This link is inaccurate. Regarding the Minsky/Epstein thing, the facts are:
Minksy was friends with Epstein, and visited his island in 2002, organizing a conference there. Epstein funded some of Minsky's research to the tune of $100k.
In 2008 Epstein was convicted of prostituting a child and spent time in jail for it. He was also banned from donating to MIT. Minsky must have been aware of this.
In 2011 Minksy organized another conference on Epstein's island. He did not distance himself from a registered sex offender who had admitted prostituting children.
RMS defended Minsky on a few counts. The most controversial is that *if* Minsky had sex with an underage girl, RMS said that she would have presented herself as willing and Minsky would have had no reason to think otherwise. In fact Minksy would have every reason to think otherwise, given Epstein's conviction for child prostitution.
In 2008 Epstein was convicted of prostituting a child and spent time in jail for it. He was also banned from donating to MIT. Minsky must have been aware of this.
In 2011 Minksy organized another conference on Epstein's island. He did not distance himself from a registered sex offender who had admitted prostituting children.
2011 > 2008. That's why he should have thought otherwise.
The most controversial is that *if* Minsky had sex with an underage girl, RMS said that she would have presented herself as willing and Minsky would have had no reason to think otherwise. In fact Minksy would have every reason to think otherwise
The "incident" in question where the "thinking otherwise" was suggested to Minsky didn't happen in 2011. If anything happened there (for which there's not even any evidence), it still happened way before Epstein's conviction. "Thinking otherwise" based on future events is physically impossible.
Yet instead of making that counter-argument, the response was a massive and public temper-tantrum that others were pressured to support through threats, lies and slander.
You notice how I'm not taking to twitter to publicly denounce you and demand that you be fired and ostracized, I'm calmly disagreeing and engaging in discussion. You've never responded to me by demanding I be condemned and driven from Slashdot, even though we disagree constantly. The people trying to destroy Stallman are not so mature,
I mean, people make errors of judgment without being evil.
Agreed, but this has been explained to RMS repeatedly and he has not issued a retraction or apology. If he did so it would make all this go away pretty fast.
In fact Minksy would have every reason to think otherwise, given Epstein's conviction for child prostitution.
1. RMS knows Minsky better than you know Minsky 2. You are advocating RMS imagining Minsky to not consider Epstein's jail time sufficient punishment and keep doubting him for life. 3. RMS just said that it was the most plausible scenario - not the only possibility. Given his personal knowledge of Minsky's personality, it is more plausible to him. If something else is more plausible to you, it is a simple logical discussion with RMS rather than a reason to "denounce" him. RMS has replied to my email on the Emac
The fact is he ran his mouth and people took it the wrong way. He hasn't apologised or sympathised. Standing by your words due to how they parse through a logic processor makes you a good programmer, it doesn't in any way make you a good leader or figurehead to be sitting on a board of directors for an important foundation which relies incredibly strongly on public relations.
He can be as right as he wants, but thus far he has demonstrated that he doesn't belong in the position he is being criticised for hav
Indeed, we have an easily disproven accusation of misconduct and a bunch of accusations that there was misconduct that cannot be proven or disproven since nobody seems to know what that misconduct was.
It's as if a prosecutor said "The defendant broke the law, we're sure. We seek the death penalty, the prosecution rests".
The whole thing is actually quite disturbing and disgusting in equal measure.
Stallman never defended child sex trafficking, prostitution, or paedophilia. His crime is defending his (dead and therefore unable to defend himself) friend, Marvin Minsky, who *allegedly may have* had had sex with an 18-year-old Virginia Giuffre in 2002. So far there has been no direct evidence presented that Minsky did in fact sleep with the girl.
Minsky is known to have visited Epstein's island in 2002, when Epstein sponsored Minsky to host a symposium. At the time nothing was publicly known about Eps
So I guess you don't mind going to jail if the guy you are asking for directions turns out to have a baggie of meth in his pocket? Never mind that you didn't know he was a meth dealer, you associated with him so off to jail you go!
If someone else says "wait a minute, he was only asking for directions", is that person now advocating for someone who sells dangerous drugs to school children? Shall we jail him too?
Accusations are not enough, especially when most of them are transparently false.
Yes they enough. Figureheads and leaders live and die on accusations. RMS may have been correct, but he was so without any thought as to the wider implication of how his words would be taken. Lock him in a room where he can contribute to society using his brilliant mind in the proper way. Don't promote him to a leadership position which demands someone have a good grasp of public relations, RMS has none.
Accusations are not enough, especially when most of them are transparently false.
Yes they enough. Figureheads and leaders live and die on accusations.
Bullshit. Just complete bullshit. You can not have a functioning society based on the idea that any accusation, no matter how fanciful or easily disproved, means that someone must be removed from all public-facing activity.
I think you're missing the point. The accusation here is not disproven, people *were* upset at the comments, that is the accusation. That is 100% proven by the resulting outcry. That Stallman's comments which upset people were correct is completely irrelevant. In a position of leadership PR is far more important than being right, and that is how society functions, because being right doesn't make something less painful.
Leaders don't exist to autistically speak truths, hell those people typically make horrib
I think you're missing the point. The accusation here is not disproven, people *were* upset at the comments, that is the accusation. That is 100% proven by the resulting outcry. That Stallman's comments which upset people were correct is completely irrelevant.
We have people who were upset. That is not in itself a crime; indeed I'm happy if certain people are offended by certain things.
The offended people have, having passed judgement on RMS, turned to the general public and said "isn't this an offensive thing?" Well, generally speaking, it's not. As a society we can not afford to go down the route of never offending anyone because then you tolerate everything and suddenly you don't have a society anymore, just a load of people living together in fear.
For example
PL/I -- "the fatal disease" -- belongs more to the problem set than to the
solution set.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
EFF Puts its finger on it (Score:5, Insightful)
"serious accusations of misconduct"
Accusations are not enough, especially when most of them are transparently false.
Re:EFF Puts its finger on it (Score:5, Informative)
"serious accusations of misconduct"
Accusations are not enough, especially when most of them are transparently false.
for anyone looking for the facts - rather than the slander - this was covered only yesterday:
https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Re:EFF Puts its finger on it (Score:4, Informative)
This link is inaccurate. Regarding the Minsky/Epstein thing, the facts are:
Minksy was friends with Epstein, and visited his island in 2002, organizing a conference there. Epstein funded some of Minsky's research to the tune of $100k.
In 2008 Epstein was convicted of prostituting a child and spent time in jail for it. He was also banned from donating to MIT. Minsky must have been aware of this.
In 2011 Minksy organized another conference on Epstein's island. He did not distance himself from a registered sex offender who had admitted prostituting children.
RMS defended Minsky on a few counts. The most controversial is that *if* Minsky had sex with an underage girl, RMS said that she would have presented herself as willing and Minsky would have had no reason to think otherwise. In fact Minksy would have every reason to think otherwise, given Epstein's conviction for child prostitution.
Re: (Score:1)
In fact Minksy would have every reason to think otherwise, given Epstein's conviction for child prostitution.
Minsky had reason to think in 2002-2003 otherwise because Epstein would be convicted in 2008? How exactly does that work?
Re: (Score:3)
You stopped reading 1/2 way down.
In 2008 Epstein was convicted of prostituting a child and spent time in jail for it. He was also banned from donating to MIT. Minsky must have been aware of this.
In 2011 Minksy organized another conference on Epstein's island. He did not distance himself from a registered sex offender who had admitted prostituting children.
2011 > 2008. That's why he should have thought otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
The most controversial is that *if* Minsky had sex with an underage girl, RMS said that she would have presented herself as willing and Minsky would have had no reason to think otherwise. In fact Minksy would have every reason to think otherwise
The "incident" in question where the "thinking otherwise" was suggested to Minsky didn't happen in 2011. If anything happened there (for which there's not even any evidence), it still happened way before Epstein's conviction. "Thinking otherwise" based on future events is physically impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
You notice how I'm not taking to twitter to publicly denounce you and demand that you be fired and ostracized, I'm calmly disagreeing and engaging in discussion. You've never responded to me by demanding I be condemned and driven from Slashdot, even though we disagree constantly. The people trying to destroy Stallman are not so mature,
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, people make errors of judgment without being evil.
Agreed, but this has been explained to RMS repeatedly and he has not issued a retraction or apology. If he did so it would make all this go away pretty fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The president of the ACLU has a good take on the whole situation [wetheweb.org]. Scroll down a bit, she's smart.
Re: (Score:2)
17 year olds do no qualify as children. Unless you live in some states in the USA, which you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact Minksy would have every reason to think otherwise, given Epstein's conviction for child prostitution.
1. RMS knows Minsky better than you know Minsky
2. You are advocating RMS imagining Minsky to not consider Epstein's jail time sufficient punishment and keep doubting him for life.
3. RMS just said that it was the most plausible scenario - not the only possibility. Given his personal knowledge of Minsky's personality, it is more plausible to him. If something else is more plausible to you, it is a simple logical discussion with RMS rather than a reason to "denounce" him.
RMS has replied to my email on the Emac
In fact (Score:2)
I forgot the main point : You are using "In fact" for somebody else's imaginary motive for a hypothetical action.
Re: (Score:1)
The fact is he ran his mouth and people took it the wrong way. He hasn't apologised or sympathised. Standing by your words due to how they parse through a logic processor makes you a good programmer, it doesn't in any way make you a good leader or figurehead to be sitting on a board of directors for an important foundation which relies incredibly strongly on public relations.
He can be as right as he wants, but thus far he has demonstrated that he doesn't belong in the position he is being criticised for hav
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is he ran his mouth and people took it the wrong way. He hasn't apologised or sympathised.
He has issued an apology [stallman.org]. It's the kind of apology you would expect a politician to give, but it's still an apology.
Re:EFF Puts its finger on it (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, we have an easily disproven accusation of misconduct and a bunch of accusations that there was misconduct that cannot be proven or disproven since nobody seems to know what that misconduct was.
It's as if a prosecutor said "The defendant broke the law, we're sure. We seek the death penalty, the prosecution rests".
The whole thing is actually quite disturbing and disgusting in equal measure.
Re: (Score:2)
Minsky is known to have visited Epstein's island in 2002, when Epstein sponsored Minsky to host a symposium. At the time nothing was publicly known about Eps
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess you don't mind going to jail if the guy you are asking for directions turns out to have a baggie of meth in his pocket? Never mind that you didn't know he was a meth dealer, you associated with him so off to jail you go!
If someone else says "wait a minute, he was only asking for directions", is that person now advocating for someone who sells dangerous drugs to school children? Shall we jail him too?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Accusations are not enough, especially when most of them are transparently false.
Yes they enough. Figureheads and leaders live and die on accusations. RMS may have been correct, but he was so without any thought as to the wider implication of how his words would be taken. Lock him in a room where he can contribute to society using his brilliant mind in the proper way. Don't promote him to a leadership position which demands someone have a good grasp of public relations, RMS has none.
Re:EFF Puts its finger on it (Score:4, Insightful)
Accusations are not enough, especially when most of them are transparently false.
Yes they enough. Figureheads and leaders live and die on accusations.
Bullshit. Just complete bullshit. You can not have a functioning society based on the idea that any accusation, no matter how fanciful or easily disproved, means that someone must be removed from all public-facing activity.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point. The accusation here is not disproven, people *were* upset at the comments, that is the accusation. That is 100% proven by the resulting outcry. That Stallman's comments which upset people were correct is completely irrelevant. In a position of leadership PR is far more important than being right, and that is how society functions, because being right doesn't make something less painful.
Leaders don't exist to autistically speak truths, hell those people typically make horrib
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point. The accusation here is not disproven, people *were* upset at the comments, that is the accusation. That is 100% proven by the resulting outcry. That Stallman's comments which upset people were correct is completely irrelevant.
We have people who were upset. That is not in itself a crime; indeed I'm happy if certain people are offended by certain things.
The offended people have, having passed judgement on RMS, turned to the general public and said "isn't this an offensive thing?" Well, generally speaking, it's not. As a society we can not afford to go down the route of never offending anyone because then you tolerate everything and suddenly you don't have a society anymore, just a load of people living together in fear.
For example