I also know that I have written, that I did not know many details about the case or the witch hunt in general as it was a witch hunt, in which both sides were wildly throwing accusations around and I found it hard to find actual facts. And that seemes to be still he case.
Now apparently I misunderstood the comment about the sign being tacked later on, but how do you know Minsky turned her down?
Please buy yourself a dictionary. Misogyny is nowhere near the claims presented in the story or the follow-ups.
And no, simply being an awkward nerd (whether that happened or not), or "being a creep" how some people called it, does not automatically mean being misogynystic. One has to be aggressive or malicious for that.
Because I feel like willful mislabeling things for emotional effect is what got us in this situation. Remember the contents of the original email: it was pointing out that "child rape" was not a good description of the event that supposedly took place (as it was thought at the time). And I happen to agree with that distinction, no matter how tone-deaf it might have sounded.
> I understand if you feel strongly about this, but personal snipes aren't cool, and don't feel nice to receive.
Please understand that you repeat an unfair accusation against a person that contributed quite a lot to our society. And who got hurt profusely by similar accusations already.
> Do you believe that the women who have come out and said RMS' behavior made them uncomfortable feelings are invalid?
Which women, though? I've only seen one personal account so far, and it accused him of staring at her cleavage for a while. Which is rude, of course, but by itself, as one instance, does not justify the whole shebang. Especially when you consider how many years him career spanned, and how many people he must have met during that time (where are all the others?).
The rest was a few rumors like "I heard people say things about him in my class of '95", which is very hard to verify, as well as apologize to someone. How old were you in 1995? I was 9.
From what I've seen, Richard is a polite guy, or at least tries to be, so if there were actual faces to go with the accusations, I'm pretty sure he'd write the apology himself.
"it was pointing out that "child rape" was not a good description of the event that supposedly took place (as it was thought at the time). And I happen to agree with that distinction, no matter how tone-deaf it might have sounded."
No.
It was more than that. Stop downplaying, if you want to be taken seriously. But I stop repeating myself.
Well, many people described RMS as a creep. And when the accusations are true, that for example he told women they should date him or he kills himself, than that is valid.
He openly advocated against criminalization of pädophiles. That gets you the term pedo, even though not fair, it is playing with fire.
And if it was indeed a case rape, in the sense of exploitation of a minor by minsky, who felt the rush of lust, which the other sides asume, than he is a rape apologist, if he says the most likeley scenario is, that she presented her as "willing", as this is, like I said, the common rape defence.
But like I said, I allmost don't know any actual facts, except that the whole discussion was horrible, as most people did not know nor wanted to know facts, before judging.
> Well, many people described RMS as a creep. And when the accusations are true, that for example he told women they should date him or he kills himself, than that is valid.
If.
And was it "women" or "a woman"? Once? Maybe, like, 30-40 years ago? If happened, it was a shitty thing to do, but it shouldn't have any effect on a person's life decades later.
Maybe consider the whole span of his career before readily accepting 3-4 vague rumors as something really damning.
> He openly advocated against criminalization of pädophiles. That gets you the term pedo, even though not fair, it is playing with fire.
True. But that's been known for years. And stating one's opinion once on a personal blog is not a crime.
> But like I said, I allmost don't know any actual facts, except that the whole discussion was horrible, as most people did not know nor wanted to know facts, before judging.
It's unfair to conclude "everybody behaved badly" and shrug when only one side is paying the price.
Espesially since the choice to move the "discourse" to the social media plaforms (inhabited by very different people) has been made by the original accuser.
I also know that I have written, that I did not know many details about the case or the witch hunt in general as it was a witch hunt, in which both sides were wildly throwing accusations around and I found it hard to find actual facts. And that seemes to be still he case.
Now apparently I misunderstood the comment about the sign being tacked later on, but how do you know Minsky turned her down?