[etchalon]

His argument wasn't difficult to understand, and I accepted it in good faith.

He believed the term "sexual assault" should be reserved for those cases where content was affirmatively withdrawn, and physical violence was used.

He believed that the broadening of term would lead people to believe someone accused of "sexual assault" was guilty of the most morally reprehensible version of the crime imaginable (formal withdrawal of consent combined with physical force).

In this specific case, he believed that his friend hadn't committed "sexual assault", under his preferred definition, and found it more plausible that his friend thought the victim was willing, or was lead to believe she was.

It's a pedantic defense.

[saagarjha]

I disagree with your interpretation, so clearly it's not as simple as you are laying it out to be. I did interpret it the same as this:

> In this specific case, he believed that his friend hadn't committed "sexual assault", under his preferred definition, and found it more plausible that his friend thought the victim was willing, or was lead to believe she was.

but I disagree on how I think he is describing sexual assault. I think he brings up violence and withdrawal of consent as what he believes most people think when they imagine sexual assault (without actually defining it as limited to those categories). He seems to believe that it is possible that his friend was mislead, which he then laments is not the situation most people think of when they hear "sexual assault" (which conjures up active malice). This is kind of what you are saying, but the big difference here is that I think his main point was more "I think the words being used describe Minsky as doing something he did not do" and less "I think what he did was right".

[etchalon]

I did not imply that he said, or believed, that what Minsky did was "right", and I fail to see how your interpretation is any different than mine.

[mixmastamyk]

I'll be a little more blunt because you two seem to be incapable of subtlety.

The dictionary definition of assault is "a violent attack, or threat of..." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assault

Neither of those things happened according to our current, best knowledge, or at the time of the statements.

At best, we can say a third-party did the threatening beforehand. A third-party that was neither Minsky or Stallman.

To clarify further, assault does not mean... "ooh, I did something bad and failed to verify something I'm required to, but didn't want to, because reasons…". Expanding the definition of assault to include any poor behavior under the sun (in order to score virtue/outrage points) does not help anyone.

IANAL, and until we know more, I'd say a more accurate term for Minsk's misdeeds would be statutory-rape and perhaps "negligence."

[etchalon]

You're making the exact same argument the RMS made, using the same logical construction that I laid down as being the argument RMS made, while arguing that I do not understand RMS's point.

I understood his point. I understood your point. I find the point to be pedantic.

[mixmastamyk]

You're not the only one here? And pedantry is rather immaterial in the long run.

Stallman certainly fits the bill, but when it is time to render a judgement we all need to focus on the details. We need to render a judgement on what actually happened, not what quick-to-outrage folks imagined happened. Details matter here.

A few people appear to believe that when something very bad happens we need to expand culpability to include everyone in the neighborhood who's not sufficiently condemning. I hope it is a minority viewpoint.

[etchalon]

If you would like to make a point that isn't a direct rebuttal to mine, it is possible to start your own thread, and make your point there.

As it stands, you seem to agree that RMS' point was pedantic.