It’s pretty clear to me that the subtext of his “precision” is to make it clear that one is less bad than the other. Just look at literally every other person on twitter/hn/Reddit who has made the same helpful clarification.

Also, even if I’m willing to accept that precision is the reason he made that point (and I’m not), it adds nothing and at best serves to show how smart he is.

Like I mean honestly what changes once you realize it’s technically hebephilia and not pedophilia?

> It’s pretty clear to me that the subtext of his “precision” is to make it clear that one is less bad than the other. Just look at literally every other person on twitter/hn/Reddit who has made the same helpful clarification.

True, I'm not sure I really agree with that either. Pedophilia or any other sexual attraction isn't something you can control, as far as I'm aware, so as long as you don't actually act on it, they are not really better or worse than another.

> Like I mean honestly what changes once you realize it’s technically hebephilia and not pedophilia?

Actually, I had forgotten which term meant what, I was thinking of ephebophilia.

Are you going to tell me that you view sexual intercourse with a 6 year old as being the same as sexual intercourse with a 16 year old? If so, we can stop here.

If not, then here's what changes: if you tell me someone is a pedophile, I'm going to assume that their primary sexual interest is pre-pubescent children. That's the definition of the word, and I tend to generally assume that people mean what they say. It bothers me when you use the wrong word here, because it conveys the wrong impression. It's not about showcasing intelligence. It's about calling things what they are, to facilitate accurate communication. RMS is by all accounts even more pedantic about words than I am, so it's hardly surprising to me that he would make this distinction.

But hey, even if you don't believe in a difference in severity, there's still a difference between saying "this guy is sexually interested in pre-pubescent children" and "this guy is sexually interested in teenagers". Even if both are deemed equally offensive they are just flat out different --- and one is mis-information.

Because it's applying the terminology of scientific discourse to casual conversation, kind of like nitpicking a minor spelling, typographical, or grammatical error and using that as an excuse to negate an otherwise substantive comment.

Demanding a certain level of precision when the loose terminology isn't being used in bad faith comes off as an attempt to exert control over the terms of the conversation like a teacher or debate judge. It's insensitive at best and obnoxious at worst.

Obviously if the conversation is an actual legal or scientific debate precision and rigorous consistency are more acceptable, but that's by mutual agreement of all participants.

I understand that it's annoying if someone does this all the time but I don't see how it would be offensive. I'm pretty sure RMS is autistic, and he's known to be obsessed about using words as precisely as possible.

So am I, and to be honest I haven't appreciated RMS' self-indulgent refusal to consider any other point of view but his own.

There isn't a lot of point distinguishing the categories unless you want to bang minors (or defend people banging minors, or defend/consume certain subsets of child pornography, etc, etc), so arguing about the category difference just makes you look like a pedophile or at best an idiot.