Daxim on 10/10/2019 at 09:55
Quote:
saying that the 17-year old girl who was directed to have sex with him was most probably "entirely willing"
That is the opposite of what he actually wrote, namely he assumes Giuffre was being coerced by Epstein, E. would tell her to conceal that, and she would present herself to Minsky as entirely willing.
I notice a link to the original sources is missing.
Quote:
The dude has a history of this
I notice a link to the post on the same blog that abrogates the previous posts is missing.
Quote:
he called Epstein's child sex trafficking victims (some as young as 14) his harem
What is the significance of that?
Quote:
having "knight for hot ladies" on your office door does not exactly smack of academic professionalism
Someone else used permanent marker to write on the plastic receptacle next to the door and then took a picture of it before anyone had a chance to erase it.
Quote:
staring at his colleague's chest
…
he would kill himself if they didn't go out with him
Hearsay, not checked by journalists. All kinds of hanger-ons are coming out of the woodworks and tell tales (like he was married and worked for VA Linux) that don't hold up under the slightest investigation. Therefore I'm inclined to not believe it until further corroboration.
But let's assume it's true. Annoying colleagues is a world apart from "defending pedophilia and child sex trafficking". That does not justify vigilante mobs. I want to live in a society where rule of law is the norm and not mobs ruining lifes.
Starker on 10/10/2019 at 20:21
If you think for a moment that Minsky, an old man, would have thought that a young girl is "entirely willing" in that situation, then I have nothing more to say.
As for the incident, he was diminishing what happened to Epsteins victims in order to defend his friend. Arguing semantics, casting doubt on their testimony. And calling victims of sex trafficking a harem just shows how callous and insensitive he's about the whole thing. Remember, some of them were as young as 14.
And as for pedophilia, how much clearer can you get than what the guy has up on his own site in his own words.
As the saying goes, there are none as blind as those who don't want to see. There are decades of stories of Stallman being a creep. How convenient that you can dismiss it all as "hearsay". Again, I ask you, how much of a creep has a guy have to be before you are allowed to call him out on that publicly?
Renzatic on 10/10/2019 at 22:34
We live in a world where a bunch of skeevy, out of touch politicians talking too much about pizza can spin up an entire mythology of child abuse, compete with flow charts, blue prints, and a guy raiding a restaurant with a gun, but some other person says something like "hey, let's fuck some kids", and suddenly we're asked to consider the surrounding circumstances, take it all in context.
I guess it all comes down to a matter of opinion, huh? I believe that the people I don't like are all pedophiles and sneaky drips. The people I do like are, of course, being smeared by the people I don't.
Daxim on 11/10/2019 at 11:53
Quote:
Minsky, an old man, would have thought that a young girl is "entirely willing" in that situation
Why would he not? It does fit the situation. I will lay it out the details AIUI, since you did not. A millionaire invites you to an island vacation to have some fun with the goal of cultivating close relationships, pays for your flight, accomodation, meals, entertainment, massages. The masseuse comes and also offers sexual services. How in anyone's mind is the most straight-forward explanation *not* "that millionaire also hired prostitutes" *but* "that millionaire abducted and forced them"? That only makes sense in hind-sight. You keep saying young girl which means four to six years of age. But Giuffre was almost adult. Don't try to pull stupid word tricks on this thread's readers.
A witness said Minsky declined, again that information is available in the original source. Have you sought it out and read yet? If not, how often do I need to drop a hint as broad as a barn door?
I notice you did not challenge anything of the rest I wrote. Silence betokens consent. AFAIC the accusation of "defending pedophilia and child sex trafficking" is off the table.
Quote:
he was diminishing what happened to Epsteins victims in order to defend his friend
No, he did not write anything that diminishes. It also is not a defence, but a request towards using more concrete terms than "sexual assault" when accusing because it is too vague. (See original source.)
Quote:
how callous and insensitive he's about the whole thing
The more charitable interpretation of that would be that he has different priorities. Well, people do, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's not a single society on the whole world that operates with common priorities.
But let's assume he really is callous and insensitive. That is called a character weakness and does not justify vigilante mobs.
Quote:
there are none as blind as those who don't want to see […] you can dismiss it all as "hearsay"
I'm prepared to change my mind, if that is not clear enough from my last post. Are you?
I have two good reasons to be skeptical, namely aforementioned hanger-ons, and decades of accusations with no conviction. And it's not like he's rich and can just pay off accusers before it comes to a court case; he leads a life akin to Diogenes in the barrel.
Quote:
how much of a creep has a guy have to be before you are allowed to call him out on that publicly?
Low threshold, I think anyone should be able call out in good faith what one wants. But that's not what happened. Mob happened.
----
You really are media incompetent. The more you write, the more it is apparent.
Step up your effort if you wanna participate in serious discussion. For Gray's sake, here's the education: You are required to take in all available information, not just those pieces that confirm your preconceived biases. Apply rationality, not the amygdala. You have to be able to entertain the thought in your mind that you could be wrong, and consider information in that light. Make arguments to topple iron men, not straw men.
Starker on 11/10/2019 at 13:41
You are simply conjuring the best scenario that could happen, not really applying rationality here. Might want to take some of your own advice. Even if you take the most charitable interpretation that Minsky was simply unaware of what was going on at the time, he still continued to associate with Epstein after he had been convicted as a sex offender. Not to mention prostitution is illegal in most of America, including Virgin Islands, and the girl was under the age of consent there when she was ordered to have sex with Minsky, if the timeline is correct. Also, even a 17-year-old is a young girl compared to someone in their seventies. That was what I had in mind when I said "a young girl" in that sentence, not your bad faith accusation.
And he has definitely defended pedophilia, as I clearly showed with the quotes I pulled from his site. And those were just examples -- there's more where they came from. Also, he was certainly trying to diminish the situation of what happened with Epstein and Minsky. Calling Epstein's child victims his harem is one example of that. Arguing that it's irrelevant whether the girl was below the age of consent is another.
As for your willingness to change your mind, I severely doubt it if you're prepared to dismiss any and all first-hand accounts as hearsay. There have been stories of Stallman acting inappropriately towards women for decades. The first of such I must have heard some 18 years ago when I was just starting in IT and in the meantime I have heard and read several more from people who have met him in conferences or in the line of work.
Here's just one of those:
And many people have confirmed his behaviour, including his colleagues:
Quote:
(
https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-departure-of-rms-18e6a835fd84)
I was around for most of the 90s, and I can confirm the unfortunate reality that RMS's behavior was a concern at the time, and that this protection was itself part of the problem. He was never held to account; he was himself coddled in his own lower-grade misbehavior and mistreatment of women. He made the place uncomfortable for a lot of people, and especially women.
Your defence that he hasn't been sued and convicted in court doesn't hold water either, because not all behaviour has to be criminal in order for it to be unacceptable for workplace, especially a prestigious institution like MIT.
As far as I'm concerned, I see (and you have offered) no reason to change my mind that Stallman is a creep who has deserved to be kicked out of MIT for a long time, because his defence of pedophilia has been public and unmistakable and the stories about Stallman having inappropriate interactions with women (which go beyond merely "annoying" them) have been remarkably consistent and long-running. The latest controversy is merely the last straw in a long line, even if we take the most charitable interpretation of what happened with Minsky.
nickie on 11/10/2019 at 18:55
Quote Posted by Daxim
Silence betokens consent.
I have struggled to keep up with the conversation (time constraints and stuff) and I don't know who's being discussed but I wonder if you could just explain this statement, which stands out to me, and the context. Is it just referring to Starker's post? I can't think that you would think it be universally applicable.
Tony_Tarantula on 2/1/2020 at 15:06
Not surprised if true.
Jeffrey Epstein's socialite 'madam' Ghislaine Maxwell 'is being hidden from the FBI in a series of safe houses because of the information she has on powerful people' Maxwell has remained incognito since Epstein's arrest and death behind bars
New report claims both she and Epstein were 'assets' for a foreign government
Source says they funneled dirt on the rich and powerful to foreign spies
Now Maxwell may be hiding in a safehouse in Israel, the new report claims
She is a British and US citizen, and daughter of an alleged Mossad operative (
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7843659/Ghislaine-Maxwell-reportedly-foreign-spy-hiding-Israel.html)
lowenz on 5/1/2020 at 20:27
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children"
Is this a real quote from Stallman?
Well, the "real" thing is that an "incompetent pedophile" is MORE harmful than a non-incompetent one, like in every "practice".
Still they are dangerously callous people, if not manipulative tout-court.
Maybe Stallman wanted to say what I'm saying but he can't really express it well.
It's not a "pedophilia defense", it's a wanna be psychological assertion about the danger-impulsiveness relationship.