SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the resign:-to-sign-and-sign-again? dept.
Richard M. Stallman Resigns as FSF President and from its Board of Directors
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
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: 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