Devil’s advocate for Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS)

Motivering till tråd:

Och det här är högst relevant och av diskussionsvärde - det vill säga så länge det fortfarande ens är möjligt innan självcensuren blivit gjord ännu större.

Vad tror ni kommer hända när er arbetsplats anses vara för köns-ojämlik och/eller inte mångfaldig nog och måste bli mer anpassad för utsatta grupper? Eller ojämlikheten blir en anklagelse och bevis på avsiktligt hat och förtryck, vilket ni som jobbar där måste vara skyldiga för?

När ni får en "diversity and inclusion office" eller något annat av den benämningsvariation, som kommer obligatoriskt utbilda i kritisk-rasteori och kritisk-könsteori och omedveten-bias-träning och mikroaggressioner och tal och uppförande -koder att följa?

Att ja, det kan man diskutera då?

Motivation for thread:

And this is highly relevant and of discussion value - that is, as long as it is still even possible before self-censorship has been expanded even greater.
What do you think will happen when your workplace is considered too gender-unequal and/or not diverse enough and needs to be more adapted for vulnerable groups? Or the inequality becomes an accusation and proof of intentional hatred and oppression, which you who work there must be guilty of?
When you get a "diversity and inclusion office" or something other in that naming variation, which will have mandatory training in critical-race-theory and critical-gender-theory and unconscious-bias-training and micro-aggressions and speech and behavioural -codes to follow?
That yes, that can then be discussed?

This is a conversation I made up completely and is totally from my fantasy.

The following program contains coarse language and due to its content it should not be viewed by anyone.

Swedish version first, English version second.

Original emails written in Swedish, machine translated coarsely into English, then manually touched up finely (enough).

Original comments, vice versa (En to Sv).

So quality is highest in the original languages.

I am only sharing my side of the discussion, to not be a dick towards the other members in my association. I thought of sharing it anonymized, but then considered their willingness of holding a discussion with me next time.

_______________________________________________________________________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Swedish version:

Bakgrund om situationen:
I vårt lokala teknopräst-kapitel togs det nyligen upp att Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS) tvingades avgå från flera befattningar för ungefär ett år sedan på grund av en kommentars kontrovers, med andra ord var han till synes ett annat offer för avbrytar-kultur.
Hur som helst, har han för väldigt många år sedan varit på besök och blivit gjord hedersmedlem.


Bakgrund om personen:
Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
Stallman lanserade GNU-projektet, grundade Free Software Foundation, utvecklade GNU Compiler Collection och GNU Emacs och skrev GNU General Public License.


Jag kände vagt till om honom men satte mig in i situationen och karaktären. Tydligen ett begåvat geni med många stora bidrag till mänskligheten, en mycket icke-konformistisk och väldigt egendomlig karaktär (vilket i särklass mestadels är bra - att vara en individ och inte en kollektivist!), men det senare blir inte bättre genom att han "tronas” och tolereras på grund av storheten av prestationer, med andra ord brist på perspektiv och Vitamin N (YouTube:a det). Inte alls olikt mycket attraktiva kvinnor.


Hur som helst, diskussionen handlade om:
- Rädsla för konsekvenser om någon fick reda på det.
- Han är en så hemsk person och borde därför vara ovälkommen.
- Han bör hållas kvar på grund av sina storheter och prestationer.
- Vilka signaler det skickar till våra medlemmar, hur det får dem att känna, vilken typ av stämning det skapar.
- Och att bli av med honom för att han nu ser dålig ut, eftersom alla andra har blivit av med honom.

Förslag:
- Säg inget, håll det tyst och hoppas på det bästa.
- Göra sig av med. Och när det inte fick mycket stöd, bli av med hedersmedlemskap från stadgarna. Och när det inte fick mycket stöd, göra så att varje sådan titel automatiskt förfaller efter ett år, om inte av styrelsen aktivt och specifikt beslutas om att behållas/förnyas.

Första brevet. En bit in I diskussionen kommer jag in:

Har någon i denna RMS-diskussionen eller i DennaFörening förövrigt, personlig erfarenhet av cancel-culture?

Av fundamentalistisk extremistisk feminizm och social-justice, sjw?

Och då inte på givarsidan, utan på mottagarsidan?

Jag har väldigt gott av den erfarenheten.

Trots att jag själv typ är jw och feminist, då jag håller med om och försvarar många av kärnvärdena i de ideologierna (liksom vad de flesta människor inte skulle säga emot), och inte är hatande mot folk som skiljer sig, utan rätt accepterande eller omkring neutral (betyder inte att jag alltid är okritisk).

För det handlar inte om att vara en vettig och god människa, utan det handlar om en viss kultur och ideologi - som inte får sägas emot, gör du det blir det konsekvenser.

Endast en sida får tala, och endast åt det håll som den sidan bestämmer får argumenteras.

Visst känns det bra att vara del av mobben, ha gemenskap, vara överens, åstadkomma något tillsammans, och speciellt att få igång en mobb, få flera med en, som en ledare?

Känner du dig moralt överlägsen för att fördöma någon att vara motsatsen till din moralitet?

Angående RMS.

RMS är enligt mig, i denna senaste händelse iallafall, mestadels felanklagad och missförstådd (mest sannolikt avsiktligt och illvilligt).

Det problematiska jag stötte på (har dock inte läst hela mailkonversationen), har RMS ändrat sin ståndpunkt i, som kan läsas i Wikipedia artikeln om honom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Resignation_from_MIT_and_FSF

”

On September 14 Stallman acknowledged that since the time of his past writings, he had learned that there were problems with underage sex, writing on his blog: "Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that."

”

Personer kan lära sig, ändras och förbättras.

Vidare.

Han försvarade sin avlidne MIT kollega från att bli pratad om värre än vad som är nödvändigt. Han stod upp för att försvara sin medmänniska så att dennes rykte och ära inte pratas felaktigt om, i detta fall potentiellt överdrivet negativt. Han sade aldrig sin kollega vara oskyldig eller ursäktad, endast mindre illa jämfört med vad som sades av de aktuella rösterna. Han uttalade sig inte om HE eller kvinnan, utan samtalet var om hans kollega och närmare bestämt från kollegans synvinkel.

”Det är ingen nyhet att RS uttalar sig svepande och ibland kryptiskt. Så har han alltid gjort.”

Jag ser inget kryptiskt alls, RMS säger tvärtom väldigt logiska saker, och det verkar vara väldigt mycket i stil av akademisk diskussion, dock med personliga åsikter inblandade. Han pratar som om det vore helt fritt att diskutera och analysera vilket ämne som helst.

Där det går fel är att det specifika ämnet, i det specifika sammanhanget, och med vissa specifika målpubliker (populära mobben) som har viss mentalitet och vissa tillkortakommanden, så går det väldigt lätt att böja och vinkla till att verka vara något dåligt, så felet är då att RMS inte själv-censurerade sig själv.

RMS varken försvarade eller ursäktade HE.

Däremot ifrågasatte och diskuterade han språkbruket om sin avlidne MIT kollega.

Närmare bestämt detta https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/assault ordvalet.

När det kommer till RMS’ MIT kollega, ursäkta och försvara är lite mindre klart dock, skulle säga han försvarade honom från överdrivet tal, genom att istället gå mot sådant tal som är neutralt och sakligt. Vilket är emot och vilket förstör den bilden som sensationalist media vill utmåla (för att få klicks, pageviews, ad revenue, förtjänst, pengar, för att inte tala om vissa ideologiska motiveringar).

Och när RMS pekar ut hur cancel-culture sensationalist media böjer, skruvar och vrider, så gör de precis detta mot honom.

Att inte nämna någon, och inte aktivt och kraftfullt fördöma denne någon (och inte kraftigt belysa hur negativt det är på det påstådda offret) är att ursäkta den icke-nämnda personen?

I vilka andra situationer krävs personer att tala på ett specifikt sätt? För att inte anses och dömas skyldiga? Ens tal avgör alltså ens skuld? Baserat på subjektiv tolkning? Av vem?

(Väldigt liknande vad som hände Lindsay Shepherd.)

Anslut till massan eller gå emot massan, svårt val.

RMS agerade tvärtom modigt och hederligt och stod upp för någon som inte längre kunde prata för sig själv (avliden), utan att ha något att tjäna själv, endast riskera att förlora något.

Ingen svag självisk fegis skulle vågat göra detta.

Sedan vad RMS sade och hur, och hur det tolkades är en annan diskussion.

Här är lite material:

Media Demands Richard Stallman Be Fired

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2s5hPLUHN8

Richard Stallman Responds To Questions After Resigning From FSF and MIT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TvpepEaoFQ

MIT scientist Richard Stallman taken down by vicious media smears

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UbQ1kc1vQU

Till denna förening.

Ska du som medlem i denna förening, agera kollektivistiskt och följa efter alla andra bara för the sake of virtue-signalling?

Ska vår förening, i helhet agera kollektivistiskt, följa vad andra organisationer gör bara för the sake of virtue-signalling?

Eller av rädsla för att inte följa strömmen, sticka ut och bli fiende till rörelsen och nästa offer?

Jag tycker att om vi ska ändra något, så ska vi också som allra minst försöka efterlikna den fria västvärldens rättvisa rättegång så mycket som möjligt. Genom att förslagsvis skriva ned vilka anklagelser som är aktuella för oss mot RMS, skicka det till honom (tillsammans med en förklaring av vad som pågår såklart), och på sådant vis ge RMS chansen att få reda på och besvara anklagelserna.

Innan vi gör det, så kan vi väl internt gå igenom vad som är problematiskt.

Så kan de som ser problem med RMS, lägga fram specifikt vad som är anklagelser mot honom?

Vidare, tycker jag inte alls att vi ska fegt gömma undan något och hålla tyst.

Tycker tvärtom vi istället kan skriva ett förtydligande om att RMS är hedersmedlem, men också bara helt enkelt klargöra att han är hedersmedlem baserat på hans storheter, accomplishments, contributions, och att vi tydligt tar avstånd från eventuella dåliga beteenden.

Detta, för att bl.a. unvika situationen ifall någon medlem efter någon tid i denna förening får reda på RMS och plötsligt ser annorlunda på föreningen och dess medlemmar.

Ytterligare, kan ovanstående nämnda process läggas upp tillsammans med förtydligandet, som motivering och ställningstagande, så kan medlemmar, befintliga och potentiella, känna att det är vettiga människor man är ibland.

”Det är ju 2020 trots allt.” Känns så framtid och modernt och renligt och white-knight virtious att säga så va?

Snarare att det är ju 2020 och trots allt är Fascism, och då i dess riktiga mening, påväg tillbaka.

Och ni kan cancel:a mig över det här all you want.

Jag ger den möjligheten självmant. Röstar denna förening emot mig, går jag ur.

Det här är vad som krävs för att försvara den fria västvärlden, den är inte fri bara av sig själv.

Freedom isn't free.

Läs mina tankar om ni vill ha mer kunskap om ämnet.

/doubleUV (weezl)

”

The ”S” in CSAIL stands for "science". The job of scientists is to evaluate evidence and seek truth. We have a social responsibility to do that as well. I hope that we scientists will never evade our social responsibility to seek and defend the truth out of fear that the press will misconstrue our search. That would not be a reputation I would like attached to my CSAIL affiliation.

”

-RMS

(Min kommentar: om att “läsa mina tankar”, gåta/pussel: "double" "Ultra" "Violet" @ big G's blog)

Andra brevet. Sammanhang väldigt kort sammanfattat: Efter att ha blivit frågad på många termer och begrepp som jag använde, ville jag besvara frågorna på ett ”veta det genom att leva det” sätt.

*Hej -,

Jag har blivit ombedd av styrelsen att ha kontakt med dig angående detta.

Det här är inte lätt att säga och inte lätt att höra.

Men det är så att en eller flera personer har kommit fram till oss i styrelsen och sagt att du har gjort dem obekväma.

Eftersom de har bett om att få vara anonyma, så kan vi inte berätta några detaljer till dig som kan identifiera dem. Utan du har helt enkelt gått över någons gräns.

Vi har diskuterat detta i styrelsen, bedömt situationen och bestämt att dra in ditt medlemsskap i denna förening tyvärr. Den praktiska biten kommer verkställas i samband med styrelsemötet nu på tisdag.

Om du har några frågor kan du ställa dem till mig.

Om du vill har du nu möjlighet att berätta vad som har hänt från din sida.

Vi föreslår att du uppsöker någon professionell att prata med, som kan hjälpa dig med ditt beteende.

Du har potentiellt möjlighet att få vara med igen i framtiden, men då måste du visa att du är samarbetsvillig.

Lycka till och önskar dig en trevlig helg ^_^,

/w

On September 9, 2020 8:29:25 AM GMT+02:00, - <-> wrote:

/-

Tredje brevet. Sammanhang väldigt kort sammanfattat: Tyvärr ”spelade han inte med”, istället försökte han avgöra om det var på riktigt hos all andra, och klagade på hur jag inte bara gav raka svar på raka frågor.

Lägg märke till hur din första reaktion är att "säga safeword", att vilja vakna till "det var bara en otrevlig dröm". Plus att du har stöd från en publik som iakttar allt och följande indikatorer:

Jag skrev som svar på ett litet citat från din fråga.
Jag skrev inte till dig personligen, utan för alla aktiva att också se.
Jag skrev i en befintlig tråd, med ett sammanhang, med specifikt en fråga ibland sammanhanget.
Allt som allt finns det rätt många indikatorer på att du är i ett tryggt safe-space.
(*Är ett mock mejl. För att vara överklar.)

Jag hade hoppats på att du skulle bemöta situationen, utforska dina möjligheter (rättare sagt omöjligheter), genom att ifrågasätta, argumentera och försöka försvara dig... och fått svar. Då hade du fått en extremt bra övning och insikt i hur folk bakom cancel-culture, hedonist-kollektivister, tänker och fungerar, vilket hade varit bland de bästa svaren möjliga på din fråga - att du fick leva igenom det, uppleva det firsthand, även om på leknivå i sandlådan och under föräldrars uppsikt.

Tänk att det vore på riktigt, och du var ensam, och inte hade några vittnen?
(Finns ingen dröm att vakna upp ur, ingen nödbroms att dra i.)
Så var det för mig.
Tre gånger.

Så du kan ogilla mitt oortodoxa val av pedagogisk metod, men samtidigt missade du möjligheten till en upplevelse.

Jag hade förövrigt i mitt ursprungliga inlägg lämnat flera vägar att utforska vidare som skulle gett svar på din fråga med råge. Men om någon kan anklagas för att vara kryptisk så är det helt klart jag hehehe! ;D (Är ju inom datorkultur som det förekommer meta-puzzles trots allt - inte alla som kommer långt i dessa...)

/w

Fjärde brevet. Sammanhang väldigt kort sammanfattat: Kom upp att ett beslut togs på ett styrelsemöte och finns med i protokoll, men finns inga spår av förövrigt. Då argumenterar en att, det kan ju tolkas som att beslutet aldrig verkställdes och är därmed ogiltigt.

Beslut togs, punkt.
Då ska man stå för det.
Att det sedan inte följdes upp riktigt som det skulle, och sedan senare, när det det på grund av eventuella omständigheter blir obekvämt, att slänga kappan efter vinden, att använda att man varit slarvig för att fula sig ut ur ens ord, det är svagt, fegt, falskt och ynkryggt beteende. Det är inte manliga värderingar, och inte värderingar av en ärlig och hederlig person. Ingen av er hade velat leva i ett sådant samhälle, och det är inte vad den fria västvärlden bygger på.

Jag tycker därmed att just nu, när denna bristen i agerande har belysts, att beslutet ska verkställas.
Bättre sent än aldrig.

Sedan hur man/vi ska stå för det, (inåt och) utåt så att säga, till oss själva och våra medlemmar, nuvarande och framtida, till [förening något beroende av], och eventuellt allmänheten, är inte helt trivialt.
Men jag har sagt min personliga åsikt om det i mitt första inlägg i tråden.

Angående [förening något beroende av], vilket var en väldigt bra och relevant poäng att ta upp, tycker jag får väl välja att agera så som de avgör, sedan får vi denna förening ta ställning till och korsa den bron när och även ens om, vi kommer till den.

/w

Femte brevet. Sammanhang väldigt kort sammanfattat: När snubben trycker på om hur dålig personen i fråga är utan att komma med något mer konkret än att ”droppen som fick bägaren att rinna över” och börjar påtala hur sexistiska och toxiska och dåliga män är.

Titta! Alla andra gjorde något, anledningar motiveringar och detaljer bakom är oviktigt, det viktiga är att vi följer och gör likadant!
Och alla tänker så.
Definitionen på kollektivism.

Sen försöker du på något sätt koppla mig och manligt till vissa människors dåliga beteende och behandling av människor och vad människor upplever som dålig behandling.
Vedervärdigt beteende från din sida som jag tar starkt avstånd ifrån!
Manlighet har enligt mig inget med att behandla andra människor dåligt att göra.
(Du verkar snarare leva upp till memen att bli TRIGGERED! på vadsomhelst som nämner "man".)

Jag har därmed svårt att ta dig på allvar.
Tänk på hur du själv beter dig mot människor...

/w

Sjätte brevet. Sammanhang väldigt kort sammanfattat: Fick ett privat meddelande som ifrågasätter användandet av ordet ”manliga”, om jag inte hade skrivit ”mänskliga” fel, som jag svara på till alla.

Till den som svarade mig, inget riktat emot just dig, utan mer i allmänhet.
Tack för att belysa potentiell missuppfattning på ett vettigt sätt, även om det just är sådan intolerans och känslighet som inte borde råda.


Det här är vad våran kultur har kommit ned till, inte vad jag pratar om som är viktigt, utan märka och haka fast i ett isolerat ord, det är det verkligt viktiga.

Jag har ingen bra unisex version av det, kanske modig stark människa isåfall.
Vilken individ/person/människa som helst kan ha de värderingar jag har i åtanke, så jag ser ingen som helst problematik. Därför bytte jag ordvalet till just människa.
Tvärtom, när man börjar tänka på människor som tillhörande och definierade av grupper, som fördomar, exkludering, diskriminering och potentiellt värre sker, vilket är precis vad jag inte gör.

Vi kan ju se hur många av alla i gruppen aktiva som vågar stå upp för att rätt ska vara rätt, logik, rättvisa, reson.
Hur många som potentiellt inte vågar annat än att vara tysta. Eller potentiellt inte vill besvära sig.
Hur många som ansluter till mobben som baserar sina handlingar/åsikter anklagelselöst utan motivering, och hur många som knäböjer sig för mobben.

Signalen är att var livrädd för att formulera minsta sak "fel", enligt den rådande tankepolisen, enklare och säkrare att förbli tyst, själv-censur.

Signalen är också därmed att var livrädd för att ha och uttrycka en åsikt/synsätt som skiljer sig från kollektivet, som är "fel", enligt den rådande tankepolisen. Säkrare och enklare att inte säga emot, att hålla med, eller att vara tyst, själv-censur.


Läs nu allt jag skrivit i tråden om igen, så kommer det förstås mycket bättre.


Vad jag fått hittills är:

Kolla, alla andra utesluter någon, därför ska jag/vi följa, utan att ha specifika anledningar.
Kollektivism.

Det är kontrovers om någon, därför ska jag/vi automatiskt tycka illa, utan att granska källmaterialet.
Kollektivism.

Alla andra tycker illa om någon, därför ska jag/vi likadant, utan andra anledningar och därmed också utan andra möjligheter.
Kollektivism.

Man gör alltså inte längre saker av motiverbara och/eller försvarbara och/eller ifrågasättbara anledningar, av sakfrågor. Utan endast anledningen kopiera de andra.
Kollektivism.

Antingen av viljan att vara likadan, att passa in. Eller av rädslan av vad motsatsen skulle vara.
Kollektivism.

Och alla andra tänker också så.
Per definition kollektivism. Också flockbeteende.


Vilka händelser i historien har styrts av dessa dynamiker?

Tänk om den fria västvärldens domstolssystem, med grundregeln oskyldig tills bevisats annorlunda, och med en rättvis process gentemot alla parter skulle ersättas med social justice?

Tänk om sådana uppfattningar och värderingar sitter i styrelser och utgör majoritet?

Cancel-culture.

_______________________________________________________________________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

English version:

Background about the situation:

In our local techpriest chapter it was somewhat recently brought up that Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS) was forced to resign from several positions about a year ago due to a comments controversy, in other words he was seemingly another victim of cancel-culture.

Anyway, he has visited very many years ago and been made an honorary member.

Background about the person:

Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

Stallman launched the GNU Project, founded the Free Software Foundation, developed the GNU Compiler Collection and GNU Emacs, and wrote the GNU General Public License.

I vaguely knew of him but learned about the situation and character. Apparently a gifted genius with many big contributions to humankind, a very non-conformist and very quirky character (which is by far mostly good - to be an individual and not a collectivist!), but the latter not made better by him being “throned” and tolerated due to greatness of accomplishments, in other words a lack of perspective and Vitamin N (YouTube it). Not at all unlike very attractive women.

Anyway, so the discussion was about:

- Fear of consequences if anybody found out.

- He is such a terrible person and should therefore be unwelcome.

- He should be kept due to his greatnesses and accomplishments.

- What signal it sends to our members, how it makes them feel, what kind of atmosphere it creates.

- And to get rid of him because he now looks bad, since everybody else has gotten rid of him.

Proposals:

- Don’t say anything, keep it quiet and hope for the best.

- Get rid. And when that wasn’t very supported, get rid of honorary membership from the by-laws. And when that wasn’t very supported, make each such title automatically expire after a year unless actively decided to specifically be kept by the board.

First letter. A bit into the discussion I enter:


Has anyone in this RMS discussion or otherwise in this association, any personal experience of cancel-culture?
Of fundamentalist extremist feminizm and social justice, sjw?
And not on the giving side at that, but on the receiving end?
I have very much of that experience.
Even though I myself am kind of a jw and a feminist, as I agree with and defend many of the core values ​​of those ideologies (like what most people would not say against), and am not hating against people who differ, but quite accepting or about neutral (not meaning I am always uncritical).
Because it is not about being a sensible and good person, but what it is about is a certain culture and ideology – that is forbidden to be contradicted, if you do, there will be consequences.
Only one side may speak, and only in the direction determined by that side may it be argued.

Doesn’t it feel good to be part of the mob, to have fellowship, to be in agreement, to achieve something together, and especially to get a mob going, get several in together with oneself, as a leader?
Do you feel morally superior in condemning someone for being the opposite of your morality?

Regarding RMS.

RMS is, in my opinion, in this latest event at least, mostly wrongly accused and misunderstood (most likely intentionally and maliciously).
The problematic I encountered (however, have not read the entire email conversation), RMS has changed his position in, which can be read in the Wikipedia article about him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Resignation_from_MIT_and_FSF

”

On September 14 Stallman acknowledged that since the time of his past writings, he had learned that there were problems with underage sex, writing on his blog: "Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that."

”
People can learn, change and improve.

Further.
He defended his late MIT colleague from being talked about worse than necessary. He stood up to defend his fellow man so that his reputation and honor were not misspoken about, in this case potentially overly negatively. He never said his colleague was innocent nor justified, merely less severe compared to what was said by the voices in question. He did not comment on HE or the woman, instead the conversation was about his colleague and more specifically from the colleague's point of view.

"It is not news that RS speaks sweepingly and sometimes cryptically. He has always done that. ”
I do not see anything cryptic whatsoever, RMS on the contrary says very logical things, and it seems to be very much in the style of academic discussion, however with personal opinions involved. He speaks as if it were completely free to discuss and analyze any topic.
Where it goes wrong is that the specific subject, in the specific context, and with certain specific target audiences (popular mob) who have a certain mentality and certain shortcomings, it is very easy to twist and turn and angle to seem to be something bad, so the mistake is then that RMS did not self-censor himself.


RMS neither defended nor excused HE.
However, he questioned and discussed the language use about his deceased MIT colleague.
Specifically, this https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/assault word choice.
When it comes to RMS’ MIT colleague, apologizing and defending is a little less clear though, would say he defended him from exaggerated speech, by instead moving towards such speech that is neutral and factual. Which goes against and which destroys the image that sensationalist media wants to paint (in order to get clicks, pageviews, ad revenue, earnings, money, not to mention certain ideological motivations).
And when RMS points out how the cancel-culture sensationalist media bends, twists and turns, they do just that to him.

To not mention someone, and to not actively and strongly condemn that same person (and not strongly highlight how negative it is on the alleged victim) is to excuse the unnamed person?
In what other situations are people required to speak in a specific way? In order to not themselves being considered guilty and convicted so? So one's speech determines one's guilt? Based on subjective interpretation? By who?
(Very similar to what happened to Lindsay Shepherd.)
Join the mass or go against the mass, difficult choice.

RMS, on the contrary, acted bravely and honourably and stood up for someone who could no longer speak for himself (deceased), without having anything to gain himself, only risking losing something.
No weak selfish coward would have dared doing this.
Then what RMS said and how, and how it was interpreted is another discussion.


Here is some material:
Media Demands Richard Stallman Be Fired

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2s5hPLUHN8

Richard Stallman Responds To Questions After Resigning From FSF and MIT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TvpepEaoFQ

MIT scientist Richard Stallman taken down by vicious media smears

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UbQ1kc1vQU

To this association.

Should you as a member of this association, act collectivistically and follow everyone else just for the sake of virtue-signaling?
Should our association, as a whole act collectivistically, follow what other organizations do just for the sake of virtue-signaling?
Or for fear of not following the stream, sticking out and becoming an enemy of the stream and the next victim?



I think that if we were to change anything, we should also at the very least try to imitate the fair trial of the free Western world as much as possible. By proposedly writing down which accusations that are for us relevant against RMS, send it to him (together with an explanation of what is going on, of course), and in this way give RMS the chance to find out and answer the accusations.

Before we do that, we rather well could internally go through what is problematic.
So can those who see problems with RMS, put forward specifically what is accusations against him?

Furthermore, I think not at all that we should cowardly hide something and keep quiet.
On the contrary, I think we should instead write a clarification that RMS is an honorary member, but also simply clarify that he is an honorary member based on his greatnesses, accomplishments, contributions, and that we clearly distance ourselves from any bad behavior.
This, in order to, among other, avoid the situation that if a member after some time in this association finds out about RMS and suddenly looks at the association and its members differently.
Furthermore, the above-mentioned process can be put up together with the clarification, as motivation and stance taking, so members, existing and potential, can feel that it is sensible people one is amongst.

"It’s 2020 after all." Feels so future and modern and cleanly and white-knight virtuous to say that, eh?
Rather that it is 2020 and despite all, Fascism, and at that in its true meaning, is on its way back.


And you can cancel me over this all you want.
I give that opportunity voluntarily. If this association votes against me, I will resign.
This is what it takes to defend the free Western world, it is not just free by itself.
Freedom isn't free.

Read my thoughts if you want more knowledge on the subject.

/doubleUV

”

The ”S” in CSAIL stands for "science". The job of scientists is to evaluate evidence and seek truth. We have a social responsibility to do that as well. I hope that we scientists will never evade our social responsibility to seek and defend the truth out of fear that the press will misconstrue our search. That would not be a reputation I would like attached to my CSAIL affiliation.

”

-RMS

(My comment: about “reading my thoughts”, a riddle: "double" "Ultra" "Violet" @ big G's blog)

Second letter. Context very briefly: After being asked on many terms and concepts that I used, I wanted to answer the questions in a "know it by living it" way.

*Hello -,

I have been asked by the board to contact you regarding this.
This is not easy to say and not easy to hear.
But it is the case that one or more people have come forward to us on the board and said that you have made them uncomfortable.

Because they have asked to be anonymous, we can not tell you any details that can identify them. However you have simply crossed over someone's boundary.

We have discussed this in the board, assessed the situation and decided to withdraw your membership in this association, unfortunately. The practical part will be implemented in connection with the board meeting this Tuesday.

If you have any questions, you can ask me.
If you want, you now have the opportunity to tell what has happened from your side.

We suggest that you seek out a professional to talk to who can help you with your behavior.

You potentially have the opportunity to participate again in the future, but then you must show that you are willing to cooperate.


Good luck and wish you a nice weekend ^_^,

/w

On September 9, 2020 8:29:25 AM GMT+02:00, - <-> wrote:

/-

Third letter. Context very briefly: Unfortunately he did not “play along", instead he tried to determine if it was for real from everyone else, and complained about how I did not just give straight answers to straight questions.



Notice how your first reaction is to "say safeword", to want to wake up to "it was just an unpleasant dream". Plus you have the support of an audience that observes everything and the following indicators:

I wrote in response to a small quote from your question.
I did not write to you personally, but for all active to see as well.
I wrote in an existing thread, with a context, with specifically a question amongst in the context.
All in all, there are quite a few indicators that you are in a safe safe space.
(* Is a mock email. To be overly clear.)

I had hoped that you would face the situation, explore your possibilities (or rather impossibilities), by questioning, arguing and trying to defend yourself ... and received answers. Then you would have had an extremely good exercise and insight into how people behind cancel-culture, hedonist-collectivists, think and function, which would have been among the best answers possible to your question - that you got to live through it, experience it firsthand, even if at at play level in the sandbox and under parental supervision.

Imagine that it was for real, and you were alone, and had no witnesses?
(There is no dream to wake up from, no emergency brake to pull on.)
That is how it was for me.
Three times.

So you may dislike my unorthodox choice of pedagogical method, but at the same time you missed the opportunity for an experience.

I had, moreover, in my original post, left several ways to explore further that would have answered your question with full measure. But if anyone can be accused of being cryptic, it's definitely me hehehe! ;D (It is within computer culture that there occur meta-puzzles after all - not all who get far in these...)

/ w

Fouth letter. Context very briefly summarized: It came up that a decision was made at a board meeting and is included in the minutes (official records), but there are no traces of it otherwise. Then one argues that, it can be interpreted as that the decision was never executed and is thus invalid.



Decision was taken, period.
Then that should be stood for.
That it thereafter was not followed up properly as it should have been, and then later thereafter,

when it due to incidental circumstances becomes uncomfortable, to turn coat after the wind, to use that one has been careless to uglily slither/meander out on one’s word, that is weak, cowardly, false/insidious and spineless behavior. This is not masculine values, and not values ​​of an honest and honorable person. None of you would have wanted to live in such a society, and that is not what the free Western world is based on.

I therefore think that right now, when this deficiency of acting has been highlighted, that the decision is to be implemented.
Better late than never.

Then how one/we should stand for it, (inwards and) outwards, so to speak, to ourselves and to our members, current and future, to [association slightly dependent upon], and possibly the general public, is not entirely trivial.
But I have stated my personal opinion about it in my first post in the thread.

Regarding [association slightly dependent upon], which was a very good and relevant point to bring up, I think I may well choose to act as how they decide/desire, then we this association get to take a stand on and cross that bridge when and even if, we come to it.

/w

Fifth letter. Context very briefly summed up: When this guy presses on about how bad the person in question is without coming up with anything more concrete than "the drop that made the cup overflow" and begins to point out how sexist and toxic and bad men are.



Look! Everyone else did something, reasons motivations and details behind are unimportant, the important is that we follow and do the same!
And everyone thinks so.
The definition of collectivism.

Then you try to somehow connect me and masculinity to some people's bad behavior and treatment of people and what people experience/interpret as bad treatment.
Detestable behavior on your part that I strongly dissociate myself from!
In my opinion, masculinity has nothing to do with treating other people badly.
(You seem to rather live up to the meme of being TRIGGERED! by anything that mentions "man".)

I therefore find it difficult to take you seriously.
Think about how you yourself behave towards people ...

/w

Sixth letter. Context very briefly: Got a private message questioning the use of the word "male", if I had not written "human" erroneously, which I respond to everyone.


To the one who answered me, nothing directed at you, but more in general.
Thank you for highlighting potential misconceptions in a sensible way, even if it is precisely such intolerance and sensitivity that should not prevail.


This is what our culture has sank/come down to, not what I am talking about that is important, but noticing and latching/hooking onto/into an isolated word, that is the really important.

I do not have a good unisex version of it, maybe brave strong human in that case.
Any individual/person/human at all can have the values ​​I have in mind, so I see no problematic whatsoever. Therefore, I changed the word choice to just human.
On the contrary, when you start thinking about people as belonging and defined by groups, that prejudice, exclusion, discrimination and potentially worse happens, which is exactly what I do not do.

We can see how many of everyone in the group of actives it is that dares to stand up for that right be right, logic, justice, reason.
How many potentially do not dare otherwise but be silent. Or potentially do not want to bother themselves.
How many people join the mob who base their actions/opinions accusationlessly without justification, and how many that kneel before the mob.

The signal is that to be terrified of formulating the slightest thing "wrong", according to the prevailing thought police, easier and safer to remain silent, self-censorship.

The signal is consequently also to be terrified of having and expressing an opinion/viewpoint that differs from the collective, that is "wrong", according to the prevailing thought police. Safer and easier not to say against, to agree, or to be quiet, self-censorship.


Now read everything I wrote in the thread again, and it will be understood much better.



What I have gotten so far is:

Look, everyone else excludes someone, therefore I/we should follow, without having specific reasons.
Collectivism.

There is controversy about someone, therefore I/we should automatically think badly, without reviewing the source material.
Collectivism.

Everyone else dislikes someone, therefore I/we should likewise, without other reasons and thus also without other possibilities.
Collectivism.

One thusly no longer does things out of justifiable and/or defensible and/or able to be questioned reasons, out of factual issues. But simply out of the reason of memecking the others.
Collectivism.

Either by the desire to be similar, to fit in. Or for fear of what the opposite would be.
Collectivism.

And everyone else thinks so too.
Per definition collectivism. Also herd behavior.


Which events in history have been governed by these dynamics?

What if the court system of the free Western world, with the central principle of innocent until proven otherwise, and with a fair trial towards all parties were to be replaced by social justice?

What if such perceptions and values ​​sit on boards and constitute a majority?

Cancel-culture.

I am not talking about JE here, nor one of his victims, VRG.

And I am not defending RMS as any sort of “fanboy”, I’m quite neutral to him, so merely in good faith as a fellow stranger human.

Yeah, most of RMS’s older/historical statements/views/arguments on young humans that were brought up, I’m guessing as worst examples findable on his website, that is t one thing I do not agree upon and cannot defend, luckily RMS did change his mind on it.

But like another article wrote, it isn’t illegal to have such views nor to express them.

In any case, even if not held beliefs, discussion for discussions sake should be free to have.

To understand RMS better, one must understand the meaning of this following quote:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

-Aristotélēs, Aristotle (disputed)

What RMS said and argumented about his late MIT colleague Marvin Minsky is no different than arguments that would have been used by a criminal defense lawyer in an actual fair trial court of justice in the free Western world!

(I am only speaking about this instance, I cannot speak for any other instances with RMS, since I do not know them.)

Some articles outright lie when it comes to the most key points.

https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794

https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88

SJG, you have destroyed the life, reputation and career of a person, by lying. A person who has contributed enormously to humanity. Is this the kind of rolemodel for and representative of women you want to be?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing

Vice Media Group LLC and EO-Jr. You blatantly lie several times compared to what is written in the email chain, in such a way which cannot be plausibly denied as anything but intentional, because it systematically and repeatedly is fabricated, bent and twisted specifically in such a way as to look maximally damning.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing?ref=scroll

https://www.thedailybeast.com/richard-stallman-famed-mit-computer-scientist-who-defended-jeffrey-epstein-resigns

The Daily Beast and BM. Harder to defend. Cleverly mixing past with present, but still outright lying in some places, while in others, fabricating, bending and twisting specifically in such a way as to look maximally damning.

https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of-the-clueless-nerd/

Wired and SL. Careful to not outright lie about anything, but some very clever formulations make the reader lie to oneself, in general blatantly obvious non-neutral Partisanship.

You are not trying your best to search for the truth, meaning you're not scientific, you're not trying your best to present objective truth, meaning you're not a reporter, you're a propaganda apparatchik, an ideologue, a collectivist. You don't follow the ideology that truth and science should always be searched for to one’s best ability and that truth and science should always be said before ideology.

I would like to be proven wrong by even one of you, to even close, living up to what RMS did for MM!

Title: Richard Stallman leaves MIT after controversial remarks on rape

Subtitle: Free software pioneer has history of controversial comments about underage sex.

Link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/richard-stallman-leaves-mit-after-controversial-remarks-on-rape/

Author: TBL - 9/17/2019, 6:57 PM

Actually a good attempt at representing fair and neutral, good and bad, and honest without lying.

Even though it is besides the point, of misrepresenting and lying about statements in a false, malicious dishonest way, let’s mention that it would appear that MM, late colleague of RMS’s, who he stood up for and tried to defend, seems to be innocent afterall.

Nowhere from the emails do I get that RMS’s colleague Marvin Minsky actually did the act.

In fact, it seems two witnesses claiming they can vouch for MM’s innocence, it simply shows how RMS was on the right track.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ http://archive.is/nZIjt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky#Association_with_Jeffrey_Epstein

It seems the traffickers instructed and/or forced the traffickee to do the act with Marvin Minsky, but nowhere does it seem to outright be said it happened. This is not unambiguous, but something for the actual professional legal system to handle.

Not that it should matter anything for RMS’s discussion, which seems to be an objective and logical attempt at analyzing the situation, and finding the truth, irregardless what it would be, the matter should be able to be discussed freely.

Regardless of MM’s guilt or innocence, RMS's argumenting is equally valid in both cases, because the way trials work in the free western world, and actually science too, is by giving each of the possibilities maximum credibility, which is only possible to happen when they are freely explored fully, then they are considered, in order to arrive at a conclusion closest to truth according to best possible judgement by the people involved.

Not guaranteed to be closest to the truth, neither by quality of information available, nor by the quality of the exploratory process, nor by quality of the judgement, only to attempt to do a best possible job at each and have objective truth as aim.

This is greatly hindered by ideology and self-censorship!

Let’s go through those leaked emails:

to: RMS and mailing list, Wed 2019-09-17 1:45 AM

from: ?

For the record, a witness denies this, saying that Minsky turned her down:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:03 AM RMS wrote:

> The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin

> Minsky:

>

> deceased Ai “pioneer” Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting

> one of Epstein’s victims [2])

>

> The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault"

> is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation:

> taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as

> Y, which is much worse than X.

-/V: A perfectly logical statement, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/assault is an extremely damning accusation.

>

> The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference

> reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein's harem.

> (See

> https:/Awww.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed

>.)

> Let's presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).

-/V: This is even a steel man argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning

>

> 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.

>

> We can imagine many scenarios, but 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.

-/V: see below comment 3 related to SJG’s article and repeated there.

>

> I've concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it

> is absolutely wrong to use the term "sexual assault” in an accusation.

>

> Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a

> specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the

> criticism.

>

>

> Dr Richard Stallman

> President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)

-/V: Comment 3:

This is the main thing that everybody hook into/onto, then each gives an own word-twisting of, to be used as the headline and punchline.

Just read the paragraph, RMS never said that anyone was “entirely willing”.

The second sentence even disproves that deliberate, intentional, malicious misrepresentation.

All these personal twists though are formulated in such a way as to mean RMS said that JE trafficking victim was “entirely willing”.

While he in fact in reality didn’t say anything the least controversial.

In his argumenting RMS even presumes to believe the victim and the accused being guilty. It is even a steel man argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning

He said “presented herself to him [to MM] as entirely willing”.

Which implies from MM’s poin-of-view or reference frame, visuo-spatial and logical transform, how he (MM) would have perceived it, as in trying to determine if MM had committed any guilty decisions, which must be judged after what specifically he knows and doesn’t know at that moment, this is like explaining on fingers to a child.

-/V: Overall:

Actually a very clean, neutral, perfectly logical argumenting that could just as well have been used by a criminal defense lawyer in an actual fair trial court of justice in the free Western world!

The only nitpick might be “... had sex with one of Epstein's harem.” somewhat brash of a formulation, but it’s a personal style of expression. (I know I should have skipped even commenting on this but I don’t want to live in self-censorship. Wouldn’t be my first choice of words, but considering the whole text I’m not paying any attention to it. And yes I know how easy to hook into and attack this is!)

to: mailing list, Wed 2019-09-17 10:47 AM

from: ?

The NYT misused ambiquity, but so did the Verge. I give credence to

Giuffre. But as far as I can see in the deposition she only states that

she was *directed* to have sex with Minsky, and that she *did* have sex

with various people. She does not explicitly state that Minsky was one

of the people she had sex with. After asking how she was directed to

have sex with Minsky, the lawyer does ask a followup question "where did

you go to have sex with Minsky" but having been deposed I know it is

easy to answer what you *think* the lawyer is asking instead of what

they *actually* asked, and she may have been responding to the part of

his followup question about location without realizing that the language

had shifted from "directed to have sex" to "actually did".

-/V: *#1 Comment 1 below

> ditto. Thank you

>

> On 9/11/2019 8:21 AM,

>> Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it ___ rape___ in the Virgin

>> Islands.

>>

>> The witness (who was not named as someone present by Giuffre) claims

>> that the deposition never directly accuses Minsky of participating,

>> based off a convoluted sentence from the New York Times. The Verge

>> article includes the deposition snippet, which is not ambiguous at

>> all: Giuffre directly says she was forced to have sex with Minsky.

>>

>> Let's stop grasping at straws to defend our friends, and instead

>> listen to the women who were harmed.

>> ______________________________________

>> [redacted]

-/V: Comment 1.

Another who openly thinks in the same track as RMS, about MM’s accusation.

And, oh, look, more “news” “reporting” outlets that seem to have intentionally twisted words for cowardly selfish gain, at the cost of another person and the scientific objective – I can find no better word than corruption. This time a huge name and a big name, though I haven’t looked into that myself (hence “seem” as wordchoice).

to: mailing list

from: RMS, Thu 2079-09-12 1:26 AM

> Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it ___rape___ in the Virgin Islands.

Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a

way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or

whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.

I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that

the term “sexual assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more

concrete terms when accusing anyone.

-/V: *#1 Comment 1 below

> The Verge article includes the deposition snippet, which is not

> ambiguous at all: Giuffre directly says she was forced to have sex

> with Minsky.

I don't see any quotation from the deposition in the article, but it

says, "Giuffre says she was directed to have sex with Minsky." Given

the circumstances, that implies she was coerced by Epstein into doing

so.

The article I know of, and have a copy of, is

hitps://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed,

Are you talking of some other Verge article? If so, would you like to

tell me its URL?

> Let's stop grasping at straws to defend our friends, and instead

> listen to the women who were harmed.

We can listen only to what is said to us.

All I know she said about Minsky is that Epstein directed her to have

sex with Minsky. That does not say whether Minsky knew that she was

coerced. It does not report what each said and did during their

sexual encounter. We can imagine various scenarios.

We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She

was being harmed, But the details do affect whether, and to what

extent, Minsky was responsible for that.

Looking through the article again carefully, I found a link that

reportedly points to the deposition itself. I visited that URL and

got a blank window. It is on Google Drive, which demands running

nonfree software in order to see it. See

https://gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html.

Would you (not anyone else!) like to email me a copy of the part that

pertains to Minsky? I say "not anyone else" to avoid getting 20

copies.

--

Dr Richard Stallman

President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, hitps://fsf.org)

-/V: Comment 1.

This is about age of consent laws, a discussion I am sure has been had thousands of times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

Everybody who tried to “get” RMS, picked this part up.

In the first argument RMS means it wasn’t assault nor rape, but just copulation from specifically MM’s perspective, assuming they did the act and she had presented herself as willing to him.

Secondly, this person responds with the argument that even if so – it still technically is rape, statutory, due to age, location and there applicable law.

Thirdly, RMS goes off on a tangent/fork talking in general about age of consent laws, to defeat the argument being made.

This forking isn’t made clear, it is subtle and not easily apparent.

And it is easy to get the impression of that RMS, with this, is excusing the treatment of VRG.

(Again, this discussion could as well have taken place in actual court.)

But he actually has a perfectly good point about his statement:

“I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”

Because, if thinking from VRG’s perspective, those “minor details” are vanishingly unimportant to focus on, in comparison to being forced/coerced by people into having non-consentual sex with strangers, and to acting willing at that.

to: mailing list

from: ?, Thu 2019-09-12 6:41 AM

Dr. Stallman --

If we're debating the definitions of "rape" and "sexual assault," perhaps

it's better to accept that this conversation isn't productive.

When this email chain inevitably finds its way into the press, the seeming

insensitivity of some will reflect poorly on the entire CSAIL community.

Regardless of intent, this thread reads as “grasping at straws to defend

our friends” around potential involvement with Epstein, and that isn't a

reputation I would like attached to my CSAIL affiliation.

to: mailing list

from: RMS(?), Thu 2019-09-12 9:10 AM

No one on this thread has accused Giuffre of lying. Rather, the discussion has been of whether Giuffre actually accused Minsky of sexual assault or not. I will not step into that discussion, but will instead ask the following meta question: "If someone in csail says in this discussion group that Minsky was accused of sexual assault, a very serious accusation, and someone else in csail thinks that he was not, should the latter person refrain from saying so in this same discussion group out

of concern that the conversation will leak and be misconstrued by the press?”

The "s" in CSAIL stands for “science”. The job of scientists is to evaluate evidence and seek truth, We have a social responsibility to do that as well. I hope that we scientists will never evade our social responsibility to seek and defend the truth out of fear that the press will misconstrue our search. That would not be a reputation I would like attached to my CSAIL affiliation.

Remove Richard Stallman

And everyone else horrible in tech.

https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794

Remove Richard Stallman: Appendix A

The stories of thirty years of MIT women alumni.

https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88

I don’t know how dishonest-intentional-malicious or natural-genuine-reaction your thought processes and actions are, but it seems you’re not reading objectively, but rather seeing keywords, outside of and missing their context, getting triggered by them, becoming all emotional-irrational, fantasizing-fabricating what must be the context around those keywords, then reacting to that alt-version. Is this your rolemodeling and inspiring people into becoming a scientist?

SJG:

There are so many things wrong with what Richard Stallman said I hardly know where to begin.

First, he didn’t even give the typical, whiney, ‘he’s accused but not convicted’ defense.

No, Stallman went much further than that. Instead, Stallman said “Let’s assume that Marvin Minsky had sex with an underage girl who was a victim of child sex trafficking”…

-/V:

First sentence. There’s actually nothing wrong with that (first featured reply by RMS), it is perfectly logical neutral statements in a discussion, like, again, could have been said by a criminal defense lawyer in an actual fair trial court of justice in the free Western world.

Second sentence. So you dislike living in a non-arbitrary law fair trial justice system with presumption of innocence that we have in the free Western world? Be my guest, move and become a citizen in any other fine shithole country, please.

Rest of paragraph. You’re not making any sense. How did he go further and with what even? At that you are misquoting and/or misrepresenting with your own interpretation. Not that it matters, since your quote still is a perfectly valid assumption to make for the sake of argument.

RMS:

...

The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem.
(See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed.)
Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).

...

We can imagine many scenarios, but 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.

...

-/V: How do you get that to:

SJG: …and then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.

-/V: In his argumenting RMS even presumes to believe the victim and the accused being guilty. It is even a steel man argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning

He never said “that an enslaved child” could be, nor was, “entirely willing”.

He said “presented herself to him [to MM] as entirely willing”.

Which implies from MM’s poin-of-view or reference frame, visuo-spatial and logical transform, how he (MM) would have perceived it, as in trying to determine if MM had committed any guilty decisions, which must be judged after what specifically he knows and doesn’t know at that moment, this is like explaining on fingers to a child.

SJG: Again, this mailing list has undergraduate students on it. It is likely some of them are “18 years old or 17”. I was shocked.

-/V: And what about the “18 years old or 17” undergraduate students on the mailing list?

They are adults, at a University, you’re talking as if they were “8 years old or 7” at kindergarten.

SJG: MIT does not deserve its women. The world does not deserve them either. ... [and cont.]

-/V: It is so obvious, that moment when unpleasant truths and difficult, complex questions without straight easy nor pleasant answers - are replaced with much less cognitive dissonance inducing and much more comforting lies, when all problems and responsibilities can be offloaded and put on a scapegoat – “so many shitty men”. Yes, victimizing a group completely, removing all responsibility and agency, and putting all blame on another group is the easiest thing to do in order to feel better about oneself, and has according to post-modernist critical-theory version of history never led to anything bad.

What a deserved woman “scientist”.

-/V: Why tolerate small things?

Because adults should be able to handle different situations, there is some give and take.

(If too far, one can be reasoned with, and then there’s the law that applies equally to all and is enforced by fair trials.)

The alternative is to have speech and behavioural codes regulating every tiny detail, like microaggressions and nonviolent communication (NVC), and a committee with a task force to watch for it and enforce it and secretly report people to, in order to have a sanitized sterile clean interaction.

Much safer and more comfortable, without any downsides to be mentioned to speak of.

SJG:

Why do we ponder the low enrollment of female and minority graduate students at MIT with one hand and endorse shitty men in science with the other? Not only endorse them — we invite them to our campus where they will brush shoulders with those same female and minority students.

-/V: What’s so special about the groups “female” and “minority” students that you single out?

Is it again victimization, infantilization and removal of agency/responsibility from adult people living in society among other adult people?

Ever heard of one of the most important rules in science?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

And hey, to be honest, we were doing just perfectly fine until “you” showed up and started complaining, demanding and changing things. Just to put into perspective.

SJG: There is nothing I have seen a man in tech do that a woman could not.

-/V: Great. Now you just have to make them actually do those things.

SJG:

There is no single person that is so deserving of praise their comments deprecating others should be allowed to slide. Particularly when those comments are excuses about rape, assault, and child sex trafficking.

Child.

Sex.

Trafficking.

-/V: I haven’t seen any of these alleged excuses, for neither of those three.

But hey, who am I to say against science and logic.

SJG:

This reminds me of Sandy Hook. We knew, then, that if America would do nothing in response to the deaths of children, we would do nothing, ever.

I know, now, that if prominent technology institutions won’t start firing their problematic men left right and center, we will do nothing. Ever.

-/V: Get gun agenda mentioned? Check? Now I’m gonna be jumping the gun a little.

Yes, equate removing all those shitty men with removing guns, because guns shoot children, and think of the children.

Brilliant scientific logic.

SJG:

I hope this gets through to everyone who has responded saying we “should not jump to conclusions” or “be less punitive”. We have been lenient — in fact, we have been negligent — for decades.

-/V: Yes, it seems he has acted and can act questionably, (and this should be presented to him as a dialogue, as is normally customary among mutually respecting people, in the free Western world).

I’d say it is more of a case of being like a child with a lack of vitamin-N and lack of boundaries, being in this position because having accomplished a lot.

Very similar to attractive women who have extremely much special treatment, tolerance and exceptions applied to their behaviour.

Very similar to fundamentalist extremist followers of the “church of feminizm & sjw” today, in fact. Because you are given so much leeway and overly cautious treatment, not only from, by default, because considered more fragile, and neither not only from you crying victim, but also very much from you being militant and demanding.

So one has lot’s of leeway for accomplishment, innovation and contribution.

One has a lot of leeway for being born pretty.

One has lots of leeway for being a loudmouth crybaby and a massive douchebag.

Not saying which is connected to which, that is a riddle for the reader to figure out.

Yeah, “eat bitter”, by making everything a candyrgarten for women.

On the door plaque it is written:
Richard Stallman: knight for justice (also: hot ladies)

?: > CBP waved me through with hardly a word last week (TSA did grumble at me, for not moving fast enough through their fondling queue).

RMS: I generally ask, “Could I please be checked by a woman? It’s not fair that only gays get to enjoy this.”

[some reply, presumably critical, inbetween (maybe: That’s so typical of you straight white males!]

Straight males might not actually like being felt up by women in that sort of context. The joke does not represent how anybody really is. It is not supposed to be accurate – only to make fun of the TSA agents.

I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.” — Bachelor’s in Computer Science, ’04

“He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it. Many female students avoided the corridor with his office for that reason…I was one of the course 6 undergrads who avoided that part of NE43 precisely for that reason. (the mattress was also known to have shirtless people lounging on it...)” — Bachelor’s in Computer Science, ‘99

-/V: That is a perfectly valid strategy in nature, it is a social construct to behave in courteous and respecting manner.

Having the mattress, that is freaking hilarious! Who in the whole world even can do that and actually does that? That is a rarity, now there's something you don't see every day. What a boss!

That is so comical that it hardly can be offensive. Are you sure it isn't just an inside joke or something you're not getting? Maybe it shouldn't be taken that bloody sodding seriously? If thinking about it like insanely uptight, stuck-up and boring adults, yes it is highly inappropriate, but thinking about it in other ways is also possible. Maybe it was just perfectly practical for actually sleeping at work at any moment, which can be of insane cognitive beneficiality, then he happened to (inside-)joke about it? Maybe that’s what can help women in tech?

“When I was a teen freshman, ... lunch ... he and I were the last two left, ..., Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him.

I felt bad for him and also uncomfortable and manipulated. ... I decided I could not be responsible for his living or dying, and would have to accept him killing himself. I declined further contact.

He was not a man of his word or he’d be long dead.”

—Betsy S., Bachelor’s in Management Science, ’85

-/V: Really? This is deemed criminally horrible? This is nitpicky complaints by children who have never been outside of the kindergarten. You’re grasping at straws here.

Barriers to Equality in Academia: Women in Computer Science at MIT

https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~lazowska/mit/

Skimmed through that and my first reaction is that, it is a mix of, although mostly, “receiving side needs to develop in dealing on their own end”, but also quite disrespectful and unclassy and unnecessary behaviour.

And, wow, there is so incredibly much lack of understanding and so much misunderstanding, it’s like naïve children, “why is this completely different alien species from another planet not behaving like I do and like I would like to, that is so strange!”

My second reaction is that I think this, linked to, report/book is the only single thing of validity in your whole entire two texts.

We should be understanding eachother, and compromising, which means from both sides, these women seem to make no effort whatsoever to understand nor adapt, everything should be made to fit them. I can agree that the worst behaviours can be withheld, and the next-worst toned down, but man do women also need to develop some understanding and tolerance (with which understanding would help greatly).

Here’s a partial explanation, capturing some aspects:

We men find flaws and attack them, it is part of highly masculinized culture of competing, so when a woman comes in, she has starkly different flaws to pick up on, but otherwise gets exposed to and receives that exactly same treatment as a man would, it is actually very much equality in that sense, and it is up to that individual to overcome it, and in that way prove oneself, that is how that world works. It is testing.

In addition, you women actually test us too, it’s commonly called “shit test”, among other, and it goes on constantly, a different form of testing, but is testing nonetheless. Do you see us complaining? Forcing you to change it? No, we adapt and try to learn, train and pass those tests.

This what guys have had to live with all this time, this is our environment, that we have grown up in, we are just being unsexist and undiscriminating by treating you to the same standard like any other guy, same amount of pressure, same amount of picking, poking and testing, equal absence of silk gloves. You wanted in, to play the same game by the same rules, you got it.

There's a saying/idiom I got to learn as a little kid and being freshly in Sweden:

"Den som leken leker, får leken tåla / får lekens regler tåla.",

which translates roughly:

"The one who the game plays, bear the game has to / bear the game's rules has to." or

"If you decide to play, you have to put up with the gameplay/gamerules.".

With that said, foul play does not belong, one has to play/compete honestly and honourably.

You're stepping into our world, and disliking what it looks like, according to your what, motherly instinct standards?

Then to accommodate you, we are to adapt to you. How much? A little to a reasonable degree? Sure. Mutually? Sure. Completely? And onesidedly? I seriously just want to say "get the fuck out and get back in the kitchen playing household damn children", but rather grow the fuck up you coddled adult children. Instead of running around telling on, just like children.

There is a very derogatory name you have for certain men called "manchild", what is its counterpart applicable to you?

(Regarding all of the “sexual harassment” allegations.)

That is how impossible some guys feel it is to get success with women.

If we were to be acting anything corresponding to the followers of the "church of feminizm & sjw", it would sound something like:

All women are so mean and evil for oppressing us by turning us men down, it all is the fault of evil Matriarchy, we men are objectified as just tools, who can fix things, do everything risky and difficult, and be just a slave-wallet who earns and pays. It is objectification! It is toxic femininity! It is sexual unharassment! It doesn't matter how much one tries, she will just go with the richer more successful one. Each turndown is an act of violence! And it is sexual harassment! It is feminization supremacy! The whole system of Matriarchy has domination-oppression structures of power, and is existing to oppress us men for our labour. You are so privileged not having to take any steps, just wait for us to take the initiative, and if not to your highnesses' liking then it's a potentially big risk for us as in “off with his head!”. It is structural sexism and the whole female dominated system needs to be destroyed so that we can finally have totalitarian power for a perfectly fair and equal freely chosen 50-50% (en)forced outcome dictated Fascism utopia.

But do you hear us complaining like this?

No, because as a man one feels such behaviour is beneath oneself, and because we don't just give up and start whining, we suck it up and keep trying, trying to be creative, trying to find new ways, trying to adapt. Admittedly not always with the best results/outcomes, but that's the risk part, it's ambition, it’s exploration, atleast we're trying, not giving up and complaining.

How about you women will have to take and do all the steps, and if not standing out enough, if not interesting enough, we can reject you, only regarding what you say and how you talk - disregarding looks, and, on top of that, slightest perceived/interpreted imperfection and we can damn you for criminals. How would that be? To be between a rock and a hard place?

If not enough - you lose out. If too much or in any wrong way - you lose big time! Enjoy!

Here I thought you were for accepting, wanting and celebrating diversity, and he is certainly a diverse character... but I guess you only want superficial diversity in external immutable characteristics - appearance, internally you demand likeminded likethinking. in other words, diversity of the content of one's character is hated and forbidden.

Because any deviation of his or others’, from strict speech and behavioural codes is punished, strongest possible.

Title: Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'

Subtitle: Stallman, a pioneer of the free software movement, argued about the definition of "sexual assault" on an MIT email listserv about the university's connections to Jeffrey Epstein.

Link: https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing

Author: EO-Jr., September 13, 2019, 8:33pm

Richard Stallman, the computer scientist best known for his role in the free software movement, has joined the list of MIT men going out of their way to defend the university’s relationships with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Selam Jie Gano, an MIT alum, posted on Medium about an email thread in which Stallman argued that the late Marvin Minsky—an AI pioneer accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims, Virginia Giuffre—had not actually assaulted anyone.

-/V: In the mails from SJG, who, where and how defends JE?

Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him.

-/V: That first sentence is an outright lie.

In response to a student pointing out that Giuffre was 17 when she was forced to have sex with Minsky in the Virgin Islands, Stallman said “it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”

Motherboard has obtained a copy of the email thread, but has censored the names of its participants besides Stallman. The thread starts at the bottom and continues up:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.pdf

Title: Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were ‘Entirely Willing’

Subtitle: MIT bigwig Richard Stallman dismissed Epstein’s underage victims in emails and defended child pornography on his blog.

Author: BM, Updated Sep. 14, 2019 3:53AM ET / Published Sep. 13, 2019 10:57PM ET

Link: https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing

Stallman wrote that “the most plausible scenario” for Giuffre’s accusations was that she was, in actuality, “entirely willing.”

-/V: Same lie as everybody else, very blatant when looking at the actual source material. Think this is actually the worstly most blatant version, hope you feel proud over you “accomplishment”, BM.

Title: Famed MIT Computer Scientist Who Defended Epstein Resigns

Subtitle: Richard Stallman had also advocated for the legalization of child pornography and pedophilia on his personal blog for 15+ years.

Author: BM, Updated Sep. 17, 2019 3:23AM ET / Published Sep. 16, 2019 9:00PM ET

https://www.thedailybeast.com/richard-stallman-famed-mit-computer-scientist-who-defended-jeffrey-epstein-resigns

-/V: I feel your complete worthless work is a complete waste of my time at this point…

Wouldn’t you want to do something higher?

Title: Richard Stallman and the Fall of the Clueless Nerd

Subtitle: The controversial pioneer of free software resigned from MIT over his remarks on Jeffrey Epstein and Marvin Minsky. Stallman won’t be the last.

Link: https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of-the-clueless-nerd/

Author: SL, Science, 09.18.2019 07:00 AM

Careful to not outright lie about anything, but obvious non-neutral Partisanship.

Last week Stallman penned some comments related to the Jeffrey Epstein case that implied sex with young women was not “sexual assault.”

-/V: Remove JE and the sentence becomes entirely harmless.

[Instead of considering the pain of a young person treated in such a manner, he nitpicked about] whether such a case would be a proper instance of “sexual assault,” since the young woman, he reasoned, would have seemed to be presenting herself to Minsky willingly. (It is far from resolved whether Minsky had sex with the woman.)

-/V: Skipping first half in [ ], to not becoming an emotional reader, rest of the sentence says nothing negative about RMS. “assault” is the word in question https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/assault

Credit for including the parentheses, think that’s the only professionally journalistic thing you’ve done in the whole article, not being Partisan smear propaganding.

Generally, the word inappropriate doesn’t seem to be in his vocabulary. He once invited a friend of mine to lunch at a fancy restaurant, and she accepted, on the condition that he comb his hair and wear suitable attire. After a pleasant meal, he asked her if she minded if he danced. (Stallman is famously a lover of folk dancing.) “Go ahead,” she said, and he pranced around the tables, solo, in high-stepping glee, oblivious to the discomfort of diners.

-/V: Wow, what a crime against another human. It may deviate strongly from “normality” but in fact this is someone who dares to stand/stick out in front of other people, in order to impress someone. That is courageous. I would like to see, those looking down at this piece of behaviour, go against the stream standing up to a mob, instead of joining in, following the herd.

Stallman is now more alone than I found him 35 years ago. But do not call him the last of his kind. More will fall as the reckoning continues.

-/V: Are you going to be chosen for, to be a collectivist?

I did go through and read the actual full source material on RMS’s website, of all of the absolutely worst, most damning things that people quoted him for.

25 May 2003 () https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html

06 April 2006 ( DHS spokesman sex scandal? )

05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party)

4 June 2011 (Border Searches)

29 August 2011 (Child Pornography Bill)

04 January 2013 (Pedophilia)

25 April 2019 (Plea deal for Epstein)

As far as my judgement of the situation goes at least, this following is what I see.

With that said, just to be clear, I believe the current system is quite reasonable, well balanced and good enough. And, yeah, here are a few thing I cannot defend, luckily RMS did change his mind on it. But I can still see and understand the other ways of thinking - without accepting them.

So I suggest that if you want to condemn RMS, at least also read through, and with an open mind.

To begin with, many of those quoted things are strategically picked out of context for greatest shock value, reading the full source material, many cases are much less unreasonable, some get a completely different meaning altogether, when context and nuance is taken into account.

In regards to this/these highly taboo topics and RMS, you’re not looking at a typical grown-up who according to common sense would only be saying such things in bad faith and/or with malicious intent. But instead you are looking at, someone outside of common sense, at a stark outlier, at a naïve grown-up child still full of innocence and best intentions.

This is not an adult with malicious dirty intent, it’s a big child who thinks only the most bright about the world and people.

In certain topics/aspects, narrow to very narrow thinking, mindset of invalidating by finding either an edge case exception, an exception, or a reasonable exception, but not considering nor maybe being aware of, the breadth of possible cases and the breadth of the whole picture.

It’s a case of somebody not knowing better, being optimistic in the extreme.

So that, together with it being a taboo topic leading to very quick judgements, spending minimal time trying to understand how a person is thinking.

Is it psychology, that the more sensitive and thereby risky the topic at hand, the more inclined a person is to collectivistic/herd condemning behaviour? Out of selfish safety?

This is somebody who is a proponent for puberty being age of consent, but not because of anything on the ill-meaning end of the spectrum, not from the perspective of a dirty-minded adult because specifically wanting to have access to that.

It is from the perspective of the newly pubescent, from the well-meaning end of the spectrum with lots of naïveté and a perfect worldview of no ill intentions existing nor even possible, and everybody being free souls and spirits enjoying minimal rules.

This is from a mindset of that the world is perfectly good, of nobody having ill intentions,

this is somebody who doesn’t seem to know the complexity of negativeness or “evil” of people – precisely like the ones who cancel-cultured him, that was a new experience of humans I bet.

Think, at least in this area of knowledge, experience and mental maturity, of RMS as being on the level of a sheltered ~10 year old.

It’s like, if you never explain to your small child to “never get in cars with strangers” he will think nothing but the best of strangers.

Like your grandmother with computers and internet, how is she going to know that clicking on things can be dangerous, that there are webpages that will scam and rob her, that there are webpages with the nastiest of content far beyond her wildest imagination?

Until you explain these things.

Then there is a combination of a several other things going into his:

Because of background in computer and internet, together with understanding and being a proponent for freedom of information:
-being to an extreme against censorship

-being to an extreme for privacy and against anything/anyone threatening that, like surveillance, searches, etc.

Having/being extremely open and liberal views/opinions on how sexuality should ideally be, not necessarily what oneself wants to do. Everybody should be maximally free and liberated.

In his mind biological sexuality starts at procreation maturity age, since it’s only logical science, and considering only physiology that is reasonable, since remember that nothing negative in psychology exists, so therefore it can be ignored.

I can repeat something similar, that biologically mammals are suitable for reproduction when the genital systems gain their functions, which is at puberty.

What then is required in order for the reproductive experience to be pleasant for all parties involved, both in the short and long term, is a completely separate discussion.

Having separate discussions is a crime according to someone's assessment of speech?
So, purely biologically, at puberty - and nature doesn’t give an F if one is mentally mature/ready or not.
However, we do live in a society and a culture, with norms and traditions (and to make it overly clear, I am in favor of a suitable and sensible restriction so that bad experiences are minimized, like what exists today).
It is though, precisely the feminists themselves who speak about that everything is socially constructed.

So to the contrary, the argument can be made that it is the feminizt-sjw that are for paedophilia, because according to them everything is socially constructed lol.
If the “church of Feminizm & sjw” claims that everything is socially constructed, then it is the hedonist-collectivists who are for no artificially nor culturally-traditionally nor socially constructed limitations/norms.

Weak argument, but just to mention: The film Fr:Mignonnes En:Cuties is defended by the identity-politics-”left” side, while disliked by conservatives. (and no, not gonna waste my time seeing)

...about the child-p-feminists, if you can stand to watch the whole effing video, that is an example of, one sampling, of what feminism today stands for

(by TEDx Talks https://www.youtube.com/user/TEDxTalks/videos )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rMXa0jAk2E Feminist Boys are our Future Men: Changing Culture of Sexual Violence | Bobbi Wegner | TEDxDartmouth

8:09 a rank-and-file feminist shows child pron

And just to not be a coward and also put myself out there, even more that is, if it even is possible at this point, anyway, I’ve happened to watch plenty of “sanctioned child p”, let me explain:

Was with gf at her home with her family. They have taken lots of pictures and digitized them. So we watched many times with the whole family on the big screen TV in the living room. So, there came up nudes of my gf as a younger child... and I was a little slightly WTF seeing the exact same person but, yeah, gf, reaction was enough for me to like a little uneasily and jokingly say something that I felt uneasy and if this is ok for me, because again gf and also felt a bit guilty since I know I shouldn’t be doing that, but they were like, mate chill, it’s not a deal, we’re like family, and so I slowly relaxed, still reminder remained, but I relaxed, since I knew there was nothing special behind it and the pictures in themselves were just pictures for me, they didn’t do anything.

But yeah, so I technically have watched that, though context and situation and intention made it different, nuff said.

What you've got here is failure to communicate, not in language but in high versus low intellectual level and standard, and RMS not knowing or not understanding or choosing to disregard everyday people dynamics, and lack of information on a topic.

Let me TRY to explain (my take) the train of thought, and please make an attempt to try understanding.

Let me try to translate between the two:

(And I'm holding it to kiddie language, because I know that kiddies may be listening.)

Given only very limited information (could say naïve picture) of that

recently biologically procreation-mature,

doing the act with well established biologically procreation-mature,

leading to bad outcomes,

taken together with one of the most important scientific rules of,

correlation does not mean causation,

that it may be the correlated forcing,

not the correlated difference in biological procreation-maturity age,

that causes the bad outcome.

This is a perfectly logical hypotheses as per the scientific method, given the limited information.

Then he got more info, considered power dynamics, considered emotional and mental maturity, considered tried and true in practice outcomes and thereto related widespread common opinion.

(Not that, many thinking something is a guarantee in either way, for nor against correctness, speaking in general here, about “common opinion” purely, within this parentheses.)

It was a case of limited information and thinking that completely free intellectual discourse is that which is prevailing among intelligent human monkeys (because anything other would simply be illogical), not considering that a primitive monkey can do a thing called misunderstanding statements and in more than one way and intentionally, and dishonestly at that, and need to be carefully "tiptoed" explained to like children to avoid this and how those primitive monkeys could be drawn into the collectivistic herd behaviour of starting a hysterical mob throwing faeces.

You who call him a moron for behaving badly, when the argument can be made that it is in fact you yourselves who are the morons for not understanding him. Isn't that a lack of social intelligence? Since I seem to be able to understand both perfectly.

And you who call RMS pedantic regarding language use, see then if you dare call feminizm-sjw speech-codes and behavioural-codes pedantic.

To Richard Matthew Stallman:

Short ver.:

Na mate, grow up, become a man, red pill and walk away!

Freedom and Liberty is an absolute first, pro primo priority, that nothing else is possible without!

Once that is secured, the other issues close to your heart can be worked on!

Listen to the 4th of July, National Day, Independence Day, Freedom Day speech.

Long version is Looong!:

A physicists* take on philosophizing on and trying to describe the world

(*student)

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/jebsv6/a_physicists_take_on_philosophizing_on_and_trying/

WARNING: possibly very impolitically incorrect, and safety cannot be guaranteed!

/V