Hacker News Reader

Comment by spurgu | Hacker News Reader

I find it refreshing to see someone willing to talk and think about these taboo kind of subjects. Myself I think it (sexual interaction) boils down to mutual consent, but there's obviously an age where a person cannot grasp the scope of what they're consenting to. And necrophilia fails this definition since consent is impossible (unless written in a will).

And now having looked into what he was actually accused of, of trying to imply that a sexual "assault" didn't necessarily happen, it's just strengthening my view that this "wokeness" is getting way out of hand in today's society.

View on HN

The law literally is about age of consent.

As a society we deem young people too immature to make important decisions for themselves.

Nothing about calling him on his ridiculous views is related to "wokeness". One guy saying "hey maybe fucking kids isn't bad" is not in any way related to social injustice - society in general says that fucking kids is bad. Edit: unless you agree with his claims - then I guess you might see it as "social injustice".

This is just a weirdo saying weird shit, and then other people (you) trying to latch onto the new version of "don't blame me, back in my day it was OK".

Not only young people but also adult who would want to take some kind of drugs, or who would like to get into, god forbid, homosexual acts.

Now, homosexuality has been allowed everywhere in the US for a decade or so. It wouldn't have been if it was not appropriate to talk about it.

Richard Stallman was, for my understanding, just daring to ask questions, and debating over a sensitive topic, and he got blamed for it.

Surely thinking you've got the right to police and punish other people for their views is wokeness, regardless of how ridiculous said views are?

You are literally projecting your own views on this, which is exactly the problem here.

The law? In which country? Who is correct? Is 18 mature but 17 isn't? Or 15? There is no hard coded rule/value, only arbitrary laws trying to generalize.

And the rest of your post is not even worth dissecting (even though it would be moderately amusing), you're clearly missing both what I and RMS are trying to say.

"Sexual assault" is an abused term, it does not make justice to real victims or real assault. Here's Nadine Strossen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadine_Strossen) on the subject:

"So we see the term sexual assault and sexual harrassment used for example, when a guy asks a woman out on a date and she doesn’t find that an appealing invitation. Maybe he used poor judgement in asking her out, maybe he didn’t, but in any case that is NOT sexual assault or harassment. To call it that is to really demean the huge horror and violence and predation that does exist when you are talking about violent sexual assault. People use the term sexual assault / sexual harassment to refer to any comment about gender or sexuality issues that they disagree with or a joke that might not be in the best taste, again is that to be commended? No! But to condemn it and equate it with a violent sexual assault again is really denying and demeaning the actual suffering that people who are victims of sexual assault endure. It trivializes the serious infractions that are committed by people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein. So that is one point that he [Stallman] made that I think is very important that I strongly agree with." https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web

Reply on news.ycombinator.com