Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#261

Post by happytoexplain » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 3:47 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #163

vkou wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was dancing on a tightrope. Whether or not his statements were taken out of context requires a mind-reader to intuit what exactly he, uh, meant by them. It's not an interesting defense, and given his prior statements on the subject of statutory rape, I'm having a hard time taking it seriously.

His statement was perfectly comprehensible no mind reading required you are just muddying the waters.

Surely this means you are either unaware of the many people who took his meaning differently, or you believe they somehow don't count?

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#262

Post by tzs » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 3:48 AM UTC

pryce wrote: post #222

tzs wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's little different than the absurd pretzel that Lessig bent himself into when trying to defend his friend Joi Ito It's massively different, because Joi Ito's interactions with Epstein were after Epstein's sexual atrocities were known. Minsky's were in 2001, which as far as I have been able to find is before Epstein was known to be evil.

Minsky arranged a second conference with Epstein, on Epstein's private island in 2011 [1]. What sources were you using that implied Minsky's contact with Epstein stopped 10 years before that? [1] https://www.pr.com/press-release/383199

I wasn't clear. I didn't intend to suggest that Minsky had nothing to do with Epstein after 2001.

Before Epstein was known to be evil, Minsky accepted support from Epstein for science, and also had a sexual encounter with a girl who was ostensibly a masseuse in Epstein's employ but was actually being forced by Epstein to have sex with his guests--it is not clear which of those guests, if any, knew that she was being forced to do more than just give them massages.

It is this sexual encounter that Stallman was defending, and that the poster I was replying to compared to people defending Ito's dealings with Epstein.

After Epstein was known to be evil, both Minsky and Ito did accept support from him. Minsky, as far as I can tell, did so publicly with no attempt to hide it, and I haven't seen any suggestions that he continued to do so after MIT decided to stop accepting donations from Epstein. Ito, on the other hand, appears to have continued to do so, and appears to have tried to keep it secret.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#263

Post by pryce » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 3:49 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #257

pryce wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conditions that apply to an "Ethics tutorial in a philosophy paper" aren't universally applicable, and that isn't a sign of something being wrong. It took me a while to understand this myself. Suppose you wished to discuss "ethical problems" in a tutorial, people can do that, and in some other (limited) environments too. You might - to invoke a particularly awful idea - like to hypothetically explore whether what…

>If you are in a position of leadership however, you incur responsibilities. [...] >A person in a leadership or representational role doesn't get to publicly speculate about "clothing and sexual assault" in the abstract [...] How is this applicable to Stallman? What was Stallman doing at MIT? It doesn't seem like he's in any sort of leadership position.

1) President of the FSF is a leadership position.

2) It would take a staggering feat of mental gymnastics to suggest Dr. Stallman's idiosyncratic role at CSAIL -described variously as "visiting scientist"- absolves him of having leadership responsiblities to students.

3) Though I did not go into details at the time, the argument above applies more widely than leaders per se - it applies to people who affiliate with and represent organisations; for example, I think we could probably agree it would apply to television anchors whether or not they led a 'team' of any kind.

Stallman's relationship with MIT (and vice versa) is a public enough role that I've known about for nearly 20 years though I live on the other side of the planet.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#264

Post by sitkack » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 3:56 AM UTC

simulacrumparty wrote: post #180

fortran77 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, then, I guess Gerry Sussmann will have to go next!

https://web.archive.org/web/20101112051649/http://www.jeffre... "Jeffrey Epstein is one of the most amazing, interesting, and brilliant people that I know.” – Gerald Sussman, Panasonic Professor of Engineering, MIT

So Abelson left Swartz out to dry and Sussman says this !@#!. Lessig tries to put spin on the money as "complicated". While RMS spews some seriously libertarian viewpoints and defends Epstein, that we need to take a nuanced approach. I wouldn't say they were heros, but damn, that any of them even thought that what they were saying would be taken any other way ... is not fathomable.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#265

Post by zrobotics » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 3:57 AM UTC

shantly wrote: post #230

mindslight wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shall not talk about it due to the connotations of its name, but rest assured those responsible have been liquidated.

I'm pretty sure it was intended in the sense of "to finger a suspect" (cf git blame) rather than anything vulgar. I think the tendency to take anything, in nearly any context, that could even maybe be vulgar, as vulgar 100% of the time, is actually relatively recent.

Have you ever read Shakespeare's work? Taking things in a vulgar context, especially for humor, is certainly nothing new.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#266

Post by nullc » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:02 AM UTC

partialrecall wrote: post #221

tzs wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the island that Epstein regularly invited numerous people to in order to discuss assorted legitimate things, like supporting their charities or their research? Epstein's island wasn't some stereotypical villain lair where anyone who steps foot on it must be up to no good. It was a place that he conducted the normal business that any entirely legitimate billionaire would conduct, in addition to the villain st…

> "Epstein's island wasn't some stereotypical villain lair where anyone who steps foot on it must be up to no good." This isn't applicable to the specific case of Minsky, but I think that ambiguity evaporates after Epstein's first conviction.

Epstein's first conviction was in 2008.

The allegation about Minksky stems from a single line in a gigantic recently published deposition ( https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/1159946492871938048 ), covering events long before 2008.

Minsky was included in a list of people that Epstein's assistant asked one of his victims to have sex with (the deposition didn't ask if sex actually occurred). In the deposition the victim couldn't remember the date they received that request, but a third party reported that they saw the victim approach Minsky in 2002 and that he turned her down and complained about it ( https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ ).

It may be the case that the witnessed event and the content of the deposition were unrelated and at different times, but if not-- the victim was also 18 at the time...

But no one really cares about the facts, this is almost entirely a ceremonial battle over who has the sickest imagination. Because there are essentially no clear details, not even a concrete allegation, everyone is essentially making things up in order to fight over them.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#267

Post by nullc » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:12 AM UTC

azernik wrote: post #255

partialrecall wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say it would absolve Minsky. Somebody who has sex with a prostitute is lower than dirt in my book.

Forget the prostitution issue. A 15-year-old cannot consent to sex with an adult. Period.

Where did 15 year olds come into the discussion related to Minsky?

The person in question was born in 1983 and the events in question were in 2002 (or potentially 2001 if there were multiple incidents, but not prior).

Maybe your confusion is because the age of consent is 16 in Massachusetts?

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#268

Post by shantly » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:15 AM UTC

zrobotics wrote: post #265

shantly wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure it was intended in the sense of "to finger a suspect" (cf git blame) rather than anything vulgar. I think the tendency to take anything, in nearly any context, that could even maybe be vulgar, as vulgar 100% of the time, is actually relatively recent.

Have you ever read Shakespeare's work? Taking things in a vulgar context, especially for humor, is certainly nothing new.

No I mean just refusing to let any mention of some normal use of a word go without taking it that way. I'm reasonably up on my Shakespeare (LOL "up on" LOL) so I know of the joys of double entendre and innuendo. It just seems like any innocent word or phrase that could be taken that way now must be avoided in a way that it didn't have to be as recently as 2-3 decades ago—which is a source of a good deal of humor for us now, as we mine historical media for things unavoidably funny to the modern, finely-tuned-to-spot-imaginary-sexual-references-in-everything mind, despite (often—not always) the same slang being in use back then.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#269

Post by eoxenford » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:16 AM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #226

eoxenford wrote: post #122

Throughout this whole brouhaha, I’ve been astonished at how nobody in the mainstream press, nor any of those in tech calling for Stallman’s head, ever challenged the statement that Stallman said Epstein’s victims were “entirely willing.” Indeed, quite the opposite. From the Medium post that kicked the whole thing off [1]: …and then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. And from Vice [2…

I don't fully understand the point you are trying to make. At the end of the day, Stallman is trying whitewash Minsky's responsibility by trying to pretend that a 70-something year old man didn't know that the underage girl at convicted Jeffrey Epstein's private island wasn't actually "entirely willing". In other words, he's taking us on this garbage thought experiment that Minsky is somehow an innocent bystander. To…

I don’t disagree with most of the points you make. Stallman was defending Minsky using rather dubious arguments. But he was not defending Epstein, and he did not say Epstein’s victims were “entirely willing.” And yet, those last two points were the crux of the case against him.

The point I’m making is that many, many people are deliberately lying or willfully misreading what Stallman wrote in order to force his resignation. Those using such tactics, in violation of their own cherished principles, ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead, tonight they are celebrating their victory with glee.

Re: Richard Stallman resigns from CSAIL at MIT

#270

Post by nullc » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:22 AM UTC

pvaldes wrote: post #155

codesushi42 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the hell are you talking about? What intellectual level? Stallman is quoted to have said: Stallman wrote that “the most plausible scenario” for Giuffre’s accusations was that she was, in actuality, “entirely willing.” How is that a rational, defensible statement in any terms?

Is not defensible, is either true or false. Would be a perfectly rational defensible statement if the facts will prove that is true, and will be demoted if proven false. Is just an opinion based on speculative reasoning from somebody that (as everyone of us) could have an incomplete picture of the facts. We know that we are in deep trouble when the new generations start solving math formula or hypothesis democratical…

> Stallman has the right to express an discomforting ugly hypothesis or a discordant opinion

Demonstratively, he did not have that right.

Or perhaps you believe in some kind of imaginary right where you could still be held to have it if you predictably suffer terrible consequences should you attempt to make use of it?

I've commented a number of times on this subject, calmly trying to direct people back to the facts-- but each time I know that any one of those message could be misrepresented and turned into terrible false accusations about me, simply because I pissed off the wrong mob.

I think the right you imagine might exist for some people-- people who do nothing of notice, people who never challenge anyone's thinking, or people who really don't have to give a darn about what anyone else thinks-- maybe it exists for me, maybe it exists for you at least for the moment. It did not exist for RMS.