>Stallman's post to the MIT mailing list argued, in a spectacularly INSENSITIVE fashion, that Minsky may not have been aware Giuffre had been coerced to have sex.
How is this particular statement by Stallman insensitive?
How is this particular statement by Stallman insensitive?
It's also naive. I mean... powerful billionaire brings you to his private island and presents to you a beautiful young woman who wants to have sex with you, a 70-something man. That sounds like the "plot" of a really bad porno. You'd have to be obnoxiously naive to believe the woman wasn't being coerced in some way.
A paid escort is plausible, though, and I hadn't thought of that. However, the girl was 17. Obviously age isn't always obvious down to the year, but I would hope someone in that situation would think twice before assuming everything was kosher.
...I don't think it makes it any better.
...applies to a tiny minority of people involved in prostitution sex work.
When we're talking about recklessness and naivety it's not a persuasive argument to say "he thought this child was a willing prostitute".
Which means powerful billionaire wants to own you, and you should gtfo while you can.
> You'd have to be obnoxiously naive...
Well, some people probably are.
> ..to believe the woman wasn't being coerced in some way.
or believe that she was willingly paid?
Idk, I think I'd be creeped out way before it came to that, but who knows.
Sex trafficking isn't the logical conclusion to draw.
I'm not saying that's the correct side, but it's a human, emotional thing, rather than rational.
"Friend" isn't just some flag that gets set by cosmic rays and then stays that way forever, that would make it meaningless to me, not more noble.. blind loyalty isn't loyalty, just blindness. I say this as someone who did cast of friends, which was painful to me, even though it was for totally trivial and harmless, outright edifying reasons in comparison.
Agreed. It's more of a collection of experiences and knowledge of character.
If I've known you for 20 years and known you to be a good person, if I hear something like this I'm more likely to believe this is some sort of a mistake, as it is completely out of character. One way to rationalize it would be to believe that you were misinformed, rather than me being a poor judge of character for all of these years.
Again, not saying it's what happened - i dont know. But it's just human nature to react like that. It's not really human nature to consider the social media and print media applications before writing an opinion.
"Human nature" is also too generic, the question was, how would you react. I answered that question, and have the former friends I showed the door to prove it. It's clearly within "human nature" to react like that, too.
Why, if it is 2 consenting adults? As I said in another comment, some people are into BDSM, tentacle stuff, toys, etc. If they're both into it and happy, it's none of my business.
This agist view towards sex that you are prescribing is certainly no better than someone who would stop being friends with someone because they found out that their friend is gay.
> This agist view towards sex that you are prescribing
You're actually trying to prescribe to something to me, and about my reasoning and "view" you know nothing, because you prefer your own straw man.
> is certainly no better than someone who would stop being friends with someone because they found out that their friend is gay.
Aaaand here comes the payoff, where being against taking advantage of someone is "the" bad thing, and dirty old men don't exist, just an "agist view". A lot of variations can be seen in that other thread, too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990583
Your assumption is completely wrong.
In a world where one's written words can be so twisted beyond their original intent, it's good to reaffirm an assumption of good faith.
This statement isn't sensitive to the anger that people feel towards Epstein and thus Minsky, and the fact that Stallman has said it in this angry environment has caused quite a spectacle.
So in that sense, I think one might call it "spectacularly insensitive." On the other hand, I think that was the point. And I don't think that all public intellectuals should be required to be sensitive to the angry mobs at all times. I'd like someone to stand up to the mob, from time to time.
EDIT: to be clear, the italicized part is what I infer Stallman's intent was.
>How is this particular statement by Stallman insensitive?
It's insensitive to the fact that if you are a very old, famous man, who is taken by another old, rich man to a private island, where a seemingly willing 17-year-old girl offers sex -
- then the right thing to do is to politely decline the offer, because anyone with a half brain cell, a world-famous scientist more so, can figure out what that is about.
The statement is insensitive regardless of the allegations. It shows that RMS, alas, doesn't think that something that we today can't accept is wrong at all.
Does it make him unworthy of being the president of the FSF? I don't know; he has been right about the tech, I think. I just wish he abstained from commenting on social matters that don't have anything to do with FSF concerns.