So Stallman's argument was that the most plausible scenario here is this: Minksy -- who at the time of these events had to at least have been in his sixties, not to mention, you know, married -- went over to Jeffrey Epstein's mansion, where Epstein presented a teenage girl to him for the purposes of having sex (the claim she makes is that she was ordered by Epstein to sleep with "powerful men"), and because the girl didn't explicitly say she had been ordered to do so, Minsky was fine with it all.

So, are we saying this is a particularly good defense? Because it doesn't sound like a great defense to me. It doesn't sound like any reasonably smart person -- which Minsky undoubtedly was -- would find themselves in this situation and not have a question or two about the ethics.

Let's agree that the reporting did, in fact, get Stallman's meaning wrong here. Let's even agree that isn't a subtle difference. Here's the thing: even the most generous reading of what Stallman wrote is still, at the end of the day, excusing Minsky's actions.

And at the end of the day, I think that's still a problem.

Refer to my comment below. This wasn't a judgment statement. I'm not defending Stallman.

I'm simply saying he failed at the task of correctly parsing this statement in a way that is clearly causing him to misunderstand the story.

> This isn't a subtle difference.

Thanks. You're right, it isn't, but the gaslighting had me doubting my own sanity for a moment there.

The thing is, this one statement is ... tolerable. A bit in poor taste as far as apologia goes.

But then to have a long track record of disagreeing with age of consent; semantic arguments about pedophilia; treating women with disrespect and general creepiness-- it eventually gets to be too much.

Any time you have to say 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.

After having said this:

> 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.

You've really screwed up, IMO. https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html

That is, once you've fucked up with pedo-apologia a few too many times, maybe it's time to be really, really careful in what you say in defense of a colleague's possibly questionable sexual actions.

How many disagreeable opinions do you personally allow someone to have before you believe it correct for people to try to coerce other people to stop doing business with them so you can silence them exactly?

That question of your is kinda in bad faith, though isn't it? There's no reasonable answer to that question. The answer is, of course, "it depends".

I would not want to work for a CEO who believed for years that "voluntary pedophilia" doesn't harm children. If I were someone at the FSF with any amount of power, and I found out about that, I would immediately work to get him ousted, or, failing that, I'd quit.

And it's not like this is the only thing he's done; he's been creating a hostile environment for women at MIT for decades. It's about time he was held to account for that, too.

You should care about what people do not what they think.

So, do you think, for instance, FSF donors and contributors should be compelled to keep working with the FSF even if they find the statements of the president of the FSF to be repugnant?

A key reason behind him stepping down is because the GNOME folks wanted to part ways with the FSF over these issues.

I'm curious about this point. If I don't do business with some company, am I silencing someone? Or only when I don't do business with a company for some specific reason?

Now, say I tweet about my boycott of this company. Am I now silencing someone?

Since we're discussing the fine details here, can you tell me exactly when my freedom of speech becomes a tool to coerce and silence others in this scenario?

How many people do you want to force into doing business with someone they find repugnant?

It's certainly sad seeing Stallman condemned and called autistic low EQ by people when it's they that lack reading comprehension.

I don't see how that's materially different. It still amounts to "Stallman thinks it's acceptable to rape a child in certain circumstances."

I'm not defending Stallman or commenting on what he thinks is acceptable or not, in any way.

But surely, if you are saying what he said is bad, it must matter whether he said some thing, or it's exact opposite.

Or is this the Schrodinger's cats of statements where it and it's inverse are both totally and equally intolerable?