Something about this makes me wonder how Richard Stallman is doing these days.
He has been ranting on about ebooks since they were invented. But it took over a decade for the “technically they could do this” to become “they are doing this”
Are you sure about that? Given the concerted smear campaign against him?
What he said was "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 every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates."
He has also stated that Epstein should be considered a serial rapist.
Presenting herself as entirely willing does not mean that suddenly the person who is "consuming" is not participating to a sexual assault when this person is conveniently closing a blind eye on either or not she has been coerced: Epstein already had a bad reputation and was a registered sex offended at the time, including for coercing minor to have sex. It is just bs to play coy and say "weeeell, maybe he did not know", and just show the person saying that is going out of their way in semantic to reshape the discourse into victim blaming.
My next reader will be a Kobo, but my Kindle that is not connected to the internet is still going strong.
Someone who explains the same thing better than I do: https://helenpluckrose.substack.com/p/defining-woke-and-woke...
I think it's the trick with the "woke" definition: people who think it's a good definition always end up given a definition which describe them very well or describe the group that they are claiming is the victim of the big bad wokes.
The best definition that exists is "woke are people that defend a view point I don't like. I'm using the same strategy as them to defend my own view point, but because I like my views, I think my views are reasonable, and because I don't like their views, I think their views are unreasonable"
This shouldn't come as a surprise really, certain words have been in vogue in the last few years (i.e. "systemic", "white supremacy", "inequities", ...), and they all share a common theme/premise about race, sexuality, and gender. Associated with these beliefs are people who use these beliefs to justify illiberal behaviour. Is it then unreasonable to denote this observable phenomena with a term, which just so happens to be called "woke"? This is the same line of reasoning which has led to the (rightful) creation of terms like "right-wingers" to denote illiberal people on the political right, and their associated beliefs. There's nothing here that's partisan or conspiratorial. So what's your deal with describing observable phenomena with some word?
Perhaps you should consider that your final paragraph more aptly describes your position than it does mine.
He said some vaguely questionable thing about the definition of the word assault and people sought to interpret that in the absolute worst way possible.
He's a weirdo, and he says some stuff that clearly indicates there's some social stuff he just doesn't quite understand. Like the fact that "assault" or "rape" doesn't necessarily mean an outright violent physical assault.
I mean who the hell expects RMS to have a nuanced understanding of interpersonal relationships?