[margalabargala]

> defense of Jeffrey Epstein himself

Do you have a link for this? What I recall of that whole scenario was that Stallman said something fairly minor regarding Minsky, and the nuance of the words written were lost on the mob and he was accused of saying something worse than that.

I'm not aware of him providing any defense of Epstein himself.

[elif]

"argued in an email thread last week that Marvin Minskey, the late AI pioneer and longtime MIT professor, was unfairly accused of sexual assault and that one of the underage girls in Epstein’s sex trafficking operation likely presented herself as “entirely” willing to have sex"

MIT scientist Richard Stallman resigns in the wake of his Jeffrey Epstein remarks https://share.google/L9w5zAnDjbvnrWhex

[margalabargala]

Yes, that is the Minsky comment I mentioned that apparently renders people illiterate and incapable of understanding what they read.

What Stallman said is "the people who were trafficked, probably did not tell the people they were trafficked to, that they were being trafficked and were there unwillingly."

I don't see how saying that is a "defense of Jeffrey Epstein".

[elif]

"Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.

Through personal conversations in recent years, I’ve learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per1 psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.

Children: Humans up to age 12 or 13 are children. After that, they become adolescents or teenagers. Let’s resist the practice of infantilizing teenagers, by not calling them “children”."

THESE ARE THE WORDS RICHARD STALLMAN POSTED ON HIS OWN WEBSITE WITHOUT BEING PROMPTED.

please defend this. i really really want to see you stoop this low.

EDIT: OKAY i'm being DOWNVOTED for bringing these words to light. officially y'all are now covering up for child sex criminals. Sickening.

[elif]

or am i "not understanding his meaning" here somehow again?

[margalabargala]

Look, we know you think you understand what you think you read.

It's just that you don't seem to realize that what you perennially appear to have understood, is not what anyone wrote.

[margalabargala]

Why would I defend that? That part's pretty cut and dry.

Him posting that doesn't have anything to do with you telling lies about defending Epstein. Both are shitty.

Is it now appropriate for me to tell lies about you defending Epstein, because you did something shitty (falsely accusing others of defending Epstein)?

[elif]

I'll explain instead of just adding the easily discoverable quote.

He is assigning the blame to Epstein's victims.

[tzs]

How is that assigning the blame to Epstein's victims?

The scenario being described was that Epstein was ordering some of his victims, who were ostensibly employed as masseuses at his resort, to go and offer sex to specific people who were at an event taking place there.

You don't keep a sex trafficking operation going as long as he did if you don't coerce victims in that situation to play along with the story that they are masseuses and that the offer of sex is coming from them.

[elif]

"the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing"

if you dont understand what that is saying, i can't help you.

[lelanthran]

> "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing"

You can't see the difference between "she presented herself to him as entirely willing" and "she was entirely willing"?

Stallman may be a dick, but at least he's precise with his speech - this means exactly what it says, and in no way means what you want it to mean.

[margalabargala]

I fear you are the one who does not understand what that is saying.

"The trafficked person did not reveal they were being trafficked, because they were trapped on an island with their abuser and were afraid".

This is not blaming the victim, nor a defense of the abuser.

[elif]

In statutory child rape, it does not matter in any way or any context what the behavior of the victim was.

[mikkupikku]

He's saying that Marvin Minsk might not have known that he was on pedo entrapment island and may have assumed a teenage girl was of age. Telling the entrapment targets the deal up front wouldn't be very smart. This is not blaming the girls, it was Epstein's setup.

[elif]

"I thought she was not a child" is never a defense for raping a child.

[elif]

here's the quote you didn't want to include

“We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing,” Stallman added. “Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.”

[margalabargala]

Didn't want to include? That's the quote I'm referring to.

"Sex trafficker probably told the people he trafficked not to tell anyone that they were being trafficked. Trafficked people trapped on an island with their abuser may have done as they were told out of fear." Obviously.

I don't see how that statement is a defense of Epstein, or victim blaming.

[elif]

victim blaming is categorically defense of the actual perpetrator.

[margalabargala]

Sure. So if victim blaming had happened, then that would be a defense of the perpetrator.

But it didn't, so it isn't.