I'm not necessary criticizing, but it's a bit sad that most popular search engine turned to be manipulation and persuasion machine. I no longer thing about it as search engine, more like "what's trendy network", BUT I recognize that Google Search belongs to google and google is a business, and business does what's most profitable! That's good for them, not necessary for us, I personally almost never use google search, but I use android with google account, just because duck duck go is better search engine and google android is really comfortable.
Selam G wrote that Stallman considered that Minsky's victim was actually willing.
That's not "planting evidence" in a legal sense because sure, that's not evidence at all. Mainly because it isn't true and it's easily verifiable.
But in this context, by these people, it has been taken as actual evidence against Stallman. I guess that's the rationale behind the analogy.
> Do you realize how many people -- not just men -- in CS, physics, mathematics are autistic, especially in places like MIT?
Do you have any citations for that (for the fact that there's a significant proportion of autistic people who study/work at the MIT)? It's come up a few times in the comment section of this article, and I can't find sources for that claim.
Honestly the first time I read it I dismissed it as an exaggeration, but you (and others) seem convinced enough to use it to back some of your opinions on this topic. Before this, I would've thought that thoughts like that were merely stereotypes result of ignorance.
Stereotypes are mostly accurate[1]. If you don’t think it’s accurate you could just visually compare MIT and Harvard students. The difference in average nerdiness is neither small nor subtle. I hope you will accept the relationship between nerdiness and autism as a given.
> Stereotype (In)Accuracy in Perceptions of Groups and Individuals
> Are stereotypes accurate or inaccurate? We summarize evidence that stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable findings in social psychology. We address controversies in this literature, including the long-standing and continuing but unjustified emphasis on stereotype inaccuracy, how to define and assess stereotype accuracy, and whether stereotypic (vs. individuating) information can be used rationally in person perception. We conclude with suggestions for building theory and for future directions of stereotype (in)accuracy research.
I don't understand how what you've answered changes the fact that Stallman openly implied with his opinion that absence of consent (rape) makes a sexual relation unethical and bad.
Stallman is against rape, and arguing that criticizing the ambiguous use of a term in a certain context (sexual assault) makes he somehow pro-rape seems unreasonable (but I'm open to explanations I didn't consider, if you wish to try).
In general, if you have any sources for your claims feel free to share them (I can't find any sources quoting stallman saying anything that vaguely resembles a pro-rape argument, and I've gone through most comments in the section).
More specifically, Stallman didn't ever say that raping children doesn't harm them, if your definition of rape is sex without consent (that's the legal definition in my country). He said that if you have consensual sex with a minor then that may not be harmful for him/her (the fact that this is not "raping children" follows from the very definition of rape).
I'm trying to leave my feelings aside but you really seem to be misquoting Stallman to try to make a point. I really hope I'm wrong about this so I'm genuinely curious about what did you mean when you said he stated that "raping children doesn't harm them".
You didn't just give an example of a leader who doesn't challenge things. You literally stated that if a follower disagrees with the leader, then "by definition" he/she is not a good leader.
You are implying that the definition of "leader" includes that you can't challenge things people may not find ok (disagree with).
Reading your link, I don't find anything troubling. He says the term is too ambiguous and it makes it easy to (potentially maliciously) misrepresent someone's acts.
If you find anything else he's said troubling please provide me some references as I'm trying to read anything that may help me to understand this episode. (I've already read about his former and present opinions on paedophilia)
Stallman isn't pro-paedophilia. He stated years ago that he didn't see enough evidence to believe sexual relations with children are harmful for them if they are consensual.
That's _not_ believing sexual relations with children can be ok if they are consensual, that's believing you don't have enough evidence to believe the opposite.
If you need “evidence” for that you are pro-paedophilia, a child cannot give consent to an adult in order to have sex, this is like an axiom of our society. He questioned that young lady’s testimony (Giuffre I think she is called) by saying: “the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing“. When you throw in a “plausible” just to whitewash your dead friend you are pro-rape.
This whole conversation has left a really bad taste for me regarding the HN community, it really sickens me when I see that so many users in here are trying to justify pro-paedophilia quotes, I thought that the lowest this community went was when it witch-hunted a poor guy after the Boston terrorist attack some years ago, but this is on a new other (and sicker) level.
