Re:Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF
by bitwize on Monday March 22, 2021 @11:15AM
(#26542010)
1) Stallman was attempting to morally distinguish sex with a minor who was being coerced by a third party with rape or assault. He wasn't saying that the former is right, only that it's less bad than the latter, and that the distinction is important. You can say "he shouldn't have approached such a radioactive topic" but the moral philosopher in Stallman compelled him to; not addressing it meant conceding defeat to people who conflate less bad actions with worse actions for their own gain. For example, to name one closer to Stallman's wheelhouse: conflating copyright infringement with theft. Or piracy. The very fact that sexual offenses are radioactive provides ample opportunity for information and context to be lost about the nature and severity of a deed, and this has dire real-world consequences for people. People end up on sex-offender registries for life for relatively innocuous offenses like peeing on the side of the road or being that weird kid who tried to kiss a girl in his elementary school class. Do you think the report of the offense will say "oh yeah, he was a weird kid who didn't know how to act appropriately around girls back in the fifth grade, but a talking to from the principal set him straight"? No, it will say "INDCNT ASSAULT, VICTIM UNDER 12". What do you think that means to anyone reading the report? Like a neighbor, landlord, or employer? That's why these moral distinctions are important.
2) At least two eyewitnesses, including Minsky's widow, claimed that Minsky turned down Epstein's girl. He only took money from Epstein back before it was widely known that Epstein was a perv. At what point do we say "let's not drag Minsky's name any further through the mud"? Should we disbelieve these accounts because #BelieveAllWomen? Should we assume that Minsky did in fact have sex with Epstein's girl because of a "context" in which Minsky's friends and associates are known, or thought, or assumed, to have done likewise? Should we adopt a Wikipedia-like standard of evidence wherein the abridged, quoted out of context, sometimes heavily distorted press accounts are considered more authoritative than reports from people who were there?
2) At least two eyewitnesses, including Minsky's widow, claimed that Minsky turned down Epstein's girl. He only took money from Epstein back before it was widely known that Epstein was a perv. At what point do we say "let's not drag Minsky's name any further through the mud"? Should we disbelieve these accounts because #BelieveAllWomen? Should we assume that Minsky did in fact have sex with Epstein's girl because of a "context" in which Minsky's friends and associates are known, or thought, or assumed, to have done likewise? Should we adopt a Wikipedia-like standard of evidence wherein the abridged, quoted out of context, sometimes heavily distorted press accounts are considered more authoritative than reports from people who were there?