
Richard Stallman challenges 'misleading' coverage of his comments on Minsky - MilnerRoute
https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/09/14/2033212/richard-stallman-challenges-misleading-coverage-of-his-comments-on-marvin-minsky
======
frereubu
I don't know much about Stallman, but he does seem to be fond of saying "well,
_technically_..." in discussions where it's pretty tone deaf and easy to
misconstrue, in a similar way to some discussions on HN itself. As someone
says in the email thread, "If we're debating the definitions of 'rape' and
'sexual assault', perhaps it's better to accept that this conversation isn't
productive. When this email chain inevitably finds its way into the press, the
seeming insensitivity of some will reflect poorly on the entire CSAIL
community."

But the initial coverage, particularly the Daily Beast article, does seem like
a real hatchet job. There's a big difference between what the Daily Beast
headline implied he said:

"Victims were 'entirely willing'"

and what he actually said, when discussing how much fault attaches to Minsky:

"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."

Edit: link to a PDF of the email thread from Vice is
[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/091320191...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.pdf)

~~~
gizmo686
He seems to be fond of saying "well, technically" on every subject; regardless
of if it is tone deaf.

I don't want to pathologize Stallman, but I have a simmilar tendency, so I
will project myself a bit here; and probably go a bit of a rant.

This tendency stems from a way of thinking about the world. Inaccuracies build
on themselves, so it is generally best to stamp them out when we can. If the
technicality is not actually important, then _surely_ everyone involved would
have no problem with the correction. They may be annoyed that they had to
spend a few minutes on clarifying such an obvious point.

What happens with the kind of discussion that Stallman entered into is just
weird. People seem to get deeply offended by the person stating the
technicality while claiming that the technicality is not important and without
even disagreeing with the technicality.

This reaction (which seems to be consistent for the topic in question) has the
almost tautological effect of excluding an entire class of thinkers from being
able to participate in the conversation (or rather an entire class of
thinking; some people are more able to switch between modes of thinking easier
than others). I am obviously biased in this regard, but I happen to think this
does a massive disservice to people who actually care about the issue, because
I believe that this excluded mode of thinking happens to be extremely
effective at problem solving.

> "If we're debating the definitions of 'rape' and 'sexual assault', perhaps
> it's better to accept that this conversation isn't productive."

If you are concerned about rape and sexual assault then discussing what those
words mean is a vital part of dealing with the issue. It often illuminates the
underlying reality as thinking about definitions involves considering the
details of what you are trying to talk about, and definantly illuminates the
conversation as you do not have different people thinking the same statement
means different things. If you catagorically reject these discussions, then I
do not see how you can go on to effectivly deal with the underlying issue.

~~~
arrrg
Talking about technicalities is an extremely common derailing tactic. So
that’s the reason why people are upset about technicalities that don’t matter.

They derail discussions and it doesn’t even matter if it’s intentional or not.
They are just corrosive and destructive.

------
natalyarostova
Might I suggest that this is just the equivalent of gossip under the sheen of
hacker news and self-righteousness?

People like Richard Stallman are non neuro-typical geniuses. They focus
intensely on some topics, and harmlessly pontificate on many other topics.
Historically, before the internet reached its more recent point where
everything is so well indexed and networked, that the fixed cost to mob
justice has dropped to near zero, we would just ignore these people.

So some genius mathematicians or computer scientists (or whoever) has some
weird overly-complicated political views that they poorly communicate, and
won't ever do anything about? Who cares, leave that for the faculty gossip.

Now it's so easy for us to share, shame, and discuss. But what value do we
offer the world by scrutinizing and shaming some computer scientist who is not
seeking any political power? Does anyone have a counter-argument to why this
is a valuable and useful thing for us to care about and discuss?

~~~
evrydayhustling
Richard is specifically a public figure who influences a lot of people, and
some of that influence comes from platforms like his MIT professorship that
imply endorsement from other groups.

I agree it's distasteful for people to focus on personal judgements about
Stallman's communications when we haven't walked in his shoes, mentally. But
public discourse is necessary to determine what to do with the platform given
to comments like this - including if they come from "non-neurotypical"
individuals.

Separately, because Stallman's area of focus extends into community formation
and protection of individual rights, I don't agree that his statements about
sexual coercion are separate from the rest of his work.

~~~
mjevans
I think the point that RMS was trying to make is that using inherently charged
and prejudice language against an individual is sensationalist and (as
mentioned) prejudiced.

We should be able to have rational, mature, fact based discussions and
entertain suppositions about what may have happened without jumping to
conclusions.

~~~
evrydayhustling
Stallman's email reacted to the use of "accused of sexual assault" in an event
announcement. This phrase matches the legal definition of the current facts,
so this is _not_ about someone choosing inflammatory language beyond the
norms.

Stallman would prefer that language distinguish between physical coercion and
the kind of coercion that can take place because of a difference in knowledge
or power (in this case, age). That's a fine point to discuss, but there are
very considered reasons people use the same term - it's not just sloppy
language.

Also, he'd prefer to assume a scenario where Epstein hid any coercion from his
guests - which would make this a "an alleged but possibly unknowing sexual
assault". I'm not sure what that's supposed to do to our discourse. Is
everyone supposed to imagine the same scenario he does? Or the most expultory
possible scenario? I think the uncertainty of the situation and presumption of
innocence were already covered pretty well by "alleged".

The facts of the actual case are for the courts to sort out. Stallman's focus
on avoiding the factual label for the accusations is a weird priority, and
there is nothing immature or irrational about calling it out.

~~~
partialrecall
> _" Is everyone supposed to imagine the same scenario he does?"_

I think it's fair to expect everybody to consider the possibility (and
subsequently discount it for lack of credibility.)

------
victoro0
I really, really, do not understand why some people's reaction to this is
trying to get him fired or to apologize.

Right here we have one human being that will ponder on random issues and offer
his honest opinion. He will do it without regard for social pressure. This is
an incredible rare thing! This is an amazing thing, go browse your Facebook or
LinkedIn feed and see how "authentic" it sounds. What's more, this gentleman
is a very rational person and does not shy away from thinking about pedophilia
and various paraphilia. What's more he seems truly inquisitive in
understanding how to measure what Minsky did, what motivations and perceptions
each participant had, etc. This is so much more important than just getting
revenge, being constantly angry on the internet or just saying Epstein was
evil and calling it a day.

We need much, much more people like Stallman and much, much less people that
will cry foul on a Medium post when someone doesn't go along with what they
want.

~~~
plorkyeran
People who will jump on every excuse to go "well akshually it's not
pedophilia" or "well actually it's not sexual assault" on the internet are not
even slightly rare.

~~~
victoro0
But they will be anonymous and the level of conversation will probably not be
very high.

~~~
plorkyeran
The MIT mailing list thread that provoked this whole discussion was pretty
indistinguishable from any of the millions of reddit discussions on the exact
same subject.

------
voldacar
> 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.

This is a totally reasonable statement and it hardly seems like he's defending
Epstein or somehow justifying what was alleged to have happened. Stallman's
point is that the legal usage of the term "assault" sometimes doesn't match up
with the idea of physical violence that comes with the colloquial
understanding of "assault".

Also it seems super weird, distasteful, and immature when, instead of
discussing with or further debating this person who said something you don't
like, you go tattle on them to a sympathetic reporter. Yuck.

~~~
mindslight
This is _exactly_ how witch hunts work - if you don't just follow the mob
100%, but rather point out some nuance or call for some restraint, even while
generally agreeing with the purported goal of the mob, then you are the next
target to be attacked. The true driving force is _not justice_ , but rather
_power_.

~~~
krainboltgreene
What "power" is gained from this? Also, that was _nothing_ like how a witch
hunt works.

~~~
Udik
Care to explain us how a "real" witch hunt works, in your opinion? I'm
genuinely curious.

------
chroma
I disagree with RMS on many topics, but I don't get the outrage at him. He
explained how Minsky was likely not guilty of sexual assault. To use an
analogy: If I have a sanctioned boxing match with someone, and it is later
discovered that Don King coerced my opponent into taking the match against his
will, am I guilty of battery? I don't think so.

RMS is also correct that Epstein was many things, but not a pedophile. He's
discussing facts and people are treating it as if he's discussing morality.

~~~
UncleMeat
Epstein's victims being sex slaves is not the unusual outcome but the
expectation. His behavior was fairly known.

A better analogy would be participating in a fight organized by somebody who
is known to coerce fighters into participating.

~~~
chroma
I don't think that analogy is better. The Minsky allegation is said to have
happened in March of 2001. That was years before Epstein was investigated, let
alone charged or convicted of anything.

------
DoreenMichele
I think I've seen several posts on this ongoing debacle.

I keep wondering if there is anything we can do to either elevate the
discussion of the matter or more thoroughly stamp the discussions out like the
little dumpster fires they tend to be, which naturally threaten to become
towering infernos.

I debate whether refusing to comment at all and simply flagging them is the
least worst thing I can do in a world that seems to have no constructive path
forward on such topics. But that also strikes me as making the topic
_unspeakable,_ a practice known to deepen moral problems, not resolve them.

------
ioioioioio
Stallman is the worst person to be making these arguments. In a much different
context, Matt Damon tried to reasonably add nuance to #metoo and got viciously
attacked.

I don’t like witch hunts or ruining people’s careers for what they say,
especially when media exaggerates it to make it sound worse. It’s bad enough
on it’s own.

There’s also other billionaires out there, one with an infamous island in the
Bahamas, who has dozens of horrific stories about him. A former President and
his wife visited this island, and they have lots of photos together. I hope
the media and the outrage stays focused on the principals and their enablers,
not poorly expressed opinions of people trying to defend deceased friends.

------
lflux
From [https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
fec6ec21...](https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
fec6ec210794), stallman is quoted saying

> “I disagree with some of what the article says about Epstein. Epstein is
> not, apparently, a pedophile, since the people he raped seem to have all
> been postpuberal.” He preferred to call Epstein a “serial rapist.”

yeeeeeesh

~~~
krapp
It is weird how often that seems to happen. When subjects like this come up,
people suddenly get _very_ pedantic about the definition of pedophilia versus
ephebophilia, and the threads here have been dominated by sprawling,
legalistic arguments about the precise definition of "sexual assault" and
"rape" and the relevance of ages of consent and whether words even mean
anything, really.

And this ... as if the distinction between prepubescent child rape and
postpubescent child rape is at all relevant enough to mention.

~~~
pdonis
_> as if the distinction between prepubescent child rape and postpubescent
child rape is at all relevant enough to mention_

It is if the distinction between prepubescent children and postpubescent
children is relevant, which certainly is the case in our current system of
laws.

Furthermore, failing to observe such distinctions makes every single term that
describes any kind of activity that some people don't like--pedophile, rapist,
etc.--all equivalent; they all just mean "bad person". But that makes it
impossible to have a useful conversation at all, because "bad person" is not a
useful category if you're trying to figure out what to do about such people.
You have to look at the specifics. If you refuse to look at the specifics,
then you're not helping to do anything about the problem; you're just virtue
signaling. "I think all of these people are just bad!" Okay, got it, thanks
for sharing.

------
wudangmonk
Seeing quite a few of these outrage and holier than thou post lately and I'd
like to see even less of them in the future.

Hackernews does a pretty good job on filtering out all the political stuff but
all this #metoo, "can you believe he said that?" posts are not things that I
want to read about here.

~~~
klingonopera
It would concern us all, if Stallman were to fall and the ranting author got
away with it.

I'd argue there is a higher number of people who'd go "Well, technically" in
tech than anywhere else. We're (mostly) not evil, but it may often seem that
we're defending those that are, when _technically_ , we're just pointing out
factual truths.

------
emilfihlman
The thing from that Alumni and Vice are basically hit-pieces, designed to kill
the reputation of RMS.

~~~
klingonopera
I'm hoping he'll legally retaliate. IANAL, but the misleading VICE, Daily
Beast and Fox News headlines appear to be defamation/slander, wouldn't he not
stand a good chance in court against them?

------
bbanyc
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

------
andrenth
“I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.” —
Richard Stallman

[https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-
aug.html#05%20June%20...](https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-
aug.html#05%20June%202006%20\(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party\))

~~~
bernierocks
My question is why hasn't the open source community shunned him for these
sorts of comments? Someone like the ex-Mozilla CEO was shunned and booted out
of his position for much less.

~~~
twic
Well technically it would be the free software community who would shun him,
since the open source community have already rejected his principles and
leadership.

~~~
taylodl
I see what you did there! Well played sir!

