[Discuss] RMS

[richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:33:00 -0500
Derek Martin <invalid at pizzashack.org> wrote:

> > RMS wrote two things which appear contradictory:
> >
> > Epstein was a serial rapist.
> 
> I think he did not write this.  Or at least, I can confirm that when
> *I* wrote it, it was my careless take on what someone else said he
> said.  I doubt very much rms would make such a bald, imprecise
> statement.  He's a bit of a windbag.

He wrote it. RMS definitely called Epstein a serial rapist.

> > Sexual assault presumes the application of force or violence.
> > 
> > Huh? So if Minsky or Epstein did not apply force or violence then it
> > wasn't sexual asasult or rape?
> 
> Epstein wasn't charged with sexual assault, AFAIK, so it wouldn't
> apply.  He was charged with prostitution and sex trafficking.

He was accused of sexual assault. He got out of formal charging as part
of the plea deal but he was definitely accused.

> But critically, rms never said the crime wouldn't apply.  You have
> said that repeatedly in this thread, but he said nothing of the sort
> in the CSAIL thread in question.  He only said that there are
> multiple things that have the same name which are not the same, and
> the term applied is extremely prejudicial in a way that causes people
> to think much worse of someone who is accused of it.  And because of
> that instead you should be more specific about the accusation.

RMS: 
> Let's presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
> 
> The word "assaulting" presumes that he applied force or violence,
> in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
> Only that they had sex.

RMS asserted that assault presumes the application of force or violence
in the context of defending Minsky's reputation. He's making the point
that whatever Minsky did it was not sexual assault and it is absolutely
wrong to call it sexual assault because neither force nor violence were
applied.

Paraphrased: it's not sexual assault if there is no application of
force or violence.

A *lot* of people at CSAIL interpreted it this way. When questioned he
flatly refused to clarify what he meant to anyone on the list. With
literally no futher explanation of his intent we are left with our
interpretations and his history of advocacy of sex with minors.

The fact that this dicsussion is happening here and elsewhere is more
than enough proof that it's not a case of "we all misunderstood what he
meant".


> Most people will never hear the details--they will only hear "sexual
> assault."  Minsky won't have the benefit of the details, he'll only
> ever have the label.  Now and forever.  In the eyes of some, he will
> be branded a monster.  Permanently.  If you can't see that, can't see

The saddest thing about this is it's RMS' own fault. If he had STFU as
Bushnell alluded then this wouldn't have happened. Seriously. Giuffre's
deposition never actually said they had sex which is corroborated by a
witness who said Minsky declined. RMS didn't read the deposition for
himself before jumping into the fray. He made his assumption based on
spurious claims in a clipping from a news article.

-- 
Rich Pieri