I'm quite sad about the Stallman thing and I'm worried that we're creating immense conformist pressure that stifles free thinking, free speech and the ability to question taboos and assumptions.
Oftentimes the people who claim to promote diversity and inclusiveness are actually quite intolerant of diversity of thought and opinion.
@jcbrand While I can see your concern, we've cut Stallman an incredible amount of slack. This is far from the first strike, and his recent comments crossed a serious line. 😕
What line was that?
@jcbrand Claiming that the most likely scenario in which children are involved in a sex scandal is one in which they consent. You should go and read the statements he made recently that caused all of this. His statements were more awful than usual, but followed the usual pattern of behavior he's been having for a while.
> Claiming that the most likely scenario in which children are involved in a sex scandal is one in which they consent
I read the email exchange, and I don't see that claim being made.
This is what I read:
He said that if she was coerced by Epstein, she might have presented herself as willing to Minsky, thereby fooling Minsky into thinking it was consensual when in reality it was not.
> You should go and read the statements he made
I did and it looks to me like people are putting words in his mouth.
I even see people say he's an Epstein apologist. I haven't seen anything to that effect.
As the father of a 1 year old daughter, this subject is gross beyond belief, and I find pedophiles terrifying. But Stallman's point (stupid and unnecessary as it was) is definitely being twisted and mischaracterized.
@jcbrand Shoot... I don't understand this situation at all. This might have just been Stallman's usual kinda questionable behavior in a particularly bad context, then. 😕
"I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.) It is unnatural for humans to abstain from sex past puberty, and while I wouldn't try to pressure anyone to participate, I certainly encourage everyone to do so."
You quote an email from 2003 and then you pretend as if it's in the context of Epstein/Minsky.
This is deceptive and wrong, but I've come to expect it from people by now.
Just like the blog post that started off this witch hunt flat out lied about what Stallman's stated position was concerning Minsky.
BTW, in July Stallman made this statement:
"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 per 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."
Here's the link for that:
IMO you're not telling the full story if you post to something he wrote 16 years ago without posting his own retraction of that.
@jcbrand @MadestMadness Thanks for getting closer to the full story, I didn't know about this post and I'm glad he's come around on that, I stopped reading his blog before 2019. I think he might still define "children" as "only people under 14"
even if he doesn't, though, even if the person were 18 instead of 17, Minsky was old enough to know better. It can be hard to believe someone you're close friends with did something terrible, I know, I've been through that.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!