https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-m-stallman-resigns (emphasis from original retained):
On September 16, 2019, Richard M. Stallman, founder and president of
the Free Software Foundation, resigned as president and from its board
of directors.The board will be conducting a search for a new president, beginning
immediately. Further details of the search will be published on
fsf.org.For questions, contact FSF executive director John Sullivan at
johns@fsf.org.Copyright © 2004-2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Privacy Policy.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license (or later version) — Why this license?
Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Resigns From MIT Over Epstein Comments
Famed free software advocate and computer scientist Richard Stallman has resigned from MIT, according to an email he published online. The resignation comes after Stallman made comments about victims of child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, including that the victims went along with the abuse willingly.
"I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT," Stallman wrote in the 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."
[...] Last week, Motherboard published the full email thread in which Stallman wrote that the "most plausible scenario" is that Epstein's underage victims in his campaign of trafficking were "entirely willing." Stallman also argued about the definition of "rape" and whether the term applies to the victims.
[Ed.'s note - just because Vice say things in the above blockquote does not mean that SoylentNews or its editors consider it a demonstrably provable representation of reality. We're just reporting that they are reporting, nothing more. At least this Ed. finds out-of-context quoting of short inflamatory phrases to be particularly disingenuous, and perhaps even a warning sign that manipulation of a quote has taking place. -- FP.]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:51AM (49 children)
He did not argue "that the victims went along with the abuse willingly".
He argued that they may have presented themselves this way (for example under coercion of Epstein) and that the people who may have had sex with them are thus not necessarily as guilty as they seem.
He also argued a technicality about pedophilia (the term doesn't apply to post-puberty) and he pointed out that the moral situation isn't as simple as the legal situation due to varying age of consent and general disagreement around the world.
People just want a witch hunt, and he was a fine target. Nasty people got their thrill targetting a pretty darn weird dude who probably is a bit autistic.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:54AM (10 children)
Have citations?
(yes, I know, I'm a lazy bum asking for a favor. Will you indulge me?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:38AM (9 children)
Here you go.
A redacted (names of folks other than Stallman) version of the email thread can be found here:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing [vice.com]
I read through it and Stallman did not defend Epstein in any way, nor did he do any victim blaming. He did speculate that while Marvin Minsky (and possibly others) may have had sex with the woman in question, they may (and based on his reasoning, it seems likely) have been unaware that she was being coerced into these acts by Epstein.
For this he's forced to resign? It seems like reading comprehension can be pretty poor when you have an axe to grind.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:17AM (3 children)
Presumably, it's encrypted in some ecmatrocity.
If it was on a public list it should be available uncensored, do you see any details that might help, like the listserv address or equiv?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:20AM
No public listserv. The thread was leaked and is presented as screen grabs (with any other-than-RMS's email addrs blacked out) in the cited, within a thingy that does require JS.
Looking into the element, another way to get all the "pages"
and cycle the [PAGENUM] from 1 to 20 inclusive
(e.g. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/pages/09132019142056-0001-p1-normal.gif [documentcloud.org] )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Tuesday September 17 2019, @10:52AM
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.pdf [documentcloud.org]
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.txt [documentcloud.org]
I let the atrocities run enough to get the direct links. They are both censored. I recommend the .pdf as the .txt is an incoherent mess due to the censoring.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 17 2019, @03:18PM
Yeah. I scratched my head a bit about that too, then I opened up the link in a secondary browser and there it was.
It's quite annoying that folks display PDFs in containers like that. Yuck.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:14AM
Thanks for it!
(in between I found it on my own, but thank you anyway)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by meustrus on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:53PM (3 children)
Thanks!
So from what I can tell, this is really about defending 'deceased AI "pioneer" Marvin Minsky'. Stallman's basic point is that "sexual assault" is a very broad term that in this case implies worse behavior than Minsky was likely guilty of.
It seems to me that everyone in this discussion besides Stallman was rightfully concerned that it would be shared with the media and misconstrued. I would be too, because there was not enough acknowledgement of real crimes committed. After all, the only thing he is doing is defending someone who at best knowingly had sex with a minor whom he should have had reason to believe was coerced.
He's got a valid academic point about "sexual assault", but it is completely overshadowed by the context. Stallman was given opportunity and explicitly refused to concede there was any wrongdoing at all.
Do I want to see Stallman burn for this? No. But he can't be allowed to perpetuate the culture of protecting influential friends from their own sexual indiscretions.
Unfortunately, Stallman is the sort of person who thinks too logically to understand the emotional context of his argument. There needs to be a concession of wrongdoing. There needs to be a sincere apology and unambiguous statements of facts I'm sure Stallman can agree on. But I don't think he'd be willing to make any such statements until he feels his argument has been rationally considered.
So maybe this could have been avoided if somebody fully engaged his argument. Unfortunately, it seems everyone else was rightfully concerned about being associated with the thing at all.
It all adds up to this: defending sexual indiscretion in any way is no longer socially acceptable. The only acceptable defense is complete refutation with appropriate evidence.
It's bad for the sexually indiscreet. It's unfortunate that it's also bad for fans of abstract rational argument devoid of emotional context.
There may be an alternative that spares Stallman and still holds abusers responsible. I don't know what that would look like. Realistically, it seems we only have two options right now: demonize anybody associated with abuse, including rational defenders; or allow abusers safe haven in ambiguity.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:23PM (2 children)
I strongly disagree.
There are a variety of other options available:
1. Remain silent on a topic that has nothing to do with you (Stallman was only "involved" in that an organization of which he was a part made stupid decisions -- and Stallman played no part in those decisions and Marvin Minsky was his friend -- Minsky is dead and can't defend himself);
2. Speak cogently and logically (as Stallman did -- I don't necessarily agree with his previously expressed views, but they aren't relevant to the email thread in question) and address evidence that is available, seeking additional evidence where appropriate;
3. Condemn the abuser(s) and don't blame the victim(s) (Stallman did that too, BTW) Epstein was convicted of some pretty heinous stuff and stood accused of more equally heinous acts. (Stallman did not excuse Epstein, nor did he say that the victim was "willing," rather he said that Minsky was likely unaware of the coercion and abuse. Whether that's true or not, it's a reasonable argument.)
Perhaps I'm missing something and maybe I should re-read the email thread. However, it seems to me that even the argument that Minsky engaged in statutory rape (although a witness appears to have claimed that Minsky did not engage in sex with the victim) seems a little problematic too. The age of consent in Massachusetts is 16 [ageofconsent.net]. From a reasonable (not even rational) standpoint, does anyone (unless they are planning sex tourism) look up the minutiae of local age of consent laws every time they go to a different jurisdiction? What's more, can you (or anyone else) tell the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old without looking at a birth certificate or driver's license? I can't.
Epstein was a slimebag, and those who aided him are too. The victim was abused and folks need to be held accountable for that abuse.
However, demonizing someone for stating an opinion and speculating about the circumstances while acknowledging the wrongdoing is stupid and mean-spirited IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:11PM (1 child)
As for considering it unemotionally, there's a blind spot most men have, not having been victims of sexual assault, rape, etc. Only someone who was already seriously fucked up mentally wouldn't be emotionally affected. Just look at how many men don't consider exposing themselves to women to be that big a deal, or try to argue no real harm was done. They don't get the gender power dynamics or the grossness of it. And when it comes to sexual assault and rape, Stallman is guilty of trying to deflect, minimize, and victim-blame, same as the other times he's creeped out women.
The only problem I see is that he should have been dumped long ago. It's not like this is the first time, but too many people chose to overlook the signs because the complaints were from women.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 19 2019, @12:26AM
No one, including Richard Stallman claimed that the victim consented. What's more, a witness says that Minsky didn't accept the offer of sex from the victim (and again no one, including Richard Stallman suggested that the victim wasn't coerced to make that offer).
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never exposed myself to anyone without their consent. And while other folks I know may have done so, I am unaware of it. Such behavior is a big deal. It's anti-social, nasty and completely inappropriate -- which is why it is (and rightly so) a *crime*.
I'm sure it's been done many times by many different men, and they should be held accountable for those actions. Again, no one, including Richard Stallman suggested otherwise.
I can only speak to the email thread associated with the claims that he "suggested that the victim was willing." I read through that email chain, and in that email chain Stallman *speculated* that Minsky (and possibly others) were unaware of the coercion by Epstein and *thought* she was willing. He absolutely did not claim that the victim was willing or consented. I'll say that again: Stallman did not claim that the victim was willing and consented. What's more, Stallman explicitly stated that the victim should be believed.
If you believe that assessment is incorrect, please provide me with the text of the emails that shows otherwise.
Stallman was completely off-base when talking about what is and isn't sexual assault. Not that it isn't a broad term that is interpreted in a variety of different ways by different folks (although the law is and should be the arbiter of what is sexual assault).
Stallman failed several times to understand how his unemotional and pedantic treatment of the situation would be perceived and interpreted by others. That was stupid.
As for his motivations, he was defending a friend (who is dead and can't defend himself) who, by at least one credible account, did not engage in the behavior (that you and I both find repugnant) of which he was accused.
I can't speak to "the other times" as I am unfamiliar (should I be scouring the web for accounts of peoples' misdeeds all day every day? Sorry. I have better things to do with my time) with them.
I did, however, read the text of the email chain for which Stallman was accused of "victim blaming" and "supporting rape/sexual assault." In that particular email chain, he did neither. He may have done so at other times in other venues and situations. If so, then he was wrong.
So. Even though I have roundly criticized anything non-consensual repeatedly on SN (go ahead and see for yourself https://soylentnews.org/~NotSanguine), [soylentnews.org] completely reject any form of non-consensual sexual activity in my life, and explicitly condemned (in this very discussion) Epstein and everyone who enabled/assisted him as slimebags who deserve to be tried for their *crimes*, will you now label me a misogynist and supporter of rape and abuse because the facts (in this particular case) don't fit the story being told and I had the temerity to say so?
I will say this again so that I'm being perfectly clear and I do not wish to be misunderstood:
1. Epstein and all those around him who abused, coerced and took advantage of women and girls are criminals and should be treated accordingly;
2. Consent is *never* optional. Full stop;
3. Richard Stallman, in the emails that were the basis for the current brouhaha, did not blame the victim, nor did he encourage or defend rape or sexual assault;
4. If I have missed anything in the email chain mentioned above (3) that contradicts my statement (3), Please show me where that is and I will modify my statement to accurately reflect the facts.
You believe that Stallman is an enabler of rape/sexual assault and has spoken and acted in ways that are inappropriate and possibly criminal. That may well be true. I have no information one way or the other, so I make no judgement about that. I don't generally concern myself with the private lives or legal travails of others unless they are shoved in my face or directly affect me.
I will say this one more time: Consent is *never* optional. Full stop.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Informative) by bussdriver on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:18AM (7 children)
People who don't like Stallman for other reasons can turn Troll and just amplify the problem because they are evil pricks. Bad teens can do it and you probably have seen it or had a sibling do a minor version to you just out of SPITE.
This is when all those people come out and pounce. Aside from all the shallow people desperate for another righteous "fix" that always existed in history, gravitating to mobs and stoking those... same psychology as literal witch hunts, crusades etc.
Stallman was discussing a topic with more intelligence than the internet could handle and it wasn't written for the general public on the internet; he'd have to dumb it down greatly for them... sadly one was on staff; possibly not offended as they were being spiteful.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:13AM (6 children)
It is not wise to use intelligence when discussing matter of law.
You know? The IANAL acronym got its notoriety for good reasons - and this is a very good example on why those reasons are rational (even if they are illogical).
Otherwise:
1. this page contains the leaked mail thread [vice.com] (or use https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/pages/09132019142056-0001-p1-normal.gif [documentcloud.org] and cycle in the [1-20] range with the number in the trailing "p1-normal.gif")
2. Stallman might not have needed to get involved in this anyway; it seems that there is a witness able to exonerate the friend Stallman was trying to defend: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ [pjmedia.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 17 2019, @10:02AM (5 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:21PM (4 children)
On Monday September 16, 22:02, FatPhil (pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi) wrote:
> My respect for Stallman [...] - he's the only one who doesn't seem to top-post!
I prefer bottom-interleaved-with-trimming posting style too (Pine was my first email client).
This being said, it's not the most useful style for blind people using text-to-voice, as they need to listen again something they already know before they get to the new stuff (trimming/summarizing becomes a show of consideration)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:39PM (3 children)
If Linus Torvalds, Nazi hater of downtrodden minorities that he is (or so I read in a story about RMS earlier today), can add 'add -p' to git, why can't other people add equivalent functionality to their software?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @02:04PM (2 children)
I don't know, is it because they don't have the power of emacs behind and RMS didn't bother to implement a text-to-speech extension in emacs?
Because definitely such a thing does use neither blockchains nor deep-AI, it's just something plain boring and useful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:22PM (1 child)
Simple answer - screen readers lack intelligence , and adding intelligence would mean that they may make wrong assumptions and not give an accurate rendering of what is written. For example, skipping stuff already read previously may give the false impression it's the start of a new thread.
Same with any other sort of markup - which is why you include quotation marks for people who use screen readers - they will say "quote" (you can even modify them to say "scary quotes ".
Hopefully that answers your question.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:34PM
(Note to myself: grin more often, possibly in bold)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Disagree) by janrinok on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:11AM (9 children)
This is just about as off-topic as it can get!
(Score: 3, Informative) by chromas on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:04AM (8 children)
What do you mean? The AC was talking about what's in the summary and article, and the article author's lack of reading comprehension. It's not like he was talking about toilets or systemd. It's just about as on-topic as it can get.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:27AM
(Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:41AM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by chromas on Tuesday September 17 2019, @09:19AM (5 children)
👍
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:01AM (4 children)
On the face of it, janrinok's comment has +2 karma, but if one peeks slightly behind the scenes, you can see he has garnered a extremely rare pure 4-disagree modding. Kudos, janrinok!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday September 18 2019, @06:44AM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 18 2019, @07:37AM (1 child)
Ah, but there is no "minus" to Disagree! Only a suggestion that a particular Editor might be slightly in error about the sense of the soylentils. There is no "plus" to Disagree, as well.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:57AM
You did see this [soylentnews.org] from yesterday, didn't you?
After chromas pointed out he disagreed, I re-read the comment, corrected myself, and withdrew the comment. The other 'Disagrees', including yours, all appeared after that. I guess you/they hadn't read the thread in full before commenting.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:24PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:37AM
Part of the inevitable discussion that will follow from a story like this will be concepts such as witch-hunts, including how biased media can support or enflame such witch-hunts either accidentally or deliberately. Because of that, pointing a light at possibly-biased[*] media to see what they say and how they say it is still useful.
[* whaaaaat? I'm FatPhil the poster here, not FP the editor, so don't have to remain so neutral and can say it out loud - they're dirty dirty smear merchants! ]
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @09:58AM (11 children)
Attempting to defend Minsky Mr. Stallman argued:
* A newspaper article used the term, "assault."
* The newspaper article said nothing other than they had sex.
* He speculates (without any evidence at all other than absence of what is in the article) that the sex was "entirely willing" is the most plausible solution.
* "Sexual assault" is a slippery term and should not be used, and it is difficult to read in context if he is referring to this specific case or generally.
He then as you suggest states in a later email, "I think 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 instead of 17."
Someone else then ventures the opinion that whether Mr. Stallman finds it morally absurd or not that is what the law is.
Let's ignore that he still uses the term "victim" which may be error or may be a Freudian slip of epic proportions which shows he's still able to recognize such a person as a victim. Let's ignore that he is not talking only about abstract intellectual principles but is actively trying to defend a colleague and friend (Dr. Minsky), which makes this entire thing a personal matter and not merely intellectual.
Mr. Stallman then asks for sourcing on the accusation, and someone else provides a source at The Verge which states (according to that author) that it unequivocally stated the sex was forced. If Mr. Stallman made a reply to that it isn't seen at the Vice source. Since that is all public now (assuming the integrity of the publicized email chain, which might be a line of defense).
In attempting to defend Dr. Minsky he reasoned from absence of evidence that the sex was most plausibly consensual and that therefore no assault took place. He calls into question that terms like assault shouldn't be generally applied until it is publicly known that force was applied, which given the known facts now is incorrect and comes across as victim-blaming when the allegations are in fact assault. He then finds it absurd that statutory rape should be a crime.
That's more than a witch hunt. Mr. Stallman can indeed make a public apology for where he is wrong in his interpretations, to wit that assault was indeed stipulated in a source he didn't have, and that an allegation of assault is indeed an allegation of assault and shouldn't be swept under the table by saying, "maybe it was consensual," and make other such stipulations. And since he did it all on the CSAIL mailing list then yes, this can cost him his job.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 17 2019, @10:07AM (8 children)
Yet another person, someone who was at the event, unequivocally stated the sex never even took place, as he saw Minsky decline it, and then even spoke to Minsky afterwards about it. See pjmedia link upthread.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:05PM (7 children)
That is not what Stallman was saying in the emails. He was saying that because the article he said never said it was forced it was therefore unfair to call it an assault. Specifically he suggests it was, "accusation inflation." That was put back into his face that it was not an inflation. Regardless of Dr. Minksy's innocence the charge was leveled that it occurred.
Regardless of Dr. Minsky's guilt or innocence "sexual assault" is not a slippery term, in fact it is quite definable legally and psychologically, and neither is statutory rape. When others tried to point out that because she was 17 it doesn't matter if the act was consensual or not a further rationalization was put forth that the concept is in error. Which was then corrected by simply stating that this is the law, whether or not he finds it morally acceptable.
If he was trying to defend Dr. Minsky this would be understandable. Dr. Minsky may in fact be innocent. But this was not the path to take to do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @11:02PM (1 child)
There's nothing at all wrong with discussing age of consent laws.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday September 18 2019, @01:32AM
Unless you're a microsoft target.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 18 2019, @07:50AM (4 children)
Then why do different jurisdictions define it so differently?
It's because whilst there are some cases that clearly are, and some cases that clearly aren't, there are other cases which some think are, and others think aren't. That's the very definition of a grey area. If that ain't a slippery term, I don't know what is.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Redundant) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:38PM (3 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 19 2019, @08:15AM (2 children)
Defined differently in different jurisdictions. Thanks for proving my point.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday September 28 2019, @01:30AM (1 child)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday September 29 2019, @10:45AM
Don't bother responding, as I know in advance you have absolutely nothing of value to say, but go off and ponder whether the colour "orange" is easy to define. After all, crayola managed, pantone managed, and the W3C have also managed it. OK, their definitions differ from each other, but why should little things like disagreement stand in the way of "definition".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @11:28PM (1 child)
Saying that a person PRESENTED THEMSELVES AS entirely willing is not the same thing as saying that they were entirely willing.
Example: Some creepy dude abducts you and takes you to Pedo Island. You're told to act horny, to ask for sex, and to act like you enjoy it. If you refuse, your brother will have his throat sliced. In comes Bill Clinton, or Anthony Weiner, or Dr. Minsky. What do you do? (meanwhile, it is all recorded on secret video for a corrupt or foreign intelligence service)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:31AM
> Bill Clinton, or Anthony Weiner, or Dr. Minsky
One of these people is not like the others.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @08:21AM (1 child)
If someone is going travelling around the world looking for a lower age of consent, well there you go. They're knowingly going after girls, not women - namely, children.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 19 2019, @08:18AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:40PM (1 child)
Stallman is the pseudo-intellectuals pseudo-intellectual. At 66 he still has the maturity of a teenager.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:21PM
I don't think you read the actual emails.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:26PM (1 child)
yeah, and he has the guts to bring up this third rail shit in an effort to make nuanced points and the bolshevik zombies freak out. i don't know that i'd agree with all of his positions but the fact that we can't even know what they are without hiring a PI, and he's whined out of his job is pitiful.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday September 19 2019, @12:24AM
He has a history of creepy-old-manisms towards women. Then again, the videos of him eating his toe jam while giving a talk show that he's the type of guy who you have to take anywhere twice - once for the event, the second time to apologize.
My sky looks blue. I don't think his world has the same sky. Rationality without awareness is just uninformed stupidity. In his case, he used his reputation for social ineptness as a weapon, because he's not that stupid, but he thinks everyone else is. Typical narcissist.
But hey, it's not like he'll be missed. The only thing he's done for years of note is to keep pushing the stupid GNU/Linux label. It's like he's STILL not aware that Linux already stands for Linux is not Unix, so Gnus not Unix is a redundancy - and totally inaccurate since there's software like the Gnu Image Manipulation Program that would properly be called IMP instead or GIMP when running on Windows. Then again, it should just be called IMP on all platforms, avoid all controversies over derogatory terms towards people.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 19 2019, @03:15PM
Sadly US law and purtianism has pushed the term pedophile far away from its medical meaning.
You can now be labeled a pedophile if you are a day younger than 18 and send a nude photo of yourself to another person of the same age.
But it still produce the image of someone ramming their hand down a diaper when used.
And going by RMS' last line in his old comment on the topic, it may well be that we was using the legal term rather than the medical term. Notice that not only is he talking about "voluntary" but also "maturing".
Suggesting that what he had in mind was not someone prepubescent, but someone that had already been developing sexual characteristics and emotions. And that in turn suggest someone that is biologically of age, if not legally of age.