By "stuff" I mean all the subsequent "revelations" about his character.

> So you did not read the medium blogpost that started this, at all?

So you meant the event where he tried to defend his deceased colleague? That "last straw"? How dare he.

"So you meant the event where he tried to defend his deceased colleague?"

Yes, that is what I mean. Because for some weird reason, women are sensitive to women being sexually exploited. And the Epstein topic is loaded.

It is not about that he defended him, it is about how.

And Epstein was convicted before.

"He was convicted of only these two crimes as part of a plea deal; federal officials had in fact identified 36 girls, some as young as 14 years old, whom Epstein had sexually abused"

Minsky did associate with him nevertheless. So whether there actually was sex or not ... if RMS says the most plausible sitution was that the women was "entirely willingly" .. is insensitive and stupid at least.

Because every sex abuser says the victim was willing. So if RMS uses then this exact argument, of course that triggers and backfires.

He didn't defend Epstein. Quite the opposite.

> Minsky did associate with him nevertheless.

Apparently, so did many, many other people. Very few of which have somehow been mentioned in this scandal.

Anyway, that is obviously reaching. Simply being in the vicinity of a known convict is not a reason for having a career destroyed. And Stallman himself wasn't there.

> is insensitive and stupid at least

Yes, well. It was. It doesn't mean that the following witch hunt was justified. People are entitled to being stupid somtimes.

> Because every sex abuser says the victim was willing.

Imagine yourself in a position where someone is saying your good friend of decades is a rapist. And there's some evidence that intercourse happened, but the details are unknown. And the friend is unable to defend himself. Would you keep silent?