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

EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

clic.epfl.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 376 posts

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#251

Post by davidktr »

rayiner wrote: post #225
myshpa wrote: post #145

"The original Remove Richard Stallman post contained leaked communications from a private mailing list. In it, the author quotes an email from Stallman where he explains that Marvin Minsky likely wouldn’t have known that the woman on Jeffrey Epstein’s island was coerced: …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…

> he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. I think the real problem is that the journalist lacks the moral vocabulary to explain why RMS and Minsky are both wrong, and must resort to nonsensical legalisms. Virginia Giuffre was 17 when this happened, making her, in the words of the author, “an enslaved child.” But according to sex-positive feminism a mere year later she could’ve be an empo…

Is it established that Minsky did, in fact, have sex with Giuffre? She said so in her deposition, and said it would have been on the island. But Minsky's wife said that was impossible because they were always together.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#252

Post by usernew »

rayiner wrote: post #207
asdfman123 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. The problem with a lot of these sorts things is intentionally making yourself blind to the emotional impact, pretending not to know, when some part of you does understand what you’re doing. It’s all just plausible deniability. We get it quite clearly, we don’t need it explained to us. You might say this is tone policing but…

> You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. “Much better” in what sense? I think Minsky is guilty because using sex workers is categorically immoral. But most on HN don’t agree with me, and think that it would’ve been no problem had Virginia Giuffre been 18 and willing. In that case, doesn’t Minsky’s moral culpability turn on whether he knew Giuffre was 17 and unwi…

I honestly gotta ask. Why is it that half the planet commenting on young sex with very strong, very critical opinions, keeps confusing the age of consent with the age you're allowed to vote?

On 99% of the planet, if a 17yo acts like, and is willing to screw your brains out, you're good to go and quite legal. In fact, same for a 16yo. In fact, on half the planet including a large portion stateside, that works for 15 too.

The fact that you bring up morals here is very telling. Sex is not some magical scary thing that's worse than murder, and should stay hidden and never talked about. It's... just sex. It doesn't matter if there is a power imbalance - women find powerful men attractive. The power imbalance can't be used at work on a screw me or get fired basis, but it can be used in "I'm powerful and that scores me points with you."

Now if someone is a hooker and under 18, but you're not hiring the hooker nor know she is a hooker, guess what... You did nothing wrong, neither did the hooker, nor is sex work "immoral." The guy the hooker works for did something wrong and... died for it. All is well, undersexed people need to stop poking their nose in other people's assholes.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#253

Post by 1827163 »

usernew wrote: post #252
rayiner wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. “Much better” in what sense? I think Minsky is guilty because using sex workers is categorically immoral. But most on HN don’t agree with me, and think that it would’ve been no problem had Virginia Giuffre been 18 and willing. In that case, doesn’t Minsky’s moral culpability turn on whether he knew Giuffre was 17 and unwi…

I honestly gotta ask. Why is it that half the planet commenting on young sex with very strong, very critical opinions, keeps confusing the age of consent with the age you're allowed to vote? On 99% of the planet, if a 17yo acts like, and is willing to screw your brains out, you're good to go and quite legal. In fact, same for a 16yo. In fact, on half the planet including a large portion stateside, that works for 15 t…

This is so true. The "morality" when it comes to sex, is thinly disguised religious dogma, that has been passed down the generations unquestioned. A 17 year old is absolutely capable of consent. However I feel if she has been manipulated in any way then it should be illegal.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#254

Post by noobermin »

asdfman123 wrote: post #185
myshpa wrote: post #145

"The original Remove Richard Stallman post contained leaked communications from a private mailing list. In it, the author quotes an email from Stallman where he explains that Marvin Minsky likely wouldn’t have known that the woman on Jeffrey Epstein’s island was coerced: …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…

You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. The problem with a lot of these sorts things is intentionally making yourself blind to the emotional impact, pretending not to know, when some part of you does understand what you’re doing. It’s all just plausible deniability. We get it quite clearly, we don’t need it explained to us. You might say this is tone policing but…

How about you don't vaguely gesture to what he said and state what you understand he said?

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#255

Post by 1827163 »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #73
mardifoufs wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, his statements regarding pedophilia are enough. It's not exactly a hidden secret. Saying stuff like >I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. Is very controversial, even if he backpedalled (only…

Is he talking about pre or post puberty? The term pedophilia sometimes lumps both together. Pre seems quite unnatural, or at least there is no obvious natural mechanism that would make it normal or beneficial. Post is a cultural matter, since age of marriage has fluctuated a lot over time. Discussing post seems reasonably defensible, discussing pre immensely less so.

What's even worse is that it's quite normal for adults to be sexually attracted to post-pubescent teens, and the term for an exclusive sexual preference for such is 'ephebophilia'. Technically pedophilia is an exclusive sexual preference for pre-pubescent children, which is not normal at all.

I suspect a number of adults must be shocked at their own sexual attraction to post-pubescent teens and might have a rather adverse reaction to that....

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#257

Post by sph »

usernew wrote: post #252
rayiner wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. “Much better” in what sense? I think Minsky is guilty because using sex workers is categorically immoral. But most on HN don’t agree with me, and think that it would’ve been no problem had Virginia Giuffre been 18 and willing. In that case, doesn’t Minsky’s moral culpability turn on whether he knew Giuffre was 17 and unwi…

I honestly gotta ask. Why is it that half the planet commenting on young sex with very strong, very critical opinions, keeps confusing the age of consent with the age you're allowed to vote? On 99% of the planet, if a 17yo acts like, and is willing to screw your brains out, you're good to go and quite legal. In fact, same for a 16yo. In fact, on half the planet including a large portion stateside, that works for 15 t…

American culture, including Puritanism, being exported worldwide since the 1980s, first through Hollywood and then through tech.

You will not find a less Puritanical view of the matter on a forum composed of mostly people from the US or deeply embedded within its culture, like many software engineers are.

For US and tech, sex talk and sexual freedom is a concept best avoided. You'll find more people arguing against gun control than arguing in favour of sex work or that age of consent is an arbitrary, cultural limit, not a hard one.

EPFL being an scientific organisation with international reach is influenced by this US cultural effect, and in general Switzerland is culturally more prude than its neighbours.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#258

Post by sph »

tentacleuno wrote: post #250
drewcoo wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because using sex workers is categorically immoral Disagree, but voted up. Unless using any workers is immoral, in which case I may agree . . .

In what way do you disagree with the above? Could you elaborate?

Categorically immoral, really? Utter nonsense.

Morality is a cultural construct, that radically changes over time. Whoever thinks otherwise is simply ignorant there is a wider world outside their reality bubble.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#259

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

rayiner wrote: post #207
asdfman123 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. The problem with a lot of these sorts things is intentionally making yourself blind to the emotional impact, pretending not to know, when some part of you does understand what you’re doing. It’s all just plausible deniability. We get it quite clearly, we don’t need it explained to us. You might say this is tone policing but…

> You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. “Much better” in what sense? I think Minsky is guilty because using sex workers is categorically immoral. But most on HN don’t agree with me, and think that it would’ve been no problem had Virginia Giuffre been 18 and willing. In that case, doesn’t Minsky’s moral culpability turn on whether he knew Giuffre was 17 and unwi…

You're a middle aged man on a private island and a teenage girl suddenly wants to have sex with you. Is this natural or a cause for concern?

Pretty clear choice here, and pretty clear how many people here are taking the other side while trying to obscure that they know exactly what they're actually standing up for.

RMS comments are so egregious exactly because "she acted like she wanted it" is not an excuse for such situations that involve such a gross imbalance of age and power.

If you do not see that plainly you have some hard thinking to do about who you are and just what you want to do.

Post reply on HN