Forbes twists the quote in the "topline" ("claimed [she] was 'entirely willing'"), then includes a more-complete quote two paragraphs later ("most likely 'presented herself to him as entirely willing'"). I don't know how an editor can see both of those things in their field of vision and think they're equivalent.
Again, ignoring the actual topic completely for the purposes of this comment, this is a good example to frame on your wall of how the "content industry" will squeeze any nuance out of a statement to generate clicks.
> 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
I've sent a comment to their "corrections" address. Newsguard gives Forbes the highest possible score. If that rating is accurate, they'll update the story.
"Unintentional crime is still a crime."
Unwittiness in committing a crime is, at best, a mitigating circumstance, that does not justify or excuse the conduct.
The second issue is that does not matter what you and I (or Stallman) think. All that matters is what the law says - it is a crime when the law says so - we can't be going around redefining laws so that they don't apply when it does not suit us. The most one can hope for is to have a law redefined in a court of law (precedents, interpretations etc).
This is what I was referring to in my observation. Stallman should know better than to argue ignorance.
Beyond that, the law is complex and generalizations (which I myself did) run the risk of oversimplifying realities.
I was specifically referring to this case, where Stallman argues that his friend was just misled. I believe that argument not just "tone deaf" but actually wrong.
Pretty insane that you loose your job just because you have the wrong opinions about something. I don't understand why not FSF and others simply stand behind him in events like these?
This is pretty ridiculous and I hate this PC-elite that is currently ruling tech. I don't care about your code of conduct or what your thoughts are about different words.
I just hope Stallman the best and that he should not back down to the kind of bullshit that's been thrown on him. That is simply letting them win.
Fuck everyone that has the "you said something that I do not like, now you must resign"-mentality.
IMHO he is not qualified to lead FSF.
If you don't like that, you may choose not to hang with me. You decide for yourself, not for me. If you think your coworker is a shitty person because what their opinions are then quit the job, don't force others to do it in order for you to have a safe space.
That is what I believe and fight for. People don't tend to realize that next time you may be the victim and then I'll defend you, the hate-crowd which you defend this time won't.
You keep turning this discussion into something big, like this giant problem that society is facing or something and I just disagree it is that serious, that's all. Stallman was wrong and no matter how this was handled the outcome was acceptable (to me). If this happens to someone that isn't wrong then I'll be on your side next time. I won't defend someone who is wrong out of principle.
Well, it's because I believe it is something big and a giant problem.
And anecdotal evidence is the opposite of evidence, it is meaningless. Your personal experience can be biased in so many ways I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.
1. "The word 'assaulting presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article says no such thing. Only they had sex" -stallman
First of all, having sex with someone unwilling is applying force. There was obviously an abuse of power at play, and to discount someone being raped because you don't think they got beaten or something similar and that somehow makes it not a sexual "assault" is twisted, disgusting, and again, rape apologism
2. "We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing" -stallman
She said that she was raped. Saying that the "most plausible" scenario is that she was willing is clearly acting as a rape apologist. Not all woman will physically fight off the attacker when they are raped due to differences in power structure, age, physical strength, their ability to escape, etc.
>Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it __rape__ in the Virgin Islands
3. "Does it really? 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 or 17" -stallman
Again, rationalizing and acting as a rape apologist for his friend who raped children. It doesn't matter whether he thinks its absurd, if you fly someone into a country or location where they are a minor, legally cannot consent, and you have sex with them you are a rapist.
I'm sure I'll get told how my liberal, PC nonsense needs to go find a safe place. I am generally the last person to support political correct nonsense that leads to censorship and other issues, but frankly what Stallman wrote was disgusting and clearly discounting rape survivors based on false assumptions and pedantry. I'm glad he lost his position and will not be able to spread such a toxic way of thinking. I'm also looking forward to all the downvotes from people supporting child rapists with no actual counterargument, as is standard on HN
Please reflect on this one for a bit...