[thematrixturtle]

If you read what RMS actually wrote, it's kind of hard to disagree with the line of argument:

"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".

Of course, it was incredibly tone deaf to write this out in a thread about Epstein no less, and promptly got twisted into "RMS advocates raping little children".

[pessimizer]

What he was really guilty of was sharing his opinions on a dangerous subject when he really had nothing interesting or original to add. He might as well complain about the speed limit on a particular road being 65 instead of 75. We set standards and conventions to keep order.

And while I completely approve of RMS, that argument works just as well for 10 year olds and has often been made. Listen to screaming Gajdusek about his right (or even duty) to have sex with consenting children at the end of The Genius and the Boys.[0] Maybe when RMS said it, he set an age in his mind of some precocious post-pubescent teenager. Whatever his mental imagery was, it was just as arbitrary as the law.

We set a standard to give kids a bit of runway before they are a legitimate object of the desires and efforts of adult men (and women.) 18 is fine, it gives them a little time. 17 would probably be fine, too. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be 19. But it is what it is.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OxppDxzSww

[Mezzie]

> Maybe when RMS said it, he set an age in his mind of some precocious post-pubescent teenager.

As somebody who recently had to go back and reread a lot of rms related discourse after several years not thinking about him, I think it's also worth pointing out that he was, in fact, echoing what precocious post-pubescent teenagers were saying and that those are both a.) the only children rms is likely to have encountered routinely and b.) they are edge cases that rms is (due to his own history) likely to over-identify with.

I was one of those kids, and it was actually highly uncomfortable to read his words years later and recognize arguments I made online as a child/teenager.

I will also say that, from my end, most of those conversations were less about my wanting to engage in sexual activity with adults as a teenager (or vice versa), and it was more about sex being the default example of why it was okay to shut children out of certain activities. As the web became monetized + part of the legal world (COPPA), people and projects were less willing to work with minors/allow minors to contribute. This produced tension with some of the minors who had been around for a while, and one of the groups that was the kindest to the kids (in the sense of letting us stick around in chats/etc. and contribute as long as we comported ourselves appropriately) were the FOSS/libre software + piracy communities since they already had a 'eh, whatever' attitude towards the law.

When we would argue that we had the knowledge, history, and agency to participate, forbidding sex was often the go-to counter-example of preventing children from doing what they wanted to do with adults for their own good. So being motivated, spiteful, intelligent children, we argued back and some adults (like apparently rms) agreed with us.

I only mention it because there is a difference between bringing up those arguments/statements unprompted and weighing in on an already on-going argument.

[ghaff]

A fair number of people also had significant issues with RMS behavior going back a long time. So when he indelicately stuck himself into the radioactive Epstein situation it was just the last straw for many.

[account42]

Or to phrase it another way: Some people who wanted RMS gone for a long time abused the opportunity to rally the mob against him.