Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Remove Richard Stallman

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#61

Post by tutfbhuf »

DanBC wrote: post #60
beatgammit wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the Wikipedia definition[1], which seems accurate to what I understand from the term: > An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. > > ... > > Traditionally, common law legal systems had separate definitions for assault and battery. When this distinction is observed, battery r…

> If you're going to claim that someone is guilty of assault, I think you need to prove some use of force, physical or otherwise. A real dictionary (Chambers) says this: Assault: 1) violent physical or verbal attack 2) any act that causes someone to feel physically threatened, which is considered reckless or intentional, and which need not necessarily involve any physical violence 3) rape or attempted rape Stallman i…

> That's a pretty terrible definition.

True, and that's one of many reasons why it's necessary to be precise. Otherwise it leads to confusion and uncertainty, just because of vague definitions.

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#62

Post by dymk »

backpropaganda wrote: post #55
ignoranceprior wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question, not a gotcha: Who has died as a result of cancel culture? Are you only using the words "die" and "life-ending" figuratively here, or is there actual precedent?

Alec Holowka was a game dev who committed suicide recently after allegations of sexual assault by ex-girlfriend Zoe Quinn. He was the developer behind Night in the Woods. The NitW studio said they've cut ties with him after Quinn's allegations.

Quinn's accusations of Alec and the accusations against RMS are very clearly different. These are words coming from RMS himself, not hearsay.

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#63

Post by dymk »

aortega wrote: post #51
abeger wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have power because people fear that they'll be the next one whose sexual assault is publicly written off by "luminaries of the industry".

Obviously you would fear that, Stallman is being called a pedophile and his jobs is in danger, all without a single iota of proof, just because the internet mob made him his next target.

Stallman isn't being called a pedophile. He's being called somebody who defends rape and child trafficking, because that's literally what the words he's written attempt to justify.

If you want proof, go read the email thread where he lays out in plain words how he thinks that the 17 year old was actually consenting to being trafficked.

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#65

Post by babypuncher »

beatgammit wrote: post #40
sumeno wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These were human trafficking victims. They were raped.

That's what statutory rape means... rape. The question is whether assault was involved. And this is completely unrelated to whether the girls were trafficked, unless there's evidence that he conspired with Epstein. And that's the type of hair splitting that RMS does, and he needs to be more careful about it. He's not wrong in what he said, but he could be wrong for saying it.

I think he's still wrong.

According to Wikipedia, sexual assault is an act in which a person intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.

Minors arguably cannot give consent. A lack of consent is all that is needed to meet this definition. It doesn't matter that Epstein enslaved her first. Unless Stallman wants to argue that Minsky had no idea she was under age, his argument is dead in the water.

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#66

Post by babypuncher »

beatgammit wrote: post #59
DanBC wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think assault means? Do you mistakenly think "assault" means "force is used"?

Here's the Wikipedia definition[1], which seems accurate to what I understand from the term: > An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. > > ... > > Traditionally, common law legal systems had separate definitions for assault and battery. When this distinction is observed, battery r…

The Wikipedia definition for sexual assault is a bit different though, implying that lack of consent is all that is needed to qualify. Stallman's mistake is believing that the "assault" half of "sexual assault" means the same thing as "assault" on it's own. Unfortunately, English just isn't as consistent as C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#67

Post by dependenttypes »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #10
beatgammit wrote: post #8

I think the problem here is that Stallman seems to value technical correctness over propriety, and doesn't seem to value political correctness at all. I get his point that using the term "assault" is probably incorrect, though it may be the correct term in some jurisdictions. The (usually unofficial) term I'd use is "statutory rape", which covers any nonforcible sexual activity between an adult and a minor (roughly p…

"nonforcible" is 100% bullshit in this context. A university professor in his 70s with liver spots on his bald pate who is "approached" by a 17 year old girl for sex on his rich buddy's island is knowingly participating in rape, full stop.

> is knowingly participating in rape

What makes you think that? For all we know he might have thought that said girl was 18 or 25. But even if he thought that she was a 17 years old prostitute I can't see how it would be rape.

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#68

Post by DanBC »

dependenttypes wrote: post #67
AndrewBissell wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"nonforcible" is 100% bullshit in this context. A university professor in his 70s with liver spots on his bald pate who is "approached" by a 17 year old girl for sex on his rich buddy's island is knowingly participating in rape, full stop.

> is knowingly participating in rape What makes you think that? For all we know he might have thought that said girl was 18 or 25. But even if he thought that she was a 17 years old prostitute I can't see how it would be rape.

How are you defining rape where having sex with a coerced child isn't rape?

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#69

Post by claudiawerner »

eesmith wrote: post #54
badatshipping wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article takes issue with Stallman commenting callously on a sensitive topic, having a view the author finds offensive, and directing those comments insensitively toward the wrong people. She never presents an argument why what he said was problematic. This makes me believe that regardless of the correctness of what he's saying, the mere fact that he's "defending" this side of the issue is itself offensive to her.…

> She never presents an argument why what he said was problematic Okay, then I will. Stallman states incorrectly that "The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex." That is incorrect because "sexual assault", according to US law, means "any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State l…

>The law is that an enslaved child cannot consent to sex in this way, so cannot be regarded as being "entirely willing."

Stallman's defense of Minsky was that she appeared "entirely willing" to Minsky, probably on the orders of Epstein. He does not say at any point that she was "entirely willing" - only that Minsky was probably ignorant of the fact. Going from all the previously observed good character of Minsky to judge that probability is reasonable.

>As the topic is an accusation of sexual assault, which is a legal definition, and which seems to be correctly applied for this case, it is irrelevant to bring up a personal view that the law is wrong.

Why? He is making direct reference to the fact he thinks the law is problematic. He thinks it's morally absurd. It is very likely that you, too, have issues with the way certain laws are defined.

>Since Stallman doesn't seem to accept that concept of consent, can we assume that if Prof. X of MIT had sex with an "entirely willing" 5 year old, it would have been okay according to his morals?

No, because he specifically mentions the issue of being "whether the victim was 18 years old or 17" - at the very most you can draw from this that he views 17 years old as a more appropriate age of consent. Nowhere is he embarking on a "slippery slope" or "where do you draw the line?" or a gradient/heap of sand fallacy.

>by having sex with Bar while Bar was drunk and asleep, and who did not previously give consent, would Stallman respond that that wasn't assault, and not address the actual issue

Perhaps he would, though he would also most likely view it as a heinous act, just as he views the abuse of minors to be a heinous act.

Re: Remove Richard Stallman

#70

Post by DanBC »

claudiawerner wrote: post #69
eesmith wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She never presents an argument why what he said was problematic Okay, then I will. Stallman states incorrectly that "The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex." That is incorrect because "sexual assault", according to US law, means "any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State l…

>The law is that an enslaved child cannot consent to sex in this way, so cannot be regarded as being "entirely willing." Stallman's defense of Minsky was that she appeared "entirely willing" to Minsky, probably on the orders of Epstein. He does not say at any point that she was "entirely willing" - only that Minsky was probably ignorant of the fact. Going from all the previously observed good character of Minsky to j…

> just as he views the abuse of minors to be a heinous act.

Note that he only thinks that after people spoke to him. He hasn't always held this view.

Post reply on HN