Richard Stallman Resigns From MIT (vice.com) 725
Multiple Slashdotters are reporting the unfortunate news that famed free software advocate and computer scientist Richard Stallman has resigned from MIT. Slashdot reader iamacat writes: Following outrage over his remarks about Jefferey Epstein's victims, Richard Stallman has resigned from his position in MIT, effective immediately. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him -- even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon. "I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT," Stallman wrote in an email, referring to MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. "I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations."
Stallman also resigned as president from the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as well as from the organization's board of directors, FSF announced shortly after.
Stallman also resigned as president from the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as well as from the organization's board of directors, FSF announced shortly after.
Summary (Score:4, Informative)
Context: In a recently unsealed deposition a woman testified that, at the age of 17, Epstein told her to have sex with Marvin Minsky. Minsky was a founder of the MIT Media Lab and pioneer in A.I. who died in 2016. Stallman argued on a mailing list (in response to a statement from a protest organizer accusing Minsky of sexual assault) that, while he condemned Epstein, Minsky likely did not know she was being coerced:
Some SJW responded by writing a Medium post called "Remove Richard Stallman [archive.is]". Media outlets like Vice [archive.is] and The Daily Beast [archive.is] then lied and misquoted Stallman as saying that the woman was likely "entirely willing" and as "defending Epstein". He has now been pressured to resign from MIT [stallman.org]
Furthermore the deposition doesn't say she had sex with Minsky, only that Epstein told her to do so, and according to physicist Greg Benford she propositioned Minsky and he turned her down [archive.is]:
This seems like a complete validation of the distinction Stallman was making. If what Minsky knew doesn't matter, if there's no difference between "Minsky sexually assaulted a woman" and "Epstein told a 17-year-old to have sex with Minsky without his knowledge or consent", then why did he turn her down?
Re:Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not going to stop a PR disaster unless they do fire them. That's what being a social justice warrior is all about: Mass shaming.
Re: Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Once the Soc Justice crowd gets a taste of blood they'll want a pound of flesh, then more.
There's really no winning against outrage mobs; all you can do is tell them to fuck off
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt this is about SJWs (Score:5, Insightful)
By all accounts Epstein's operation was an open secret. The guy's private plane was literally nicknamed the "Lolita Express" [thecut.com]. Ordinarily the Epstein case would dominate news. It's a sex scandal involving pedophiles.
But, well, the super rich are involved. As is several top folk at MIT. They want this buried. This is like Fight Club. You Do Not Talk About Fight Club. That's the rule Stallman broke. Not some SJW nonsense. Stallman just broke the wound open. Thanks to him we're talking about MIT and Epstein again.
Like Assange and Snowden he done just fucked with the wrong people. He's lucky he gets to disappear quietly.
Re: Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
They persuaded Stallman to resign, even though: probably a vast majority of the world would not fall to the SJWs' shenanigans --- they were able to exert influence of a small community and then mass-distribute a bogus message using certain media with minimal resistance.
Re: Summary (Score:4, Informative)
You might try actually reading the stories RMS was linking to [theguardian.com] before you choke yourself clutching your pearls.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Summary (Score:4, Funny)
Wait, the prior poster said Eich "made enormous, deep contributions to the existence of the internet as we know it." Now you're saying he created JavaScript.
Which is it???
The Shaming has to End (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not going to stop a PR disaster unless they do fire them. That's what being a social justice warrior is all about: Mass shaming.
Point and shame. That's how you destroy careers and the standards of excellence that makes a nation. No evidence required, don't bother reading the deposition, the personal is the political, ad hominem attacks from beginning to end for defending someone (Minsky) that wasn't accused of anything.
With metoo backfiring so that men don't trust being alone in an office with a woman, feminism is looking a lot like a hate movement with the way they throw accusations of sex crime around in order to get their hit of indignation to maintain their moral superiority. Guilt by association, career destroyed, court of opinion adjourned.
Considering what RMS contributed not only to freedom but economic wealth you can see these people don't care who they destroy and it doesn't matter if you are innocent of all charges once your reputation is destroyed. Getting even isn't equality.
That's why this shaming of men must end.
Re:The Shaming has to End (Score:5, Interesting)
There is another reason this must end.
If they piss off men long enough, they're going to hit back with real patriarchy.
I mean just look at MGTOW... Instead of just being careful when choosing a mate, as they should have been taught to be anyway, they're just going in the opposite extreme. A considerable pool of men deciding to be bachelors is neither good for those men psychologically, nor is it good for the species.
The backlash will be just as dumb as what we're seeing right now. This is a social equivalent of England and France laying the groundwork for the second world war in Versailles.
The eradication of accountability is going to come back to haunt us for decades to come.
Re:The Shaming has to End (Score:4, Interesting)
A considerable pool of men deciding to be bachelors is neither good for those men psychologically, nor is it good for the species.
I'm pretty sure studies have found that single men have better mental health than married men, but poorer physical health.
Re:The Shaming has to End (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure studies have found that single men have better mental health than married men, but poorer physical health.
Depends on who you marry (no, seriously). If you are as choosy as the ladies are, you find yourself far better off in the long run.
Re:Patriarchy (Score:5, Interesting)
Never had a female president in the US
Last time I looked more than half the US population is female and President is elected, so how is that a sign of the patriarchy?
the vast majority of corporate management is male
Studies have shown that men are more willing to put career ahead of family in an effort to move up the ranks. What is stopping women from doing the same thing?
women are paid less for equal work
This has been debunked in numerous studies. Women are not paid less for equal work but are paid less in general precisely because they don't do equal work and because during salary negotiations at hiring time they are, on average, less forceful in demanding a higher starting salary.
These reports claiming otherwise are looking solely at titles - oh Jane the Jr. Java Developer makes less than Joe the Jr. Java Developer, obviously the company is paying women less.
Let's not consider, however, that Jane only works 9-4 so she can be home with her kids, won't pull weekend duties or be on call late night, whereas Joe is in at 7, leaves at 6, works on weekends to meet deadlines and carries a pager 1 week out of 4. Also, let's not consider that when being hired Joe negotiated up from the offered $68k start to a starting salary of $75k as a base and Jane simply accepted the offered $68k.
Both were given the exact same opportunities, but Joe works harder, more hours and was willing to negotiate a hgher starting wage.
But let's not let facts get in the way of a good attack narrative shall we?
they cannot be priests
Yes they can in many denominations, maybe not yours but others.
huge percentages of them have been raped
huge is an overstatement, studies show it around 20%. Also if you look at the statistics [wikipedia.org] not all rapes are against women and not all rapes of women are by men.
and the list goes on
As does the continued mis-information campaign.
Re:Patriarchy (Score:5, Informative)
I would also like to add to your stats. Men in USA are raped more often and more brutally than women are. Yes, prison rape counts.
Re:Patriarchy (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Patriarchy (Score:4, Interesting)
No, we're not.
And I doubt that we have been for quite a while.
There have always been, and there will always be, women who are under the thumbs of men. Some men do judge based on gender. MOST men work off of a bias that is well deserved and WILL allow for for outliers.
The times where a woman could not be a car mechanic are WAY behind us. And even back then, it wasn't the patriarchy that told them this job wasn't proper for them. There were enough fathers even in the 19th century who taught their daughters some things considered a man's job.
Most of the time the ones holding women back are other women. If a woman dares to be a housewife just watch who exactly it is that tries to tell her that she is living her life wrong.
Conversely when a man suffers mentally, just watch who it is who tells him to man up and not be a wet towel. It ain't women.
Patriarchy is a stupid strawman. There was always a divide between the powerful and the rest. Most of the powerfuls were men but they didn't amass the power with their dicks. They amassed it either through familial opportunities or by being extraordinary (either gifted or ruthless).
You can be a man all you want and go to Harvard all you want, if you don't get to know the right people, you'll never escape the 99%. You'll live at a comfortably high level in those 99% but that's it. Your dick won't help you cross that line. Only connections can do that.
Re:Patriarchy (Score:4, Informative)
Nope.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/t... [cbsnews.com]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/S... [wsj.com]
And we haven't had a female president because a qualified one hasn't come forward. Comparing the United States to Saudi Arabia in terms of "patriarchy" is a disingenuous ploy to prop up your failed narrative.
Re:The Shaming has to End (Score:5, Insightful)
SJWs are a very loud minority... I blame the press that makes their screeching into headlines and the polititians who make those headlines into policy.
Re:The Shaming has to End (Score:4, Insightful)
The sorts of men who see men targeted unjustly by #MeToo (I'm thinking Aziz Ansari, not Weinstein) and decide "oh shit, I better watch out and not be alone with women" are not the harassers. The harassers want to be alone with women so they can harass them. The men who decide not to risk being alone with women are non-harassers trying to protect themselves from false or confused accusations.
Re:The Shaming has to End (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Shaming has to End (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Shaming has to End (Score:4, Insightful)
Kavanaugh had at least as much to answer to as Al Franken, .
Utter bullshit.
There were pictures of Franken misbehaving. Kavanaugh had a political operative that couldn't remember anything about the situation making unsubstantiated allegations that anyone could have conjured out of thin air.
Re:First deal with the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Feminism wasn't supposed to be about hate. It was supposed to be about equality. But somewhere along the line it got to be about man-blaming and -shaming. Now even the feminists who don't want to blame men for everything need guards when they speak on college campuses, and some students feel a need to retreat to safe spaces where no one will challenge their ideas.
Between that and the white knights who think they're supposed to sweep in and save all the women (for themselves!) I refuse to call myself a feminist. The name itself is sexist. That doesn't stop me from speaking up on behalf of women, as my posting history will attest. But they don't generally need me to speak for them, either. I'm not the spokesman for women, just for not treating anyone as an inherent inferior.
Here's a bulletin specifically for you, though: SHAMING. DOESN'T. HELP. It doesn't matter who you are shaming, or for what. Most will deliberately double down on shitty behavior, which after all has brought them this far, hasn't it? The majority of the remainder will just feel bad about themselves, which will just make them more abusive.
Prevent the guilty from doing more harm. But also understand why they became what they are without dehumanizing them, so that we can better understand how to avoid more people engaging in the same behavior. Abuse begets abuse.
Re:First deal with the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
I've found that perception to be extremely degrading to women, and inherently sexist. It basically assumes the inferiority, or at least the weakness, of women while trying to push the viewpoint that they are not.
I've long believed that the correct way to treat people is to empower everyone. As a society, we should seek to maximize opportunity of all, focusing on the individuals with the least opportunity. We should not categorize and classify people in this pursuit--if those with the least opportunity are primarily one race or gender, then so be it, but we're not being prejudiced in the attempt.
Any time we setup an expectation that one group of people is better or needs help, we set expectations deep within the human psyche. And we have ample evidence that the outcomes are not good, both in systematic racism as well as studies and exercises:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If we treat people as individuals and all worthy of value, we fight against these deep classifiers and result in better treatment for all.
Re:First deal with the problem (Score:4, Informative)
Eh, you can check out the disinvitation database [thefire.org] to see who all is being run off from where. There's a fair bit of it going around on all sides.
Re:First deal with the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you need to defend someone who wasn't accused of anything? I'm not disputing your (I think largely correct) assessment of what happened but publicly defending someone in a context like this carries risks that you have to be incredibly naive to be unaware of...unless he really felt passionately that he was doing something worth falling on his sword for.
By defending Minsky, Stallman is defending the presumption of innocence. It is a personal value judgement if you think that is a right worth defending, maybe Stallman thought it was.
With metoo backfiring so that men don't trust being alone in an office with a woman, feminism is looking a lot like a hate movement with the way they throw accusations of sex crime around in order to get their hit of indignation to maintain their moral superiority.
You seem to be under the delusion that sex crimes and legitimate harassment are things that don't actually happen to women.
No, I'm cognizant enough to recognize that psychological and emotional abuse is something that happens to men who don't have the social skills to deal with women doing it to them. What I'm reflecting on is that men seem to be waking up to the psychological violence that women utilize is just as damaging as physical violence.
Just because it makes you uncomfortable and doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it isn't real.
You mean like how men falsely accused [telegraph.co.uk] of rape [redstate.com] loose decades in jail? Or how men are more likely to suicide or die in industrial accidents. That's real. What about how women who kill their children [infostormer.com] and get no jail time [lifesitenews.com]. That's real too. Are you comfortable with that?
You really need to get out and talk to some actual women because it's pretty clear you have no concept of the scope of the problem or what they have to put up with from far too many men.
And risk being accused of some sexual impropriety, no thanks. I very carefully screen the women who come into my life. If women get hit on because they send sexual signals with their clothing, make up or high heals then how am I going to help them. If they end up in a bad relationship because of the choices they make, what am I expected to do about it?
If you expect men to have all of the responsibility but none of the authority that comes with it you're going to see increasingly defensive moves on men's part to maintain their freedom and sanity. I grew up with more girls and women around me than men. You have to love women for what they are but to treat them like they are flawless creatures when they know better is to invite contempt from them because they know you won't be strong enough to deal with their darker emotions when they inevitably rise.
To put women on a pedestal is to deny them their own humanity and forget that men and women are complementary. We're better together than apart.
Most men are well intentioned decent people but make no mistake that there are a LOT of assholes out there too ruining it for the rest of us.
Most men have their biological tendency to protect women manipulated by women *daily*. Ever asked yourself, or know a guy that wonders, why a woman is attracted to that guy who is a complete asshole?
And your characterization of feminism as a hate movement shows you have NO idea what the term actually means.
I grew
Re: Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not going to stop a PR disaster unless they do fire them. That's what being a social justice warrior is all about: Mass shaming.
Cancel culture.
Welcome to America, the land of the perpetually whiny and offended [azcentral.com]
As 'South Park' Gets Renewed Through 2022, Matt Stone and Trey Parker Also Have New Movie Ideas [hollywoodreporter.com]
"It's new," Stone says of cancel culture, the term used to refer to boycotts started (usually via social media) when a person or group is offended by a star or brand. "I don't want to say it's the same as it's always been. The kids are fucking different than us. There's a generational thing going on." Currently, Dave Chappelle is in the crosshairs for his latest Netflix stand-up special, Sticks and Stones. "I know some people have been canceled for genuinely, like, personal behavior, but Dave is not getting canceled anytime soon," Stone says, joking that South Park and Chappelle are "grandfathered" out of the culture.
Stone also shared his theory as to why critics were so hard on the latest Chappelle special [battleswarmblog.com], while viewers [cnbc.com] seemed to enjoy it far more. "I feel bad for television critics and cultural critics," he explains. "They may have laughed like hell at that, and then they went home and they know what they have to write to keep their job. So when I read TV reviews or cultural reviews, I think of someone in prison, writing. I think about somebody writing a hostage note. This is not what they think. This is what they have to do to keep their job in a social media world. So I don't hold it against them."
The Bleat - Wednesday 05/01/19 [lileks.com]
If you remember 1984, the Party rewrites the past at will to fit the narrative of the future. Someone is declared an unperson, or is found guilting of old think - never mind if they’re dead, they’re now super-extra dead, vanished, evaporated in the fires of the memory hole.
This is a new twist: not rewriting history is Orwellian. Op-ed in the paper about renaming buildings:
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” So wrote George Orwell in 1949, as if he had been reporting on the April 26 meeting of the University of Minnesota’s Board of Regents.
This was the meeting where the Regents decided not to rename four buildings because the old dead men had opinions that do not conform with the opinions of the present, and acted according to the precepts of the day - in this case, segregated campus housing, and surveillance of suspected agitator-types.
So: If you decline to rewrite the past to fit the ideas of the present, that’s Orwellian.
Get Ready for the Struggle Session. [pjmedia.com]
How Twitter transforms regular people into woke crusaders [hotair.com]
Slashdot has had an oversupply of this for a LONG time.
Re: Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
History is filled with witch hunts done in the name of the greater public good. And like the Salem witch trials, Kristallnacht, and McCarthyism, history will not judge SJWs kindly.
Re: Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm on the cusp of Gen X and Gen Y (early 80s), so I get a bit of both of it. But I'm with you. I was raised to fear McCarthyist witch hunts and saw modern versions in...
The mid-90s gang fears where anyone wearing a red shirt or a blue shirt was pulled over and frisked. We non-gang affiliated Mexicans learned that we had to wear patterns)
The post-Columbine crackdowns on goths/punks/nerds where people could get others suspended for suggesting they might be a shooter risk. We nerds and the like learned to not talk about making custom Counter-Strike maps in public.
The Post-9/11 era where people had their careers and livelihoods endangered for being "insufficiently patriotic". We began creating our own news sources and news aggregators. We protested the war in Iraq, but made sure our faces weren't on camera.
But those were typically conservative backlashes where liberals were defending actions by taking "the higher ground". The problem for us liberals is that these SJWs support similar ends, but are attempting to meet these ends with horrible tactics.
Want racial equality? Yes! ... then you have to support our witch hunt of anyone who has transgressed our evolving standards... ever.
Want gender equality? Yes! ... then you have to always believe a female accuser and never question her statements.
Want a living wage for everyone? Yes! ... then you have to support 100% student debt forgiveness for everyone and a universal $15 minimum wage without increasing revenue.
Want to protect freedom of speech? Yes! ... then you have to support the squelching of speech we don't like.
This is all going to continue until someone successfully brings suit against a massive amount of pile-on defendants for libel, defamation, and slander. People will keep doing this until there are consequences.
Re: Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Grown its endowment fund by about $2B in the last year.
Re: Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
The real mission of universities.
Re: (Score:3)
Or expressing them publically, which is after all what freedom of speech is all about.
Re:Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, you shouldn't fire people for having opinions, or expressing those opinions privately.
Organizations today don't recognize people as having private lives. Their excuse is that anything you do can hurt the reputation of the organization by association, which is generally caused by a small subset of highly nosy people who want to punish anyone and anything related to their target and don't themselves recognize that people have private lives out of the control of their employers and other organizations those individuals are involved in.
The idea a person can be an serial killer and a good employee of a company is not recognized. The idea that the company employing them does not mean the company endorses murder does not compute, either.
Re: Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what the fringe left has evolved into. And the media is SILENT about this. They talk about trump being a threat to free speech and ignore the fire in their back bedroom. When you crowdsource âoutrageâ(TM) to the point that the message is clear âoedisagree on ANYTHING we beleive and we will ruin your lifeâ. Nothing could be a greater risk of free speech. Not even the 4am ramblings of an asshat on twitter.
Re:Summary (Score:5, Funny)
You can't think of any opinions that should cause someone to be fired?
Of course. If they support DRM, I want them fired.
Re: (Score:3)
:)
But note the same kind of thing just happened to you: "Boronx converted "in general" to "any" without so much as blinking.
Re: (Score:3)
I want everyone who disagrees with me about anything to be fired, but of course that is a slippery slope. The millennial cancel culture won't just fire him though. They will blacklist him and try to prevent him from getting any job. He may have difficulty getting a job washing dishes at mcdonalds.
Maybe he can drive for Uber. I hope he has some savings. He should have read something about the Cancel Culture. Hasn't he heard of Louis CK? Saying anything unpopular publicly using your real name is almost a deat
Re:Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
Nike and Gillette were already on negative trajectories financially, and figured they had nothing left to lose by going Woke Capitalism. "The Hunt" was called off by the producers themselves... likely after they realized their backers saw visions of the massive flop that the all-girl Ghostbusters experienced. Last I checked, Colbert is still on the air, and there have been no organized campaigns demanding his removal - just the odd opinionator screeching for it. Finally, South Park, obscenity and all, has been a rightwing darling of sorts since roughly 2005 or so.
Meanwhile, one whiff on Twitter, and individuals --ordinary folks, not celebs-- get choke-slammed, driven out of their jobs, etc.
Recently, worse has happened. Google for Alec Holowka, and how a certain grievance-grifter (Zoe Quinn) accused him of sexual abuse, to the point where he was fired within 24 hours, then he committed suicide within (IIRC) 48 hours after that. Turns out her accusations held no water... a bit late for that, but hey - at least she got a gig with DC Comics! Go social justice?
Re:Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
What about supporting students who are victims of a false sexual assault accusation? By deciding the issue based only on the experience of victims of real sexual assault, you are ignoring the rights of the falsely accused to arrive at your preferred conclusion. The accused can be the victim of a false sexual assault claim, just as much as the accuser can be the victim of a sexual assault
Stallman correctly pointed out that Minsky declined the offer of sex, which is the kind of thing that needs to be pointed out to defend against false accusations. Coercing RMS to resign for that sends students the message that if they're falsely accused, the administration will hang them out to dry and dismiss anyone who might defend them, rather than risk raising the ire of those who assume all accusers are truthful. This violates several tenets fundamental to our legal system - presumption of innocence, right to a trial, right to challenge evidence and testimony presented against you. Any balanced response to a sexual assault accusation has to take into account both possibilities - that it may be a real sexual assault, or the accusation may be false. And in criminal cases, the burden of proof is upon the accuser, not the accused.
Re:Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I think Stallman's mistake was speculating about how the girl might have presented herself instead of focusing on what she actually said. She was instructed to have sex with Minsky. But she never said she attempted to carry out those instructions, and she never said what the result was if she did make such an attempt. If Stallman wanted to defend his friend, what he should have said was, "Epstein's victim does not claim she had sex with Marvin. Until she does, there's little to discuss, and no reason to speak ill of the dead based on speculation about an allegation that hasn't even been made."
Re:Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
He broached subjects that needed to be; like questioning the reasonableness of accusing someone of rape based on where they are at the time (age of consent in the Virgin Islands is 18, in Mass, it's 16), or if an accusation of sexual assault is at all warranted if the accused would or could not have known coercion was involved.
If anything, these are matters that MIT ought to be considering if they are going to be dealing with similar allegations.
Re:Summary (Score:5, Funny)
Stallman knows words. He used them appropriately. That got him in trouble with the linguistic luddites.
Don't use words.
Re: Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
Itâ(TM)s our new guilty until proven innocent culture. Ever since #metoo, society suspends due process and moves directly to sentencing.
Sex has been a tool for espionage and political favor for hundreds of years. The way this article reads the victim of espionage can now be painted as the villain. I dont know how old this Minsk guy is, but 17 is age of consent in most places anymore, if she even was upfront about that. She probably had a fake id that got ger into nightclubs. Itâ(TM)s hard to be a social engineering, espionage whore, if youâ(TM)re unable to gain access to the rich and powerfulâ(TM)s playgrounds.
Re:Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Benford says Minsky told him that he had turned her down. What I've seen reported of the deposition so far makes it unclear whether she actually had sex with him or was just groomed to approach him.
In the mid 90s I was told that there apparently were a few young women at major SF cons like Worldcons who would attempt to build collections of famous authors that they had slept with. The person who told me this apparently spied one sneaking out of an older well-known author's room and told the collector "Hey girl, it's tacky to sleep with an author you haven't read!". No, that author was most definitely not Benford, but Benford may have been confronted with similar (consensual) advances since he was already similarly well known at the time. That would make him quite susceptible to believing Minsky's version of the events.
If Epstein's sexual exploitation victim makes a clear statement that she did in fact sleep with Minsky (and wasn't just groomed to do so), implying that Minsky lied to Benford, then I'll believe her that Benford got duped. I hope that's not the case since that would cast a deep shadow over Minsky's pioneering career. The reporting of the testimony to date seems to have the victim leaving unsaid whether Minsky actually participated in anything sexual, so for now I'll assume he was targeted but not compromised, and a reporter jumped to a bad conclusion. There is no excuse however if he did participate and covered it up (because a cover-up would show he knew he did something wrong).
Re:Summary (Score:5, Informative)
As if defending a man who knowingly shielded a pedophile is some sort of "woke" activity.
You are wrong, there was no pedophilia involved here at all.
Re:Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
In the court of public opinion pedophile means every older guy who slept with a teenage girl, not attraction to a prepubescent or even adolescent body. As in a 50yo sleeping with a 17yo, OMG she's just a child eeeeeeeew he's a pedo. While if you look at the article on puberty it should probably mean attraction to girls up to about 10 years old for children or about 14 for adolescents. The drift is so strong that they seem to choose other words for those who's actually diddling with 7yo kids not banging 17yo chicks.
Re:Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
You are correct about the definition of paedophila, and I would go even further and say that almost all men are actually attracted to any pretty girl who is at least 13 but feels the need to hide that because there is such a strong stigma against it. If you know any really honest guys who know themselves they will admit that they at least find them attractive but only in private and only if you know them well.
Most guys will try to pretend that when they see a superhot 16 year old in a bikini who is all tits and teeth that what they are seeing and their emotional response to it is indistinguishable from a flat chested 8 year old child. I know that women have somehow engineered this, but I don't know how they managed it. It certainly isn't natural.
But this is really not about that. RMS was defending Minsky. Not Epstein. And if you believe Benford and I certainly do Minsky said no. So it should be a total non-issue.
Overstating (Score:3)
I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him -- even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
That's quite an overstatement of his significance. In open source? Sure. But popular culture? I bet if you walk down a busy sidewalk and ask 100 people if they've heard of him, 97 would say "wait, source of what? and why is it open?" Maybe just one of them will have heard of Richard Stallman. Now, mention a name like Taylor Swift, 97 out of 100 have at least heard of her. That's popular culture. And certainly not an American icon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oddly, the winos in Kendall Square know him quite well. He's a soft touch for their sob stories. When my beard has been *really* scruffy, and I've been too busy to bathe recently, some of them greeted me as "Richard?"
In person, he's pretty rude and very judgmental. But he is *consistent* about his morals. It's why I found the accusations of transphobia by Leah Rowe from the LibreBoot project to be complete nonsense, and Leah later got her hormones under control and retracted them. Leah was having difficulty
Do not talk, do not write (Score:4, Insightful)
The first rule of SJW is: You do not mess around with SJWs. The second rule of SJW is: You do not mess around with SJWs. There are some topics I will never talk in public or discuss in writing. Will miss him.
Re: (Score:3)
"When they came for the Jews, I said nothing. I wasn't a Jew."
I'm opening my mouth wherever I go. Granted, I don't work as a corporate slave in America so I'm not quite as likely to be fired. Also I'm a nobody and my utterings will probably never reach more than five people at a time.
Still, if shit ever goes down, nobody will be able to blame me for having been a coward.
I wish I had mod points ... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a German, this is like the Nazis: A very few crazy nutjobs can scream and demand aaall they want. It won't mean or do one flying fuck!
UNLESS there are cowards *obeying* their bullying, or keeping their mouths shut!
Only a small fraction of Germans were true Nazis. The coulsn't have done anything all alone! BUT we had and still have a culture of followers and cowards. If an asshole screams loudly, everyone obeys. And many even start screaming too! Just out of being like a floppy mollusc to the tiniest bit of peer pressure.
With SJWs, it's exactly the same!
Don't put the spotlight on them, and they are merely a fringe joke, people laugh at.
But if you go along, you're just as guilty as they are.
Of abuse and terrorism, by the way.
Re:Do not talk, do not write (Score:5, Informative)
The first rule of SJW is: You do not mess around with SJWs. The second rule of SJW is: You do not mess around with SJWs. There are some topics I will never talk in public or discuss in writing. Will miss him.
So in the end . . . the Fascists/Communists/Terrorists/Totalatarians/"Social Justice" Mob win?
Well, maybe not always.
Court enters $25 million Judgment against Oberlin College in Gibson’s Bakery case [legalinsurrection.com]
Why Journalists’ Old Tweets Are Fair Game for Trump [politico.com]
As Benjamin Franklin noted, "A republic, if you can keep it...." I'm not particuarlily sanguine at the prospects.
.
Re:Russian Collatoral Damage (Score:4, Funny)
I see Obama as someone who nearly destroyed the country I lived in
When did you get out of Iraq?
If Epstein's real objective was to damage MIT? (Score:3)
And THIS is why Jeffrey Epstein should have been wearing an anti-suicide watch to make sure he didn't commit suicide or get suicided. We have the technology. Just a slight modification of any activity monitor with pulse tracking. I really doubt we can ever figure out the real truths now.
By the way, it's not that rms was still an administrative leader of MIT and who knows how long it's been since he taught a class, but the reputational damage is real, and significant. One of the best universities in the world is NOT benefiting from this ongoing fiasco. Maybe that's why Epstein was so interested in Minsky in the first place? I do think there must have been a reason for compromising Marvin Minsky, who was NOT one of the world's most famous party animals. (And don't forget the head if the Media Lab has already resigned.)
(Personal disclaimer required? I do NOT hold it against MIT that I was not accepted when I applied so many years ago. Yes, I think it would have changed my life if I had gone there, and probably for the better, but I did okay at my second choice. No schadenfreude.)
Thanks RMS (Score:4, Insightful)
It suits him that he went down (at least at MIT) trying to defend someone that could not defend himself from a witchhunt. Most people would wisely keep their mouth shut, Stallman just says it like he sees it. I think that if you read Stallmans comments objectively you can't really fault what he said.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"It's not sexual assault, you see, because Minsky didn't actually witness an act of violence, and the word "assault" sounds too much like you actually see somebody get hit, not just a child is forced into prostitution."
No, that is stupid shit. Call a spade a spade. Stallman was grasping at straws to help a man who went behind MIT official policy to assist an infamous pedophile. At the best, rms's argument was pedantic and pointless.
Stallman is frequently on record defending pedophilia. Why can't we admi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mods DO NOT MOD PARENT DOWN. I disagree with it too, but keep it up and let people reply. Sheesh. Air both sides of the argument. This is obviously a sincere expression of a reaction that many people have had to this. Even if you disagree consider modding it back up to at least 2 or 3.
Re: Thanks RMS (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not "both sides of the argument" when he's just making a bunch of allegations with no contexts and zero evidence.
Re: Thanks RMS (Score:4, Informative)
The evidence is here: https://medium.com/@selamie/re... [medium.com]
Stallman has not disputed that that is an accurate record of the email he sent. The relevant part:
The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference
reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epsteinâ(TM)s harem.
(See https://www.theverge.com/2019/... [theverge.com])
Letâ(TM)s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
The word âoeassaultingâ presumes that he applied force or violence, in
some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
Only that they had sex.
We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that
she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was
being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her
to conceal that from most of his associates.
Iâ(TM)ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it
is absolutely wrong to use the term âoesexual assaultâ in an accusation.
Legally sexual assault is defined as any unwanted sexual contact. Since she was coerced it was unwanted. Stallman's argument that Minsky didn't know that is extremely weak. Minsky should reasonably have known that, or at least strongly suspected it given what he knew at the time. And merely being ignorant of the coercion is not actually a legal defence of it.
Therefore "sexual assault" is absolutely the correct description.
Re: Thanks RMS (Score:4, Insightful)
That's better, now we actually have something to work with.
Legally sexual assault is defined as any unwanted sexual contact. Since she was coerced it was unwanted.
That does not neccesarily follow, but it's close enough in this context. Ok, I'm with you so far.
Stallman's argument that Minsky didn't know that is extremely weak. Minsky should reasonably have known that, or at least strongly suspected it given what he knew at the time.
Now you go and make another allegation completely free of context. Even if we pretend that your unexplained and unsupported allegation is accurate, it's an extremely weak argument. There are any number of reasons why a person may be unaware of something despite your estimation that they "should have" been aware of it. I see it every goddamn day.
And merely being ignorant of the coercion is not actually a legal defence of it.
Thats a fucking insane claim to make. You seem to be determined to create a world where no defense is possible.
Therefore "sexual assault" is absolutely the correct description.
If such an act actually occurred, "sexual assault" may be the correct term for how you view the encounter ... but it doesn't make the other party guilty of the crime. Just like if someone coerces you into selling me something you may view it as a theft, but it wouldn't make me guilty of stealing.
Under your meandering definition, all prostitution would be sexual assault. After all, the prostitue doesn't really want sex; she just wants the money. The actual sexual contact is unwanted, therefore it must be assault. I realize that this is a popular form of "logic" amongst third wave feminists, but it's obviously retarded.
Of course all of this is doubly stupid since, by all accounts I've seen, the encounter never even took place. So the "assaulter" is guilty of nothing since the "assault" never occurred, and Stallman is guilty of engaging in a thought experiment which you personally dislike. Quelle horreur.
Re: Thanks RMS (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of sexual assault the burden is a bit higher.
Yes; apparently it's so high that you were completely unable to think of any specifics in response to my question as to what he should have done, or what I should do when picking up a woman in a bar.
Also I went and did a bit of digging, and your claim that "he should have known" based on MIT "distancing itself" is complete bullshit. In her deposition the "victim" claimed not to know when it occurred, and to not even be sure where it occurred, but a different witness suggested it was probably in 2001, when Minsky visited the island. That was well before any of the allegations against Epstein came out.
So, to sum up:
There's no evidence Minsky did anything illegal.
You have zero reason for suggesting that he should have even been suspicious.
You can provide no suggestions as to how someone is supposed to check for coercion.
You can't actually define coercion in any coherent way.
And, last but not least, you're objecting to Stallman question all of that nonsense.
Kudos!
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
A dangerous time for pedants (Score:5, Interesting)
...in this era where slippery language is celebrated as progress and the worst assumptions form the foundation of the moral high ground, the nerd is not safe.
Peace out FSF (Score:3, Interesting)
Guess that's one less renewal to worry about. Not going to support an organization that pressures people to leave just because of a few complaints.
Re:Peace out FSF (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that what happened? All we know is that he resigned, perhaps he did it in order to spare the FSF from getting caught up in all this.
It's your money but you should find out what really happened before blaming them.
This is just bullying a disabled person. (Score:5, Insightful)
Like many brilliant people who occupy that category, he has no sense of social graces. He writes down the things he thinks. He has virtually no theory of mind, no way to perceive how the people around him are going to react to what he says. In the past, that curse has granted us with great gifts as Stallman had the boldness and fool's spirit of being able to say and think things others would not. That granted us the entire ecosystem of free software, and who knows how decrepit the Internet would be without his contributions. At one point this guy had the entirety of gcc in his head. I can't even fathom the kind of brain that could do that.
The other half of this condition is that he doesn't understand a lot of the world. He has no idea how people relate to one another, how they communicate with one another. He'll eat something off his foot in public. He's affected by an extreme disability that puts his social abilities on par with many children of single digit ages. What the people are doing who just drove him out of the last corners of social prestige he had is bullying a disabled person.
As the United States and Europe become more Communist, far more people will be afflicted by the curse of saying things that the commissars disapprove of. Most of them are children, idly posting away on social media completely unaware that they destroy their futures. I know an autistic refugee that had academic grants cancelled because of something they said on Twitter years ago, when they were 16. Tanner Flake had a politically prominent father and said some off color things in video game communities when he was 9 and 10. Google will never forget it.
This is all so perverse. The people doing this stuff are pure evil.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is just bullying a disabled person. (Score:4, Funny)
As the United States and Europe become more Communist, far more people will be afflicted by the curse of saying things that the commissars disapprove of
It's not clear what the workers owning the means of production has to do with any of this, but otherwise great post.
Re:This is just bullying a disabled person. (Score:4, Insightful)
As the United States and Europe become more Communist
Really? With Donald Trump in the Whitehouse and a far right surge in Europe, you think we are becoming more Communist?
If those lot are capital-C Communists who occupies the centre ground in your mind?
Re:This is just bullying a disabled person. (Score:4, Interesting)
He's being persecuted for his disability (Asperger's I assume) by the same people who would otherwise have been outraged on his behalf. How delightfully perverse a reversal!
Re:This is just bullying a disabled person. (Score:5, Interesting)
The lack of social graces (and many other aspects of the guy's behavior) are just symptoms of Asperger Syndrome (sorry "ASD") - which afflicts a HUGE and growing percentage of people - and especially in the software world. (I include myself in this).
The overwhelming desire to say what you believe is true - rather than what is socially acceptable - is something that's literally built into the biology of people with this condition.
It's both a curse and a blessing.
It happens to me all the time (although rarely on such a dramatic scale!)...and if you're going to employ people like Stallman - you have to accept that and roll with the punches accordingly.
EXAMPLE: Just yesterday, my Aunt posted a "Good Luck" thing to someone on Facebook - she attached a picture of a clover-leaf. Instead of "Liking" her post or adding my sentiments - I simply couldn't prevent myself from pointing out that lucky clovers have FOUR leaves, not three (as she posted). Of course this was a stupid thing to do - and I got a shit-storm of complaints about being unfeeling and that COMPLETELY derailed the original line of discussion. In hindsight...yeah...I should have shut my trap. But it's TRULY no possible for me to make that kind of call - I just don't have the brain function that allows everyone else to predict the outcomes of these kinds of social interactions.
Point is - this is who we are. It's an actual, for real, disability. You can no more demand that Stallman has social graces than demand that a color blind person distinguish red from green.
People need to realize this. It's an actual thing.
It's a sad state of affairs (Score:5, Insightful)
when an expression of opinion has the ability to outweigh the value of one's work. There's no doubt that RMS has significantly changed the landscape of computing. His past and current contributions stand on their own, regardless of whether or not people agree with or his opinions or that they align today's current fashion.
A person of such depth of experience, an incredible resource of historical and developmental processes, and one with immeasurable ability will be more of a loss to MIT than to him.
And, I doubt it really matters to him. The loss is on MIT's side. The only shame is the dunce cap now hanging over MIT.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More usefull stuff in a single day than you will ever do in your entire life.
Judging from this post, you'll probably end up a net negative on society.
Stallman should go to court and sue MIT for shittons of money. Not to get the money, but to force MIT to take a mature stance on these types of debates instead of just blindly cowtowing to the students. Money could be donated to FSF.
Re:Nothing whatseover (Score:4, Interesting)
Has his friend been actually accused of physically interacting with her? I thought, but haven't examined much, she said that she was told by Epstein to offer to have sex with his friend, but she never said his friend did.
Re:Nothing whatseover (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people have taken for granted that a sexual encounter occurred, including many journalists.
The reporting in this case is abysmally bad. Makes me wonder in how many cases it is this bad but not enough people bother examining the source of the accusations to see what's actually supported.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, at least he did accomplish something 30 years ago.
Now let's hear about you.
Re: (Score:3)
RMS is complicit in child prostitution
Which quote of RMS do you particularly think was defending child prostitution? Or have you not read any of his quotes?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what your quoted phrase "warm handshake introduction" means and neither does Google.
I'm a little confused by calling RMS complicit. As I understand, what he said (after Epstein and Minsky both died, and this news from the girl surfaced) is that he thinks the most likely explanation is that Minsky was ignorant of the coercion. Is that colored by wanting to think the best of his friend? Obviously. Does that make him complicit? I don't see how. Does it mean, if Minsky did stuff with her it ok
Re: (Score:3)
That's the beauty of the system. There is no right to free speech if you are somehow censored by a non-governmental entity.
The kangaroo court is that of public opinion, where the accusers are judge, jury, and executioner. There are no attorneys here.
This cycle repeats itself an awful lot, in a general sense. Some group of people decides that their current special thing is so special that allowing legal protections or due process would cause untold catastrope--so the mass purges begin (no untold catastrophe
Re:Now the question is (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Now the question is (Score:4, Funny)
You're saying that Bill Gates retired and then waited 13 years and then decided to attack RMS? After Microsoft became one of the biggest contributors to open source and became a Linux supporter [redmondmag.com]?
no conspiracy or guilt (Score:5, Insightful)
This is simple; he is old and this crap is not worth his time. What he loved doing has been taken away from him at least for years and he can see that coming. At this LOW point he made a rash decision. Plus at that age does one need the stress?
If you have ever lived on the bad side of social mores as a pariah for a while you'd recognize the pattern. Friends abandon you, if not betray you out of cowardice. You might be able to cope but you lose faith in humanity as other people take advantage of the situation against you and people who resent you jump on board as well. It feels like you are alone despite some SAYING nice things in private, nobody means it.
So now who is going to be thrown under the bus for doing the right thing and defending Stallman when he was doing the right thing and defending his DEAD friend who couldn't defend himself and his memory? (especially when it sounds like it was BS anyway-- that would surely motivate somebody with courage to stand up. and an old academic unaware of how discussion is dead today thanks to internet leaks and the vast numbers of morons, who can't tell fake from real or do basic logic... )
Re: (Score:3)
Someone with actual power was pressuring him to leave. The question is, who?
Re:Now the question is (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone with actual power was pressuring him to leave. The question is, who?
Selam jie gano [wordpress.com] and her blog articile [medium.com] where she says:
Perhaps the only criticism I will accept is that I, personally, have been lucky enough to avoid a lot of gender-related discrimination in comparison to my peers. I, personally, was not someone with a terrible advisor or a sexist professor or lecturer and while I am often the only woman in a room or the only woman in the section of my office building, I am surrounded by mostly nice, well-meaning men who have taught me a lot about engineering. I acknowledge that this is a privilege I have. The privilege to face only microaggressions.
So you don't have to be powerful, you just have to be a misandrist with no gratitude for the people around you making your education their concern whilst secretly harboring contempt towards them. This is how women are being educated before entering the workforce, using shame and accusation as opposed to displaying competence and excellence.
Here is her latest hit piece [medium.com] from yesterday where she twists the knife into RMS who is obviously not equipped to deal with her. How anyone could anyone trust working with this woman who is happy to burn everything to the ground and let everyone else clean up the mess just to prove there is an I in team.
Shame on you Selam, but also thanks for letting us know that any mostly nice, well-meaning men deserve what they get for trusting you.
Re:Now the question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post is evidence that no matter what you say, once labelled an "SJW" you will be savaged and attacked relentlessly.
My concern is for RMS who, despite numerous quirks, has done a lot of good for the community. When, in civil discourse, is it ok to slander a dead person (Minsky) and then wreck the career of a colleague (Stallman) who defends them?
Stallman's mistake was he apologised for peoples apparent discomfort at vice bullshitting about what he said instead of launching immediate legal action against Vice for liable. For Salem's part she seems to be boasting in her blog for leaking the posts to vice and the damage she has done to Stallman's career because he calls things as he sees them and lacks the social awareness to frame them properly or keep his mouth shut when the outrage brigade comes for a sacrifice.
She says she is lucky be surrounded by nice, well meaning guys and...
then goes onto acknowledge her teachers and fellow students for The privilege to face only microaggression. Any of them who continue to be in the same room as this woman are on notice that this is what she is prepared to do to them too.
Evidence that this is someone who is all too ready to make accusations about anyone and is clearly practising a flagrant ad hominem attack on Stallman whilst taking pride in doing so. Utterly disgusting.
you accuse her of misandry.
Yep, because it is misandry and the grossest case of facilitating hypergamy I've seen. She openly admit's that her opinion is based on here-say, she doesn't know Stallman and then proceeds to group him with Epstien. This is what a 21st Century tar and feathering look like.
It seems she is uncomfortable around socially awkward people and instead of offering them the empathy and grace she herself demands as a minority, she plays on Stallman's autism like any narcissist would use a co-dependent. Considering Stallman is the polar opposite of the type of guys [medium.com] a 23 y/o woman is attracted to, none of her actions are surprising they're simply an example of the shallow and vapid entitlement of someone who has to complain that being an under-performer at MIT is not enough of a privilege for her.
I wonder what her father *really* thinks of her.
It's a witch hunt and you are holding a torch.
Well so far the only thing burning is Stallman's career so I don't think that claim can be made. Salem is the abuser in this case and she has used shaming like a pro.
Re:Now the question is (Score:4)
Show me one place where Stallman actually defended Minsky. From what I saw, RMS threw Minsky under the bus, then stood on his corpse to make his own arguments about the semantics of the word "assault". RMS started from the presumption that Minsky actually had sex with the teenager in question. At that point what argument is he making that actually defends Minsky? The law puts the onus on the elder party to verify that the younger person in any sexual encounter is not only consenting, but also of age. By assuming that Minsky had sex with her, RMS is not really vindicating Minsky in any way. He's really saying that Minsky was purposely avoiding his legal responsibility. Whether the girl presented herself as entirely willing or not, Minsky still needed to perform some sort of due diligence regarding her age. Nowhere does RMS assert that Minsky was convincingly deceived about her age, just whether or not she was coerced behind the scenes... an element that is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand given that age of consent laws prevent her from being able to legally consent to this encounter, whether she was paid or coerced or NOT.
Re:Now the question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Her individuality is subsumed by collective identity, and so she has to bend-over-backwards ensuring that her personal experience of reaping the rewards of social progress is not at odds with a broader cultural narrative of continued oppression which still applies to her as a member of a group. The evidence of her life, as she has experienced it, would be detrimental to the work of socially-constructing a generalized view of what woman's lives are like were she to give it unvarnished. She feels the pressure to qualify her case as exceptional and state she's lucky to have been micro-agressed against, since by all accounts which aren't her own her life should have afforded her much worse.
Within the structures of the group she identifies as being a member of, despite the fact that they don't speak for her by failing to reflect her lived experience, she is one of the lucky ones who is obligated to use her voice to speak for those not so lucky. Which means there is absolutely no way to please her as an individual: her identity exists within this convoluted relation to others which makes their good treatment of her disadvantageous to her group identity, and bad treatment a needed validation she is lacking and must make-up for by bad-mouthing and suspiciously-eying people who did nothing wrong.
Re:Now the question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Read again.
She's not uttering the compliment you think she does. She's building a sarcastic, knife-in-the-back, tie-your-own-rope kind of attack against those men, equating all the help she got with only microagressions (implicitly making it sound like it's just a matter of sheer luck she didn't get gang-raped by them).
She is a witch.
And what she does, BTW, is a microagression.
Lack of real friends. (Score:5, Interesting)
The real blow when you are on the bad side of social mores is your "FRIENDS" who prove to be useless cowards. Some stab you in the back. That is what hurts most of all. Then on top of that to not have your institution made up of people who know you NOT stand bye you when some idiot donor or students side against you...
Faith in humanity dies completely. for a while at least. That is the point where he is now. Rash decision; later he'd probably learn to take the outrage and anger to the fight with legitimate righteousness that his enemies only wish they could have.
but he is old. that is stressful. and it's a mob. all hearts and no brains.
talk to a gay person who came out in the past (before it was popular;) somebody wrongfully accused / convicted; an old atheist, an old women who got divorced long ago in a backward small town. Hell, people who opposed the Iraq war because we knew better had a lot of shit we had to put up with and nobody apologized when they finally caught up.
Re:freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
The 1A embodies a general principle of the dangers of censorship and value of freedom of speech. Legally, it may only apply to government, but that is only because only that lies within the legal scope of the constitution's ability to restrict.
That does not mean freedom of speech should only apply to government.
The idea that censorship in general is ok because the 1A only legally applies to government is toxic and corrosive.
Even worse is the idea that it isn't censorship if it isn't a government doing the censoring.
Unfortunately, this dangerous notion is becoming increasingly popular.
Re:He's not dead yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Where have you been the last couple years? After your character has been assassinated and you've been hanged by the professionally outraged, you're as good as dead.
Re:RMS Won't Own his Words (Score:5, Insightful)
The most disturbing part about this whole thing is that RMS doesn't have the common decency to stand up and say, "I was wrong, and I am sorry."
Why would he, when he may well not believe that he was wrong and may not be sorry.
Make no mistake about it. He was defending Epstein's actions
No, he was not. Not only that but he's also refuted the suggestions that he was.
For YEARS he has also advocated in the past for the legalization of both paedophilia and child pornography.
Given your lies in the previous sentence I feel the need to demand strong evidence for this claim.
This is why he won't say he was wrong, because he doesn't believe it is wrong to exploit children for sex.
..and this one.
It's lying cunts like you that are damaging the credibility of actual victims of sexual assault. Stop it.