “benign”.
Stallman takes issue with the word “assault” because he doesn’t think it likely that Minsky forcibly assaulted the victim. That doesn’t mean he is saying Minsky is without guilt, or that the whole Epstein ordeal is somehow “benign or ok”.
> The United States Department of Justice defines sexual assault as "any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.
Saying Minsky might not have realized she was coerced, in context of a 17 year old on a private island having sex with a 73 year old, is just nonsense. If (!) he did anything at all (and so far, there's only a claim that Minsky turned her down, plus no claim he had sex with her, AFAIK), that'd be sexual assault just by merit of the power differential.
If RMS doesn't understand that at age 66, that's tough luck, and splitting hairs about the arbitraryness of the age of consent or territorial jurisdictions, then talking about how it was all misunderstood and mischaracterized, because he was also, additionally falsely accused of defending Epstein, doesn't make it seem like he learned anything, at all.
Last, but not least: Not knowing someone's age because one didn't ask for ID isn't ignorance, it's not wanting to know. Likewise, a highly intelligent man thinking "oh my, this young lady who also happens to vacation here is really into me, what a lucky bastard I am" and any variation thereof doesn't pass the smell test. Even having attempted that argument was insulting to anyone's intelligence, and it's insulting to victims of such things.
I didn’t interpret Stallman’s comment to mean this at all. But rather that Minsky assumed that the victim was engaging in prostitution and willfully engaging in sexual acts in exchange for money.
With regards to not knowing someone’s age, there are a few plausible scenarios that come to mind. The victim could have lied to Minsky. Epstein could have lied to Minsky. She could have presented a fake ID, etc.
I think you making a lot of assumptions here that just aren’t borne out by the evidence available. Assumptions about what Stallman thinks or has implied, and assumptions about the nature of the accusations against Minsky. As far as I am aware we don’t know where or when it allegedly happened, the victim’s age at the time, or the details of how it was initiated. Some of the details you are assuming about the victim being 17 or the encounter having occurred on a private island seem to have been pieced together in a highly speculative verge article or from internet commentators (if you have quality sources of information that report otherwise please share). Stallman may not have had these details in mind or may have had a different set of assumptions when he wrote what he did.
I for one would like to see Stallman elaborate on some of his positions to better answer these questions. Not silenced.
It does though, just by leaving room for Minsky just thinking she might be "willing", "not coerced".
> As far as I am aware we don’t know where or when it allegedly happened
On that private island during an AI conference held by Epstein when Minsky was 73 and the girl 17.
Though AFAIK there isn't a claim Minsky did anything, just that the girl was "directed to have sex" with VIP, including Minsky. One person stated Minsky turned her down, and she AFAIK didn't claim Minsky even touched her.
But that "something happened" is the hypothetical scenario within which Stallman argued on that mailing list. It's not my "assumption" at all.
> Some of the details you are assuming about the victim being 17 or the encounter having occurred on a private island seem to have been pieced together in a highly speculative verge article or from internet commentators (if you have quality sources of information that report otherwise please share)
Why not just ask right away, instead of after me telling me about my assumptions and sources. The first thing I heard about this was a link to the mailing list, the rest from searches. I never even read the Verge article, no need. I know some articles falsely claim RMS defended Epstein, but that's also not from reading them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky#Allegation_of_ch...
> In 2016, Virginia Giuffre named Minsky as one of the people she was "directed to have sex" with on Jeffrey Epstein's private island while she was 17 years old [5 sources]. It is alleged to have happened in 2002, during an AI conference hosted by Epstein at his compound in the US Virgin Islands. [1 source]
See the sources in the footnotes of that article. If you disagree, don't just do it here, correct the WP article. I for one made sure I know what I'm talking about before I even started to do so. And Stallman isn't being silenced, either, he simply doesn't have a leg to stand on here.
When asked when it happened, she answers “I don’t know”. This is why I question whether she was really 17 at the time.
There is a flight record that shows Minsky and the victim were together on the same flight, when the victim was 17 years old. But there is nothing that links that flight as occurring at the same time that the victim was directed to have sex with Minksy. Given that the victim was employed by Epstein for years, and reports that she basically traveled everywhere with him at the time, it's entirely plausible that they were two separate events. The reporting that links that flight with the victim's deposition is entirely speculative.
This is my understanding of the available evidence. But it is entirely possible I am missing something. If you think so, please share.
On a partially related note, the abuse of language that has lead to the current definitions of "rape" and "sexual assault" is distressing. :(
Stallman was not saying that Minsky should not be absolved of responsibility. He was just saying that the term "sexual assault" is inaccurate in that it implies violence.
> I think Minsky was smart enough to know what was happening.
That's a fairly large assumption. Minsky's name shows up twice in hundreds of pages of deposition. Once is in a statement by the victim when she is asked to name names:
> They instructed me to go to George Mitchell, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, another prince that I don't know his name. A guy that owns a hotel, a really large hotel chain, I can't remember which hotel it was. Marvin Minsky.
And the only other reference (that I am aware of) is in reference to being on a private flight with a bunch of other people.
How are you able to infer so much from so litte information?
Which is also incorrect. Sexual assault encompasses coercion without physical violence.
It is accurate to say that the girl was sexually assaulted; whether or not Minsky sexually assaulted her is up for debate.
I agree with the parent that it seems sketchy that Minsky (and the others present) didn't have at least some idea what was going on. At best, these girls could be prostitutes, but just assuming everything about the situation was completely legit is in my mind morally questionable.
Then there wass also a person present at the gathering who says Minsky turned the girl down. If she says that she had sex with him, I would tend to believe her, though.
I was actually reading Stallman's site last night, after seeing the article about him leaving CSAIL. I noticed he had a "glossary" section where he basically rejected the use of many common words and phrases, because their literal meaning did not match the colloquial or modern use (for example, he rejected the word homophobia, being pedantic about the phobia part). I'd bet this whole thing about "sexual assault" is along the same line.
In that case think its important for thinking clearly to develop your own definitions that group things together into categories where all members share important traits.
When he uses the tools of pedantry, he does so to try and change the goalposts of the conversation, not to provide greater clarity.
“whether or not Minsky sexually assaulted her” is precisely the thing that Stallman was debating, and got into trouble for.
Having a a factually or morally incorrect viewpoint on a public happening isn't an assault on a victim. Its an opportunity to help that person learn better and even more importantly to help the many more who believe the same as the speaker but who wont speak up learn as well.
Silence dissent and you lose that opportunity and everyone is poorer for it.
Sadly this is not true; it's been routine for all kinds of authority figures to blame the victim and excuse the perpetrator in cases of sexual assault and rape. Including police and judges.
The only way we've moved forward is the public making very clear that that is not acceptable, but this actually has a low hit rate. For every Stallman there is a Kavanagh, and a hundred rape apologists to back then up.
"I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. [...] Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
A child who had been captured by Epstein and coerced into sex with a bunch of people said that Minsky was one of those people.
RMS said let's assume it did happen, and then started defending Minsky by quibbling about the definition of assault.
RMS said that minsky having sex with a coerced child shouldn't be called assault because assault requires force or violence.
He's wrong. Assault has an every day English definition and it doesn't require violence or force. Assault has legal definitions and they don't require force.
His position on the word "assault" makes no sense.
This follows on from earlier comments where he said that children can be willing participants in incestual abuse, or that he thinks it's unlikely that children who are abused are harmed by that abuse. He retracted some of those after people told him that yes, in fact, children who are abused are often harmed by that abuse.
Not sure where you live but in my subculture it does. It's quite possible it also does in RMS's social environment.
Do you have a source on his retraction? I would have thought Rind et al (and a bit of first principles thinking) would have been his main source.
This is an excellent point. More and more, there is no middle ground in consequences. Nothing like a suspension? or leave of absence etc. I don't recall how things used to be but I really lament the lack of some sort of gradient scale for punishment.
Then you should be way more careful, sir. Lost metaphors are seldom returned, in these uncivilized times.
The general over-reaction and constant jousting at windmills seems like a net loss to me.
I am forced to exercise self-censorship.
I've found that a net good thing at least for myself. I used to be the dude who would blurt out whatever popped into my head and not care too much how it would be received by my audience, and sometimes even relish the fact that it was badly received.
By self-censoring and thinking through what I'm about to say and thinking about my audience before I open my mouth I find not only are social interactions easier and more pleasant, but I actually get my points across more consistently and clearly. People are then also more open to listening and don't always automatically get defensive. So ironically applying self-censorship has made it easier to make the points I actually want to make.
It's not the 99 times when your parachute opens that you stress about. It's the other 1%.
(Mis)interpretation reduces to choice, as does the principle of charity. With a large enough audience fallout is a statistical certainty.
Arguably the (male) head of the Free Software movement has no place debating the definition of "sexual assault" or "statutory rape" in a conversation about a human trafficker and child abuser. His opinions there have zero value (not to mention that a debate over such definitions is missing the point entirely), and engaging in that conversation -- even to come to the defense of his tangentially-related dead friend -- was a very poor choice, even for someone known to be contentious and often misunderstood.
And they could self-organize into self-selected groups. Then each type could best thrive in their own self-constructed communities.
And they could practice other-tolerance for the other sort of folks. Because tolerance.
Not only getting one's point across better, but actually getting a better point across.
On the whole, definitely a net positive.
You call your solution self-censorship, but I just kinda think it's general common sense: why do you feel the need to broadcast your views to a large, unknown audience on controversial subjects where misunderstandings cause a lot of trouble for you? There are plenty of other real-world places to discuss things that don't carry that risk, and likely some more-private places on the internet where you can join an actual community of people who will get to know you over time and understand what you say in context.
Put another way: most people wouldn't randomly walk up to a group of 10 strangers on the street and immediately bring up a controversial topic. Why do we think that's a good move on the internet?
I think we're starting to see the social limits of instant around-the-world communication. It just doesn't work as well as we want it to. The internet is still ridiculously new to the world, and our understanding of its social nuances is still in its infancy.
I do that a lot.
You could trivially interpret that as "exercising judgment", but it's not that. I am exercising caution and self-preservation.
It's akin to the onset of apathy.
However, that would categorize Stallman's gaffe here as bad judgment and not self-censorship. Seeing as what he said was definitely not appropriate to say in those circumstances.
Many angry down-voters bashing that [-] button only making my point.
- How someone is treated depends heavily on whether they're perceived as being part of the right clique. For example, a few years ago Nintendo sacked someone who thought it was a great tragedy that owning photos and videos of kids being raped was illegal and bloviated about this on social media. (Probably not for that reason as it turns out, although her job did involve interacting with kids.) She was in the clique and the people who drew attention to this weren't, so all the right-thinking folks and publications rewrote her views into something much less objectionable, then insisted that repeating what she actually said was a bigoted lie and the whole thing was a misogynistic attack against her. I'm pretty sure there's a heavy overlap between those people and the ones going after Stallman by rewriting what he said in the opposite direction now.
- The views you have to hold in order not to be a bigot aren't consistent from year to year. For instance, there's a faction of self-proclaimed feminists who're really hateful to trans people and have successfully lobbied for some rather bigoted laws. A few years ago any trans woman who merely pointed out the harm they'd done was labelled as a terrible misogynist. Sometime around 2016 this flipped and all the same people who'd been demanding everyone shut up decided those views were now so evil that they justified beating up elderly women merely for holding them, and that the people who were uncomfortable with this violence were the bigots. There was zero overlap between the views that were acceptable before and after the flip, and no room for a more moderate position. That faction has become increasingly irrelevant over the years, so fighting them is actually less important than it used to be.
I hate how diluted the word "rape" has become. I can't tell if you mean some perfectly willing petting between a 17 year and and a 20 year old.
Are there perhaps some views that you think are not quite hateful or bigoted, but aren't totally fine to state? Maybe, "err on the side of caution" type views?
I wonder what Zeno would think on moving your views from completely hateful to completely fine: first you must go halfway-hateful, then half of that, and so on. Perhaps one will never find a completely fine view to state!
The fun is always in defining what exactly should be in the category "hateful"/"undermining stability of our country".
As a side note, I've advocated for chattel slavery in the past, it actually didn't go too badly.
Moral outrage as a language game, especially where certain hot button issues are concerned, like anything involving sexuality, bears a striking resemblance with the language game that unfolds umong children when it is alleged that someone has the cooties.
When such an allegation is made there are three possible plays. Agree, disagree, or stay quiet. In my opinion, the best play is to vocally agree with the allegation when it is made by at least one popular kid or when a critical mass of kids agreeing with the allegation has already been reached. When a critical mass has not yet been reached and the allegation is backed by only a small number of kids and kids who are unpopular or of undetermined popularity status, the best play is to stay quiet while waiting to see if a popular kid joins the allegation or if a critical mass is reached, at which point you should start to also voice your agreement. Something you never ever want to do is to speak up to disagree.
This is because the claim "you've got the cooties", despite being by definition false, draws credibility from how many people agree with it. If someone finds themselves on the receiving end of the allegation, the only possible response is to go "no you've got the cooties" and try to build consensus around that.
So, Kid A goes "Kid B's got the cooties", Kid C goes "No he doesn't". That would be a very stupid play if Kid C is an unpopular Kid, because it would be likely to make Kid A pivot into expressing the view "Kid C's got the cooties", putting Kid C into a strategically worse position than he started out in.
Now, choosing between the vocally-agree versus stay-quiet plays: Vocally-agree is usually a better play. Because Kid B could respond by turning around and saying "no, Kid C's got the cooties!" That is unlikely, but the probability is greater than zero.
If, on the other hand, Kid C goes "Haha! It's true! Kid B's got the cooties" that makes Kids A and C allies, so it advances Kid C's position by getting it into the safety of the herd, so to speak. Because now, if Kid B goes "no, Kid C's got the cooties" you will find that Kid A will voice disagreement. So between Kid B having the cooties and Kid C having the cooties, the greater consensus is around Kid B having the cooties.
It quickly becomes apparent that the game unfolds around popularity and conformism as a self-fulfilling prophecy and that, at the end of the day, popular kid always wins, unpopular kid always loses.
So, about Stallman. Popular kids win. Yet again. Who would have thought that. Stallman's got the cooties.
I agree.
From what I’ve read about the Cultural Revolution and Jaquereies, what’s going on looks pretty much the same mob pattern.
Stallman is a legend, which means he has a great distance to fall. His point was lost in the fray. I wish he could’ve just kept it to a private conversation with a friend.
Obviously no child can consent to being pimped, for money or otherwise.
It was actually a private conversation.
I get being mad he wasn't helping but thats a looooong way from supporting the human trafficking.
If you control money that goes to Fred who employs Bob and tell Fred fire Bob or I fire you then while your actions may be verbal they aren't merely communicative. Clearly you are acting to censor Bob. You may well simultaneously be within your rights to do so and also wrong to do it. If I tell you so I'm not controlling you I'm just trying to persuade you.
Many fewer of my current associates hear any real thoughts of mine compared to 20 years ago. I used to get into all kinds of arguments like Stallman’s, on public email lists, which thankfully haven’t surfaced online (yet).
Patently that is false.
Given the sheer amount of ad revenue that youtube, twitter et al get from hosting stuff that if printed or broadcast, would be liable to fines. (at least in the UK)
Self censorship is what defines empathy. When your child has done something hilariously stupid and hurt themselves, you comfort them, you don't stand back and tell them how incredibly stupid they are.
99.999% of people would never Mock a grieving spouse in person, why should you be enabled to broadcast that to millions of people on the internet?
It's not. Take it from me, a guy who predates social media by decades.
If you go back and look at what Gary Hart dropped out of the 1988 presidential race for, and compare it to what Donald Trump said on social media before, during, and after being elected President, there's just no comparison.
Racial, misogynistic, derogatory, offensive sentiments you can easily find being published on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or most other social media platforms would not have passed muster in any mass-media channel or public conversation 30 or even 20 years ago.
On the positive side, social media has been a tremendous boon to marginalized communities like gay/lesbian/bisexual, transgender, heck, even furries. It has allowed like minds to find and support each other, and allowed the rest of us normies to see these communities for the constructive, positive forces so many of them are. I am convinced that social media aided in their growing public acceptance.
In fact, I'd say that social media has opened up the discourse so much that even the resignation of a powerful figure over controversial remarks about pedophilia--an outcome which would have been expected and commonplace for at least the past 70 years of U.S. society--are taken as somehow problematic.
In other words, things are so de-censored now that even the most anodyne and obvious objections to gross statements by powerful figures is taken as censorship. The Overton Window has moved way over to one side, but people still complain when they hit the edge of it.
This extremely perverse situation tells us a good bit about a lot of our fellow citizens but nothing about what the rest of us can get away with nor the constraints placed upon us.
If I said something that was misconstrued sufficiently enough for thousands of people to hear about it and hate me even wrongly I wouldn't be giving up my position at MIT I would probably end up homeless until lack of Asthma medication caused me to suffocate.
Part of that not having billions of dollars to fall back on thing.
If you or I said something stupid, it'd either not be noticed much at all, or get 15 minutes of fame and then fade into obscurity. In reality, our lives wouldn't change all that much. Yes, there's an outside chance that we could do something so dumb that we'd lose our jobs, but that's vanishingly unlikely, and still, I'd expect the effect to be temporary.
>By Joel Stein
>I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
>How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
>The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)
>The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
>As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day.
The community has brought attention to this account multiple times with no actual action on your part.
I guess you might be too busy tone policing, as per usual: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20993139
As the site guidelines explain, the way to react to a bad comment on HN is not to feed it by replying, but rather to flag it and (in egregious cases) to email us at [email protected]. Posting more comments complaining about lack of moderation doesn't help, for the same reason: we might not see it. In fact we probably won't, if we didn't see the original post in the first place. Making your complaint as sarcastic and cruel as you can doesn't add to its visibility.
Would you please review the site guidelines and follow them? They're written the way they are because, to avoid HN deteriorating further, users need to help preserve the site. Letting moderators know about egregious comments (in ways that work—flagging or emailing) is one way the guidelines ask you to do that. Not being snarky or calling names is another.
You and your alt account do not make up "the community". Since I make comments related to the articles and discussions then I am way more a part of the HN community than you are. Anyway, I invite you and your alt account to respond to the content of what I write in order to have a constructive conversation.
However, it seems that the political division is greater than ever. It is almost as if there are two Overton windows now, one for liberals and one for republicans (roughly).
The republican one shifted to much less self-censorship, while the liberal one shifted very slightly to more self-censorship.
And RMS seems to be caught in the liberal one. He has held his opinions for a long time, and nobody really cared that much.
He is also not a particularly powerful figure. If anything, FSF is weaker than it has been in the 90s. That's also an interesting change in dynamics, the shifting of both windows now affects powerful and powerless alike, where in the past, it was I believe considered less decent to have "wrong opinions" if you were powerful, and the wrong opinions of the powerless were tolerated much more. (Basically, the difference between elites and proletes, and agreement who is what, is now morphing into a difference between liberals and republicans.)
People can say that these platforms are privately-owned and freedom of speech is only about government censorship, but where do you speak when these platform are well established and chances of dethroning them with a decentralized and open alternative are slim to none?
Social media is not social, it's corporate.
You’re free to say what you want and I’m free to not want to associate with your or not want to do business with you and encourage others to do the same.
I don’t see how you have one without the other.
This Stallman case is edge-case fallout from a massive political movement. He could have probably discussed the age of consent in public pre-2013 and maybe get a few disgusted reactions but generally be fine. The political control of internet arguments is more obvious than ever, and the quest for advertising money.. but I'm fairly sure I can start and run a website/subreddit/blog for whatever niche idea and be left alone.
He did. People don't remember, but his home page used to have articles regarding age of consent, which he later took down.
So? Don't make these clicks and you'd never see them.
> The political control of internet arguments is more obvious than ever, and the quest for advertising money
Advertising money has nothing to do with it - FSF doesn't need advertising money. They're just live in deathly fear of the woke Red Guards, as many before them (e.g. Mozilla) - and that fear may be very well justified.
> but I'm fairly sure I can start and run a website/subreddit/blog for whatever niche idea and be left alone.
Sure you can. If you can do without: hosting, DDoS protection, DNS, advertising, search engines, social media, payment processing, etc. All those have recently been engaged in deplatforming people for political considerations. But yes, you are free to lay your own cable infrastructure, set up your own data centers, build out your own internet, and there have you own website about whatever you want, completely free.
Advertising money has something to do with YouTube deplatforming people which is part of evaluating the idea that we are becoming a monoculture.
I think only the daily stormer is an example if you go anywhere you will be pulled down, including for. Controlling that stuff is the government's job, I would expect radical political sects to lose the fight to host a website. But if your idea is non political you're basically in the clear.
> P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
Here, June 28th 2003: http://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html
Or do you believe someone planted it on his website and it went unnoticed for 16 years? How about this:
> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
Posted 3 days ago: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
Does that confirm that he indeed said it?
What Stallman has said on his personal website, and what his personal views are at large, is definitely outside the realm of what I'm prepared to dive into.
Well, no? Surely the coercion bit is the important bit? It's a bit odd that he had to "learn" that sex could bring psychological harm to children, but he's basically saying that adults should not have sex with children.
Absolutely not. The entire point why paedophilia is considered an awful act is because a child is not mature enough to give consent for such action.
Since children (and I repeat, CHILDREN) are unable to give a proper consent, any sort of a sexual action with them is considered as rape.
> ...but he's basically saying that adults should not have sex with children.
No, he specifically disagrees with the age of consent:
> 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.
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
In case you're curious, age of consent is mostly 14 to 18 around the world (with some exceptions), and 16 to 18 in the US, depending on the state. He does not provide us with a number, but if you ask me, it's a really weird hill to die on.
So, as of May 2019, in the 34 states that have set a marriage age by statute, the lower minimum marriage age when all exceptions are taken into account, are:
2 states have a minimum age of 14: Alaska and North Carolina.
4 states have a minimum age of 15.
20 states have a minimum age of 16.
8 states have a minimum age of 17.
-- End of quotation --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_Sta...
I'm not an American, so I don't understand why you have not fixed this obvious problem.
So, for example, in a place where the age of consent is at 18, an 18 year old could have sex with a 16 year old without being considered a paedophile, while a 25 year old could not have sex with anyone below 18.
There's nothing about those exceptions that's US-specific. The number I've posted are the official ones if the other person is above 20-something, while the numbers that you've posted are applicable when both parties are similar in age.
That doesn't sound correct to me. As I understand it, an adult (18 and above in the US) cannot legally have sex with someone under the age of consent. So if the age of consent is 18, and an 18 year old has sex with a 16 year old, that is considered statutory rape or child sexual abuse. A quick Wikipedia skim[0] seems to agree with me.
Perhaps you meant to say "if the age of consent is 16"? Even then, that doesn't sound right. In that case, both an 18 year old and 25 year old could legally have sex with a 16 year old.
There do appear to be some exceptions in some parts of the world where, as you say, there are exceptions for people of similar age. So in some places, an 18 year old might not be prosecuted for having sex with a 16 or 17 year old if the age of consent is 18. But these seem to be few and far between.
That's a pretty common mistake to make. There's two different sets of rules that kinda blend together when you try to reduce age of consent to a single digit. Wikipedia indeed agrees with me:
> In most states there is not a single age in which a person may consent, but rather consent varies depending upon the minimum age of the younger party, the minimum age of the older party, or the differences in age. Some states have a single age of consent. Thirty U.S. states have age gap laws which make sexual activity legal if the ages of both participants are close to one another, and these laws are often referred to as "Romeo and Juliet laws". Other states have measures which reduce penalties if the two parties are close in age, and others provide an affirmative defense if the two parties are close in age. Even though state laws regarding the general age of consent and age gap laws differ, it is common for people in the United States to assume that sexual activity with someone under 18 is statutory rape.
Paragraph taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_...
In any case, we've deviated from the topic far enough. I'd argue that it's a weird thing to advocate for lowering of the age of consent. At best, I'm willing to agree that RMS uses terms like an edgy teen. Minors sext each other, therefore, we should make child pornography legal (seriously, I'm not making this up: https://stallman.org/archives/2012-jul-oct.html#15_September...). Age of consent needs to be lowered, therefore paedophilia should become legal. He talks about the edge cases to argue for the whole thing, completely ignoring that those edge cases are not what most people think about when using those terms.
It is quite possible that in our times and current society the same does not apply but let's keep in mind that our current society is sick and wrong in many ways, rotten to the core to the point it is self-destructive.
"It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
What time is this referring to?
If you start expressing opinions about how sex with a sex-trafficked child should be legal, won't your friends and family raise some questions about your character?
Unless we're talking of morally flexible individuals. And at least parents should raise an eyebrow, since we have this natural reaction to protect our children.
> information wants to be free
Whomever said that was probably thinking of facts, of knowledge, s/he was probably not thinking of having opinions about pedophiles.
EDIT: don't get me wrong, I think there's a time and place to argue that consensual sex with teenagers might be ok and I think people should be free to make that argument, the problem in this case is that the sex couldn't have been consensual, in which case age becomes relevant, as that teenager isn't fully developed, therefore the harm done is amplified.
And also these opinions have been delivered by a very public figure, with a history of harassing women.
Words matter so the lesson here is don't be a jerk, as technology won't save you from that.
That is not what Stallman said, wrote or advocates so that's kind of a strawman hypothetical that continues to pedal a false narrative.
> Whomever said that was probably thinking of facts, of knowledge, s/he was probably not thinking of having opinions about pedophiles.
John Stuart Mill is probably rolling over in his grave from this conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty#Of_the_liberty_of_t...
Edit: Particularly relevant to the topic of self-censorship: "unmeasured vituperation, enforced on the side of prevailing opinion, deters people from expressing contrary opinion, and from listening to those who express them."
Good thing RMS never did that then.
And your comment is a good representative of the modern debate climate: People will exaggerate whatever their opponent said, and they will assume no good faith in their opponents what so ever. They will not consider an argument something to be learned from, but rather something to be "won".
Getting someone fired over having the "wrong" view is merely a bonus, but a bonus the SJW-crowd loves aiming for none the less.
No wonder we're all getting dumber, when merely trying to have a discussion can get you fired. Of course people will stop debating, and stop gaining insights from that debate.
These kind of comments are clumsy claims to moral authority, useless flame fodder.
What? 17-year-olds are still in high school. They probably just barely got a driver’s license. They can just barely see an R-rated movie without a guardian. They can’t even sign waivers to give themselves permission for field trips in my state. How on Earth is it fair to consider them adults and fit to give consent for sex with older men while employed for sex services?
In Germany a 17yo cannot drive, CAN drink and can have (I'm old and it doesn't apply to me, so this might be only somewhat accurate) sex with other people (but cannot be a prostitute), might marry (needs parents approval I believe). Age of consent is 14 (but .. not for sex with adults as far as I'm aware).
I know that German law has nothing to do with this. But please stop and reflect for a second: The US allows 17yo to steer 2+ tons of steel at high velocities, Germany (as the one example I'm familiar with) lets them have consensual sex or drink beer. The same way you say 'How can they agree to sex' one might ask 'How can they be responsible enough to drive'.
It's cultural, not absolute. I understand the outrage, I am in no way defending Epstein, Stallman or anyone here - but please don't present your moral position/your upbringing as absolute truth. See it as something that you were raised to believe and that A LOT of people disagree with on this globe.
(It's obviously not helping the fact that the girls got paid, it's a completely disgusting, sad and shameful story with no recourse - but don't claim 17yo can't have sex with someone older, ... just because)
In the era of mechanization adult men were replaced in factories by children as young as 6 years old and it was considered a great progress because they could be paid much less and do the same job. Is that fair ?
Before school was made mandatory at 17 you had been an active part of the work force for 10-12 years. was that fair ?
At 17 you can be drafted and sent to war to be killed, fair ?
A couple generation ago at 17 you had been working to bring money to the family for several years.
Problem is that fairness is a human made artificial concept, looking at the human societies almost nothing is fair in them, it's mostly about perpetuating hierarchical structure of power and domination, exploitation and competition. The few examples of success through fairness and cooperation comes from the wild that we collectively work so hard to eradicate.
A 17 year old is not a child, but also not an adult.
-He argued that rape is no the same as having sex with a minor. He is right, that's not the definition of rape.
-A minor is not necessarily a child. You can be a minor and the next day be 18 in a porno movie.
-Never did Stallman said it was ok, He just raised the question whether Minsky knew She was being coerced by Epstein. Clearly not the same.
(it would be funny if you did; it would also be equally funny if you didn't, and are surprised that children didn't express said argument, even though you didn't give them the chance)
Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in 2008 of soliciting a prostitute and of procuring an underage girl for prostitution. He plead guilty and was convicted. How much more clear does this have to get? He is a pedophile. How could he not be? He straight up solicited children for sex and has had dozens of credible accusations by women stating that he sexually assaulted them while they were underage. In what planet does this kind of behavior count as okay, even if only a single accusation was true? He solicited a child for sex!
No matter what fucked up views of what is/isn’t pedophilia you have, surely you see how employing underage girls and encouraging them to have sex with adult guests is objectively bad and so justifiably illegal? I mean these are children. Them getting paid makes it no better. Would you be ok with your child being employed by an older man to have sex with rich friends of his? I wouldn’t. Am I just too “self-righteous” to see such employment as exploitive and inherently immoral/fucked up?
It doesn’t matter if it was consensual. It is statutory rape, and 16 year olds are not emotionally and mentally as developed as 22 year olds - no matter what you claim. Ask any 22-year-old woman if she is the same person emotionally/intellectually as when she was 16. How many would say yes? Not many.
If saying, “Hey, Epstein built a secret harem of underage girls and solicited them to adult men - regardless of the children’s consent to be solicited - is a bad thing” is considered a “self-righteous political agenda”, then I guess I’m a full-on self-righteous prick.
The fact that I’m arguing that systematic, coerced sex between rich adult men and underage girls is bad and condemnable and that a lot of people in this comment section would disagree with me makes me lose hope for this world. It should be obvious that statutory rape laws protect minors and are a good thing. But here we are. Something truly is rotten in the state of Denmark.
You are also appealing to emotion by using 'children' and 'pedophile' in inaccurate ways. If you are going to strictly interpret 'statutory rape' as being morally reprehensible regardless of the circumstances, then I would ask that you stop using peodphile unless you can show me one of his victims that was pre-pubescent. I didn't define that word, it has a dictionary and wikipedia entry that you are welcome to read.
And regarding your claim about emotional and mental development, I would agree that it IS true what you say. However, there are plenty of people who've made it to older age who lack the maturity of their juniors (Stallman apparently being an example!). Age should NEVER be a surrogate marker of capacity... we define ages of legal consent arbitrarily, agreed? There are plenty of 22 year olds making bad decisions...
And the self-righteous political agenda was referring to this legislation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_...
Plenty of groups including the EFF think this went too far and the way that people throw around 'sex trafficking' and 'raping children' and 'pedophile' are emotional appeals that do a disservice to the actual victims of these crimes.
Of course all of these things are bad, but was Hugh Hefner a sex trafficker because he kept a well-paid harem of women at his mansion? If age is the only discriminator, then why is the US your moral compass when clearly age of consent differs throughout the world? What about Romeo and Juliet laws? States like Hawaii where age of consent is lower?.
Because the question is not “is it moral”, because the answer is obviously no to any decent person, regardless of age of consent. He used women to gift sex to his friends in an exploitive manner; find me an ethical theorist who supports that. You said yourself in the earlier post that his actions put “his morals/character...in question” and I agree. I also agree that his actions are illegal. As he was convicted and sentenced to a U.S. prison in 2008 and charged this last time and put into a federal jail, I’d say the U.S.’s laws are fairly relevant. No man-made law is identical to a divine law, this is true, but I think the man upstairs would be disgusted by nations allowing child marriages or ages of consent under or at 16. Hell, Satan probably feels uncomfortable, or the Flying Burrito, or just your conscience. But going from the sentiments on this thread, though, I’m sure you could start a group of like-minded people to campaign to lower the age of consent. I can think of a senatorial candidate or two who’d back you all up. The fact remains though, he committed a crime, and I’m sure a majority of Americans (the country in which he was prosecuted) would agree that he is morally reprehensible as well. But hey, it’s hard to decide on ethical question like: “should adults be allowed to sexually use children”. I’ll give you that one.
> was Hugh Hefner a sex trafficker
If he transported underage girls for purposes of sex to a private island, then yes. Oh wait, that’s what Epstein did. The women Hefner kept, as far as I know, were not underage, but if they were and if they were treated as products to be used and sold/gifted for sex, then yes, he would be, as is Epstein.
> You are also appealing to emotion by using ‘pedophile’
Pedophilia has formal and colloquial definitions. While yes, you are correct, many dictionaries do qualify with pre-pubescence, but one of the most popular online dictionaries, dictionary.com, states [1] ‘sexual desire in an adult for a child’. I would argue that the real, not formal usage of pedophile is not so restrictive on the question of puberty. Since English has no standard bodies and words’ meaning is determined by usage, I would consider my use of ‘pedophilia’ semantically correct. But hey, substitute every instance of ‘pedophilia’ with ‘Ephebophilia’ if you want; most Americans would still be disgusted by it under this name, too. Even wikipedia [2] says, though, that pedophilia is commonly used to refer to interest in teens past puberty, so I stand by my apparently loaded vocabulary (is teen-sex-connesieur better?) [1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pedophilia [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia see bottom of paragraph 2
You talk about colloquial definitions, but colloquial definitions vary. When you say "pedophile", I indeed think of sexual desire in an adult for a child (usually preferential desire, but I suppose it doesn't have to be such). However, "child" in this context (as well as most others) refers to a pre-pubescent minor. So, when you say "pedophile", it conjures up imagery of some middle-aged adult and some 10-year old (or perhaps younger!). Same goes for terms like "child sex-trafficking" and "child pornography" --- these all conjure up images of pre-pubescent children for me. Given the reactions by various people on HN (and indeed my perception of the views of people in my bubble of the world), I don't seem to be alone in this.
Teen-sex-connesieur is ridiculous; I don't think anyone would actually suggest that. But the words you are using carry connotations for many, that you don't seem to be expecting. If these connotations do not match what you are trying to communicate, you might consider some adjustment to your language. Perhaps "teen" "underage" or "minor" would be more suitable words here (I would lean towards the first or second, personally).
---
P.S. And yes, while I do see a difference between a 25 year old and a 16 year old in terms of sexual maturity, I also see a dramatic difference between adult interest in a 16 year old and adult interest in an 8 year old. So I don't think "pedophilia" is a good blanket term to describe adult sexual interest in individuals below the age of 18.
Judging by the amount of ahem, activity, between high-schoolers, we are literally surrounded by the immoral. /s
Many 'developed' countries had age of consent set at 12 until recently (for example Spain raised it to 13 in 1999 then to 16 in 2015).
By your comment all societies before the late 19th were just a bunch of rapists and pedophiles, when it's actually a matter of the legal and moral compass and context evolving with time.
I'd argue that we should have a look at what happened in the last 2 centuries in our societies because caring for our children is clearly not the reason here or else we would have done something 40 years ago about the climate, pollution, smoking, fast food, access to water and food, lack of sustainable way of life, teaching them skills we collectively had 100-150 years ago and countless others things that are making sure they will have no future and suffer horribly in the process of experiencing the global collapse.
[1]: http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primary...
I mean, yes? Not sure what you’re getting at. I understand that social norms change over time and remain relative, but if a man in a society of any time period married 7-year-olds or barely teens, then they were morally wrong, even if they were clueless as to the wrongness. I’d hoped this was obvious, but apparently many people on HN have no concept of ethics and see absolutely (ironically) everything as relative.
Think about what you are saying - that given the correct historical context, you would have no qualms with child marriage? That’s not just a lack of a moral compass, that’s a psychopathic perspective.
But, fine, let us suppose that morality is objective --- we can even go so far as to say that it is entirely so, and not at all a moving target. That doesn't necessarily mean that your moral compass, or even the compass of society at any given time, is correct --- even if you strongly feel that it should be. Ethics involves the careful and systematic study and consideration of morality. Words like "obvious" don't really have a place in ethics.
So while coerced sex, or prostitution, remains illegal there no matter the age, mere consensual sex with a 16-17 year-old is NOT "statutory rape" in Massachusetts. Not in that "blue" state, nor the 30 other U.S. states with the same age-of-consent, nor in Canada. Sleazy for those much older, sure, but not the "statutory rape" you're claiming.
But the specific allegation against Massachusetts-based Minsky involved a woman who 1st met Epstein at age 16, and may not have met Minsky until she was 17.
I believe the confusion is that you're using "pedophile" to mean "attracted to anyone below the age of consent" while pedophile originally means "attracted to prepubescent children". In that regard, you're most certainly not a pedophile if you're attracted to a 17 year old that has gone through puberty. That's also what RMS was referring to if I recall his email correctly.
Ask any 35 year old the same question. You'll get the same answer. There is no bright line where people are mature.
You never stop maturing, not at 40, not at 75 either.
You just have to pick a number, but don't pretend there is any scientific basis to it.
In a society which on one hand is prudish and on the other oversexualizing everything as a marketing plot including young children, it seems logical and expected to have this kind of issues.
Indeed, which is why we are discussing them. The resolution? Stop sexualizing teenage girls and pretending that they are anything other than children. That is my argument; call it prudish if you want.
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