[rosser]

I find the volume of the noise being made over whether or not the "entirely willing" bit was quoted out of context by the media for sensationalist purposes — which it 100% was — quite curious. To me, the place Stallman screwed up was in trying to quibble over terms in defense of a man who we have reason to believe had sex with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that might have constituted rape.

Because that's what it's about: he said, "But is it really?" — literally, in fact — about something which, for legal purposes, his opinion is irrelevant. To wit:

> Does it really? I think 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.

Stallman said that. He went there. He quibbled over whether something constituted rape, as if the Virgin Islands cares one whit what rms thinks of their laws. That's where he screwed up, and people in the thread said so at the time, too. So people now can try to make this shit-show about his being quoted out of context about "entirely willing" — which, again, it was — as much as they want, but that just won't make it so.

This is entirely about Stallman having quibbled over rape, not whether he was selectively quoted in the course of quibbling over rape.

EDIT: Phrasing

[dropit_sphere]

>Stallman quibbled over the definition of rape.

Hell yes he did. Wouldn't you? If I made my own country where "rape" was defined as "sex without first doing twenty jumping jacks," wouldn't you "quibble"?

>everyone admits knowingly slept with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that constituted rape.

So what? I drove 37 in a 35 today, who cares? You can't outsource your morality to the legal system like that.

If Minsky did something bad, say he did something bad. But don't launder your outrage through the VI's laws.

[nullc]

> If Minsky did something bad, say he did something bad. But don't launder your outrage through some country's laws.

It's hard for anyone to do that because virtually everything on this is speculation. The whole thing about Minsky stems from a single sentence in a recently unsealed enormous deposition ( https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/1159946492871938048 ) where one of Epstein's victims included Minsky in a list of people that epstein's assistant directed her to have sex with. She wasn't asked if sex actually happened with Minsky, and didn't claim it did, she was asked about the dates and couldn't recall.

A witness who claims to be present reported Minsky turning her down and complaining about the advance, additionally on the date that conference was held-- in 2002, Epstein's victim was 18. ( https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ )

But since there are essentially no facts, not even concrete allegations-- people seem to feel free to make up their own version of events which are exactly as awful or harmless as they want them to be.

.... God save you if your imagination comes out different from the angry mob's and you dare share it with others.

Because Minksky has been dead for a few years there doesn't seem to be much interest in actually setting the facts straight, but there seems to be a lot of interest in using it as an excuse to be abusive to fellow humans.

[rosser]

Really?

You're going to make a moral comparison between a minor traffic violation (not even a primary offense!) and having sex with a coerced child?

[sincerely]

Either you tie morality to legality, or you don't.

[CathedralBorrow]

Are there any available positions in between these polar opposites?

[sincerely]

No

[rosser]

It's not that simple. There are plenty of places where the sets "things that are legal" and "things that are moral" don't intersect. Those are some of the most interesting, challenging questions we will face.

EDIT: And I would submit the offered example illustrates that. Doing two miles per hour over the posted speed limit may not be legal, but it's hardly immoral. Similarly, lying to someone to sway their opinions in an argument isn't illegal, but I don't think that's particularly moral, is it?

Don't be so reductive.

[selestify]

That appears to be the whole point the person you were replying to was making -- that the two are only loosely correlated.

[rosser]

Oh, the jumping jacks thing was supposed to have been taken as an actual argument? Because my response to that was, "I wouldn't go there."

[heisenbit]

I don‘t think it was ‚a man‘ but a close fellow scientist who is dead and can‘t stand up for himself. Which is one reason RMS did not stay away from this fire and one making him speak his own mind - ignoring the other hats he was wearing (but using a lecturing voice). On the one hand it makes it harder to condemn. On the other it is a failure that can‘t be tolerated by high profile figureheads.

[armitron]

> the place Stallman screwed up was in trying to quibble over terms in defense of a man who we have reason to believe had sex with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that might have constituted rape.

This is where you jump to conclusions and become a part of this charade. All we have are unsubstantiated allegations that do not even say definitively that sex took place. And just based on that, your and the mob's conclusion is "we have reason to believe" ?

I agree with Stallman and everyone else who is extremely skeptical and advises caution. Alas, the mob is out for blood.

[rosser]

You know what, dude? I really, really hope it is just an allegation. I want desperately for it not to be the case that Minsky got sucked into Epstein's shitty web. But the deposition we've seen so far is just that: the only one we've seen so far.

That said, and this is key, none of this is about whether or not Minsky did anything. Assuming he did, it isn't even about whether it was with a minor, or a woman of legal age. It's about Stallman having decided that was a prudent moment and subject about which to "Well actually..." at the world. The whole point is Stallman's behavior, not Minsky's.

In all seriousness: what the actual fuck does Richard Stallman's opinion on what does or doesn't constitute rape matter? Why would he think that was a point that needed his quibbling? Maybe that's the judgement under question.

[mtrower]

> In all seriousness: what the actual fuck does Richard Stallman's opinion on what does or doesn't constitute rape matter? Why would he think that was a point that needed his quibbling? Maybe that's the judgement under question.

I mean he didn't just jump in with it out of nowhere. Discussion had already been started, and someone brought up both her age and the location, and declared it as therefore rape (__rape__, with emphasis). This communication was directed at RMS himself, as a rebuttal (bordering on dismissal) to his stance; RMS responded to it, each point in turn.

[reirob]

Maybe because he didn't self-censor himself?

P.S.: Sorry, but I couldn't help being sarcastic...

[mantap]

Because he has autism.

[rosser]

So do I. I learned a long damned time ago how counterproductive it usually was to butt into conversations to, "Well, actually..." at people.

[mantap]

Stallman is probably a little bit further along the spectrum than you then.

This is a man who commiserated someone for having a baby because it would distract them from emacs development. He has been playing social minesweeper for decades and finally lost.