[forclarity]

> I learned last night that Richard M. Stallman (RMS) has articles about him on Vice that are narrowly focused on some of his weighing in on the Epstein case.

If you mean https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient..., please note that that article misconstrues what was said.

Both the headline and the article claim that Stallman said Giuffre was "entirely willing;" a read of the provided emails shows otherwise. He said that she probably appeared to Minsky to be "entirely willing;" that Minsky would have been unaware of coercion, not that there was none.

There are absolutely things to object to in what he said, but we should be objecting to what he said, not the words some (apparently) shoddy journalists are putting in his mouth.

[champagnois]

The bigger picture was that these moral crusades create an environment in which few are willing to openly discuss the facts, what lines are crossed, their thoughts on those lines, etc.

I abstain from defending RMS, but it is amazing to me how damaging these moral crusades are. I wonder if my feelings currently are similar to those of the public audience during a witch trial. If the imaginary members of the audience stood up to say that the witchness is a bit absurd, they too would be accused of some relationship to dark magic, etc.

Don't you feel, to some extent, worried that by discussing Stallman's comments and their nuance, you yourself may one day be roasted in the same way the RMS is?

Its incredible.