How about a rational debate concerning factual things? I have allmost no background information, knew RMS only as the weird FSF guru .. and it is very hard for me to find facts. Most of the debate is about other stuff, than what actually happened.
edit: so apparently all of it started with this:
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
A rant by a female MIT student, offended by something she rad of RMS she did not know before. She writes very emotional, but much better, in terms of facts, than what vice etc. made out of it
Yes, RMS seems to be a sexist, unsensible at least, maybe not fit to lead such a position, but the media coverage about it is disgusting and misleading. But so is also some of the criticism of the women who started it. She seemed to be really upset about it and not just a "attention whore". Because there still is lots of sexism in the IT nerd world and being a man I can only try to understand what it means, when you try to show good computer work, but get sexually responses instead. So she reacts different, when she sees the sign on his door: " knights for justice (also hot ladies)" to which I would think, stupid maybe, but not to be taken too serious. But I am not a women. I do not have to avoid his office to not fear sexual mollesting, which apparently quite some students experienced.
its getting increasingly boring to have to engage with people who don't see the irony in a belief that they can be an objective observer of what is "factual" and "rational" in their lives.
> Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him.
> In response to a student pointing out that Giuffre was 17 when she was forced to have sex with Minsky in the Virgin Islands, Stallman said “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
These are totally reasonable things normal people say!
Vice is taking a quote of only two words out of context. Stallman was saying that Epstein was coercing his victims to present to Minsky that they were "entirely willing". Basically what pimps do. Stallman's argument was that Minsky was a victim of Epstein's pimping.
I don't agree at all with Stallman's conclusions or way of thinking (and from all the other independent reports of his behavior, he should have been reprimanded for his approaches decades ago), but Vice is just peddling pure yellow journalism, you can't trust their reporting.
Because, to that sentence:
“it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”
I would agree. I simply define "rape" as sex that was enforced, usually with physical violence or threat of it. Or maybe existential threats of other kind. Mixing that term with consensual sex with a 17 year old is not helpful to actual victims of rape, I believe. Consider a couple of both 17 ... all ok. Now one of them turns 18 and now their relationship is rape? That does not make sense. Now there is surely a difference between 17 with 18 and 17 with 70, but I really believe it is not the same category as "rape". Exploitive maybe, depending on the situation. And if in the concrete situation it was actually not consensual, than it also actually might have been rape. I simply don't know that situation and trying to make sense of it. But that small sentence from RMS alone does not justify any witch hunt.
And to those claim:
"Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked."
I would like a actual quote from RMS, that he actually said that.
(Maybe this will end up with a second organization for Free software funded by a hefty settlement from Vice Media et al. One can hope!)
Let's consider the logical conclusions of "society" being able to inflict consequences upon someone if they speak an unpopular opinion.
If you're an individual human being, it's likely that you have at least one opinion about something that isn't inline with the overarching culture. The particular issue of Epstein or Stallman or whomever is irrelevant; while you may agree with the mob in this case, next week or next month you might not. Under your proposition, that leaves you with three options:
1. Keep your opinion to yourself and refrain from telling anyone for fear of reprisal. In other words, self-censorship.
2. Changing your opinion to match society's, out of fear of being ostracized.
3. Expressing your opinion and then having your personal or professional life ruined, or at the very least, affected to the point where you suffer financially, mentally, emotionally, or socially.
Which of those three options sounds beneficial to you?
Further, all of your "options" sound amazing if what the person is doing is calling human trafficking victims "willing." It turns out that there is a difference between good and bad things. AND it's actually possible to determine which is which!
This notion that a social technology such as public opinion can be used in a negative way is not some sort of revelation. Weapons only have the morality of those that deploy them. Just as we must decry immoral use we must also celebrate moral use, otherwise we'll be living in a society where people can claim that victims of sexual violence were "willing."
Please stop spreading this misinformation. As explained in this thread countless times, Stallman never called the victim "willing" -- he just said she might have been threatened into looking like she is.
But.
I think its really important for people making this sort of argument to deal with the fact that public people who make public statements do not get to control how those things are taken. In much the same way that your production as an artist isn't entirely yours when you release it to the public, RMS' actions have consequences outside of what he may have meant. I for one dont think for a moment that he means to justify human trafficking. But what he did do what make a statement that can be taken as victim blaming. This is very, very dangerous and there should be consequences.
> 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.
It's pretty clear to me that he acknowledges the victim to be a victim, who has to deal with threats and coercion __in addition to__ sexual assault. He just argued that Minsky might not have known what was going on, which has nothing to do with what the victim actually felt.
The only people who interpreted this as victim-blaming are the media outlets who straight up lie in their headlines. Here's Vice:
> Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'
Stallman does have a responsibility to ensure he cannot be reasonably misinterpreted, but this headline is a blatant lie.
In a world where wilful misinterpretation was not somehow weaponised I would agree with you, but that is not this world. This norm would leave every PR person completely at the mercy of any enemies they are unlucky enough to make.
1) there are material consequences for "expressing an unpopular opinion." some of which aren't up to the person expressing them. 2) those determining the consequences, such as the organizations that let RMS go, are and should be allowed the freedom to self-govern in this way. they are well within their right to refuse to be associated with people who say these things.
But that isn't what is happening. There is no reasonable discussion. There isn't even any attempt to understand the complexity and nuance of a situation. It's simply: you're gone. It's mob politics 101 and anyone familiar with political history has seen it time and time again.
The main consequence of this mentality will be that organizations like MIT will be filled with yes-men/women and those that toe the intellectual line. And subsequently the real losers will be society and MIT.
I sure know better than to redefine the moral value of rape in a corporate mailing list, but heh, who would want to horribly self censor their every brain farts, surely not heroic stallman, defender of free speech and provider of no value.
That's totally bogus, and I think you should consider the consequences that your speech is already having on the people around you.
Personally I love the guy and his weird contributions to the field. But how can you look at this and not think "wow thats not ok to say" no matter what we can consider he may have meant after the fact?
I read what he wrote, and i DO think it's okay to say. Further more i think it's RIGHT to have said it, publicly, especially by a person of his standing.
It took an incredible amount of courage and determination for rms to have the impact that he's had on the world.
And now, he's been cancelled.
This is a bad sign.
Comparison with lynching seems fair to me.
All of this got me thinking about creating, you know, accepting tech community where everyone is free to express their own opinions. I'm personally fine with my code being called shit and me being called dumbass for a good measure, just tell me what you really think and we'll sort things out faster instead sugar-coating stuff to not hurt my ego.
No one dislikes Stallman on the basis of the color of his skin, and no one is murdering him. The use is a grossly inappropriate metaphor that diminishes the real meaning of the word.
To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry.
(Law) (tr) (of a mob) to punish (a person) for some supposed offence by hanging without a trial.
Nothing about racism here. The only thing that doesn't apply to Stallman is that he has not been hanged. That's quite important one. Though words are sometimes used not in their literary meaning (like "I'm killing it" -- well hopefully not).
BTW from what I've gathered this entire thing happened because Stallman was pedantic and has written something along "let's be precise with words, I think what happened was not rape, but statuatory rape because of such and such".
Here's a radical supposition: it's actually good when speech has consequences in society.