Vectorfield @Vectorfield@qoto.org

这种"造成既定事实，迫使反对方承认"的做法，未尝不是一种短视。

@meina 关键是人从古猿进化成智人花了几百万年，而如果人工智能真的在当代拥有了低级人类智力的话，这个过程其实只花了几十年，也就是说，再过几十年的话，就智力而言，人类与人工智能的差距其实就相当于古猿于低级人类的差距，这还是在排除了指数增长的情况下。

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/diversity-delusion/

## “Equity”
<br>
Equity and equality are not the same thing. Equality means “arranging the system so that citizens are treated equally.” “Equity” means “adjusting shares so that outcomes are made equal from one citizen to another.” It arises from what is known as “social equity theory,” and it means engineering equality of outcome.
<br>
“Equity” justifies its “essential” necessity by identifying any disparity in outcome that comes out on average in the negative for the “protected classes” defined by Theory (so, not white and usually not Asian, e.g.) as the result of bigotry. This results in DIE approaches using the worst-possible means of measuring when “Equity” has been achieved and when it lacks. On-average differences, according to Critical Social Justice Theory, are “inequities,” and these must imply discrimination and bigotry in a systemic sense, and therefore must be adjusted for. This demand for “Equity” is taken to be true even if there is no evidence of (or strong evidence against) any discrimination whatsoever (asking for this evidence is also taken as evidence of racism because it suggests something overrides the experience of “lived realities”).
<br>
This is where “systemic racism” (to name just one form of systemic bigotry) becomes relevant, serving as a kid of “bigotry of the gaps” catch-all explanation for all differences that Theory would call “oppression.” The underlying belief in the Theory is that everyone must be intrinsically the same, therefore any differences on average must be the result of overt or hidden discrimination, especially when the relevant causes aren’t known or knowable. The DIE Theorist’s job is to find the “hidden” discrimination, especially since the overt parts have been eliminated in law for decades.
<br>
That hidden discrimination might be found in the organization itself (which will be charged with it, no matter how much it bends backwards to do the opposite) or in the vague workings of society, culture, education, representation, language, feelings, or anything ever experienced. Women being “assigned” the female sex at birth, for example, is often construed as sufficient to have begun “socializing” (what Critical Theory calls brainwashing by society) them into a set of beliefs and attitudes that lead them to feel unsuited to work in certain industries, like technology and on oil rigs (wait, no, not the second one). From there, everything that goes into their entire experience as as girl, then woman, is part of the “systemic” bigotry (here, sexism and misogyny) that “must” be the cause of this result. “Equity” wants to make up for it through social engineering, but not so much on the oil rig.
<br>
The objective of “Equity” is to create perfectly “Equitable” outcomes in high-status employment sectors (and basically nowhere else). On a superficial reading, as we will see, this means that employment statistics in high-status jobs, especially where cultural production or potential harms are concerned, will have to match exactly the prevailing demographic percentages in the population, even though this is literally impossible without large-scale social engineering including forced quotas. (Random stochasticity, that is, noise in the system, should make perfect alignment with prevailing demographic percentages extremely improbable, after all, even if the system were perfectly free of difference and discrimination of every sort.) That means that “Equity” implies using identity-based quotas and vigorous social engineering to achieve them. Because outcomes have to be perfectly equitable for “Equity” to have been achieved, it genuinely represents something close to an ethno-communist totalitarianism if it were put into full practice.
<br>
Bear in mind that “Equitable” outcomes require discrimination. In Ibram X. Kendi’s bestselling book How to Be Antiracist, he makes no bones about this point; it’s not like it’s some secret Theory is trying to keep from us. Kendi writes, “The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.” It is on this line of thought precisely that we have recently seen the California State Legislature vote to remove the anti-discrimination verbiage from its state constitution. “Equity” would require us to discriminate against “dominant” groups and in favor of “oppressed ones,” as Theory has defined it, so achieving “Equity” means doing identity-based discrimination, potentially endlessly because they’ll be virtually impossible to achieve just due to random fluctuations in population dynamics.
<br>
Even creating “Equitable” outcomes like perfect parity won’t be enough, however, because Critical Race Theory is also what might be described as “ethno-historical.” Thus, even if there are no current disparities to be found (and there always will be because they can also be made up at the level of culture or subjective feelings), in any cases where there are historical ones to appeal to, those will have to be made up for too in order to achieve “Equity.” Thus, applying “Equity” from a Critical perspective results something like a combination of affirmative action and reparations, in one form or another.

## “Inclusion”
<br>
“Inclusion,” when understood Critically, is easily the most sinister of these three ideas (“Equity” is just kind of stupid and communistic and “Diversity” just has a tricky definition). “Inclusion” is genuinely insidious and twisted because inclusion means “welcoming,” but in DIE even being welcoming gets interpreted through the increasingly familiar Critical lenses of power dynamics and protected classes.
<br>
In the DIE program, an “Inclusive” environment is one that cannot create feelings of “exclusion” or “marginalization” for any protected classes or their “authentic” (that is, Theoretically consistent) voices. That is, “Inclusion” means limiting speech to agree with Theory up to and including physically excluding dissenters, disagreement, and even anyone who represents “dominant” identity groups, even by “adjacency” or “complicity.”
<br>
Truth needn’t even be relevant for these complaints. For example, the new bid by some realty companies not to refer to the largest bedroom and bathrooms as “master” bedrooms and bathrooms is a kind of “Inclusive” thinking. Even though the term originated in 1926 in a Sears catalog, and thus has nothing to do with slavery, the very idea that some people might associate the term “master” with slavery means the term has to be stricken from real estate. We see this with makeup companies removing “whitening” and “lightening” lines. We see this with college students and even workers demanding black-only spaces or asking for a minimum of white people being around lest the presence of dominant group members make them feel uncomfortable. We see it, at least perhaps, with the now-famous anti-racist scholar Ibram X. Kendi deciding changing his name from Ibram Henry Rogers to Ibram Xolani Kendi.
<br>
In fact, we see this notion of “Inclusion” behind almost every attempt to restrict speech, representation, and action to the narrow set of each of these that positively ensures absolute psychological comfort for all members of protected “minoritized” classes at all times. Given that “Diversity” requires hiring people who are trained to find egregious offense in everything, including microaggressions and wild interpretations, “Inclusion” becomes a wide-open license for utter control of speech, representation, and behavior, even down to the level of physical presence in a space or organization. This includes literal calls for re-segregation under a label of “desegregation.”
<br>
So, when some organization says it is essential to increase “Inclusion” within its halls, what it means is that there can be allowed absolutely no dissent from the Critical Theory party line. Why? Any disagreement would make people who embrace the relevant Critical Theory, which they will have synonimized with their personal identity, feel “uncomfortable.” Disagreement subjects them to idea-based “harms” or “traumas,” and the mere presence of people who disagree reminds them of how “dominant” groups “take up too much space.”
<br>
This is not an exaggeration. Because the relevant Critical Social Justice Theory literally explains that every disagreement with it is an attempt to “preserve privilege,” every disagreement is comprehensible in that Theory only as a hostile act against “marginalized” and “oppressed” groups. Thus, “Inclusion” means only allowing people to think, act, and speak in accordance with the shifting and often nonsensical demands of the Critical activists who are embedding themselves in the organization through the requirements of DIE.

## “Diversity”, “Inclusion”, “Equity”
<br>
## “Diversity”
<br>
Because Critical Theories of identity view the person and their (identity) politics as intrinsically intertwined, “Diversity” doesn’t mean what anyone thinks it means. It means “Diversity” as the Critical approaches to “identity studies” in Critical Social Justice (like Critical Race Theory) understand it. It has a very specific meaning in Critical Theory. It means only having more diverse representation of different “lived experiences of oppression.” That is, it means having people with different ethnic backgrounds and the same grievance-oriented approach to thinking about those backgrounds and aggressive and highly sensitive identity-politicking style regarding them. That’s what you’re bringing in when you go for “Diversity”: Identity-driven Critical Theorists, i.e., work-avoidant complainers, troublemakers, and busybodies who will problematize every aspect of your organization until it is compliant with their impossible and often-nonsensical political demands.
<br>
We think “diversity” means people with diverse backgrounds, but the Critical Theory twists this definition into a very specific interpretation. Specifically, in Critical Social Justice, “Diversity” means something like “people with ‘diverse’ ethnic origins who all have the same Woke political understanding of the ‘social positions‘ they inhabit and the world in which those have context.” The programs for “Diversity” insist those people, not merely people from different backgrounds, have to be hired to achieve “Diversity.” The Critical system of thought maintains that everyone else lacks the “authentic” (i.e., Critical) view and thus fails to support the right kind of “Diversity.”
<br>
Under these Critical Theories, if you happen to be some particular identity (e.g., “racially black,” as Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the New York Times Magazine “1619 Project” seemingly inadvertently put it), then your voice is only authentically Black (“politically Black”) if it speaks in terms of Blackness—a radical black-liberationist political mindset—as that is understood by Critical Race Theory. Otherwise, the black person in question is said to be suffering internalized racism (a form of socially brainwashed false consciousness that prevents him from knowing his own best interests) or is race-traitorous. Therefore, a “racially black” but not “politically Black” hire wouldn’t constitute a proper Black “Diversity” hire because the “Diversity” perspective requires having taken up the right black-liberationist politics of Critical Race Theory. Literally anything else supports “white supremacy,” which is the opposite of “Diversity,” and thus doesn’t qualify. The person’s identity is their politics, and this is why we see prominent black figures being cancelled for not holding the proper “politically Black” line.
<br>
How can this be? These Identity Theories operate on the premise that different identity groups have a different essential experience of “systemic power” dynamics and thus different “knowledges” and “lived realities.” When the relevant identity is racial, each race is said to possess certain “racial knowledges” that can only be obtained in one way: by the “lived experience” of oppressed for being that race and learning to interpret those experiences through Critical Race Theory. Only someone who represents those experiences faithfully, meaning as the relevant Identity Theory says they must be, has an “authentic” voice that speaks from that social position. Thus, in the Theory underlying DIE training, only Critical Theorists of multiple “oppressed” identities can possibly count as satisfying “Diversity” because that’s what “Diversity” really refers to.
<br>
What this means in your organization is having to hire people who have been trained into an exquisitely sensitive form of offense-taking and whose primary work effort will be problematizing everything they can read racism into. And make no mistake, the Theory says the racism must be and always is present (“the question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but ‘how did racism manifest in this situation?'” –Robin DiAngelo). The “Diversity” hire is there to help make sure it’s found and “made visible.” Diversity training is meant to make this way of thinking and the resulting cancel culture it creates standard operating procedure in your organization. At a bare minimum, the increased focus on “Diversity” initiatives will constitute a drain of valuable resources that make your organization less productive and less competitive. At worst, your organization will fracture in a Hobbesian way around these divisions like The Evergreen State College.
<br>
Therefore, when we see a call for more “Diversity” in hiring, that means hiring more Critical Theorists who have a wider variety of identity statuses but identical politics about identity in general. It’s a call to hire more Critical Theorists. You should only take that on if that’s what you really want because you’re not getting anything that points to the usual ideas of diversity.
<br>
Now we can answer our question about what this DIE work is “essential” to achieving, then. Taking on DIE is “essential” for fomenting and effecting your organization’s part in the Critical revolution. This will be achieved by finalizing Gramsci’s long march through the institutions and forcing the Critical narrative on everyone so as to establish and perpetuate its nascent hegemony. That is, DIE is essential to a sociopolitical takeover of liberal society by radical neo-Marxist activsts.

川普的支持者经常受到的指责就是他们生活在"另类事实"中，有着脱离现实的看法，可是，只要你要对美国的左翼运动有所了解，你会发现美国的"进步人士"持有的想法同样荒唐，甚至更加荒唐。两者的区别在于，川普的支持者通常把信任都寄托在川普本人身上，以一位政治家的观点为正确的准绳，而"进步人士"则是经常把商业媒体视为真相的裁决者，如果商业媒体打算攻击某个人或某个组织，那么作为它支持者的"左翼进步人士"就会充满义愤地对该对象进行辱骂和骚扰，而从不去思考商业媒体说的是真相还是谎言。川普支持者不相信媒体，很大程度上也正是因为主流媒体本身不值得信任了，然而以政治家的个人言论为真相的这种做法，其危险程度丝毫不逊于以媒体为真相。

我在这里当然不是说，"两边都一样，因此现状不存在改善的可能性"，我的看法是，要走出目前的困境，媒体需要重拾职业道德，左派需要彻底的重生。

@Jill@va-11.com linuxreviews上的一篇文章也详细追溯了该公开信的源头https://linuxreviews.org/Grass-roots_Richard_Stallman_Support-Letter_Has_Reached_3600%2B_Signers

@Jill@va-11.com http://techrights.org/2021/03/27/objective-look-at-phony-scandal/
这篇文章给了一条详细的时间线，里面也提到了微软对许多开源组织和科技媒体的控制。

错別字："犯错的权力"应改为"犯错的权利"

替巨头企业审查(Big Tech Censorship)和取消文化(Cancel Culture)辩护的人经常提出这样一种观点：(第一修正案所规定的)言论自由限制的只是政府，而不是团体和组织，而且言论自由也并不意味着你可以免于批评或免于承担后果，因此，如果某人遭到了政府以外机构或团体的审查，抵制，或者"取消"，他的言论自由并未受到侵犯。
<br>
这种观点所暗示的是，言论自由的合法性来自于且仅来自于法律，在法律规定的范围之外，团体和组织对言论自由的限制和封杀就是合理的。
<br>
但言论自由，作为人们的一项基本权利，真的是法律所授予的吗？如果某个独裁政党上台，修改了法律呢？如果一些自命正义的人士控制了立法，而他们认为自由应该让位于正义呢？是不是这就意味着言论自由不是一项权利呢？
<br>
对于这一个问题，启蒙主义早已给出了答案，那就是人的自然权利要优先于具体的法律条文，人权作为“人类天生要享有的权利”，并不是宪法赋予的，宪法的作用仅仅是保障和实现人权的一种手段。正如《独立宣言》中说到的那样：
<br>
**_我们认为下面这些真理不言而喻：人人生而平等，造物主赋予他们若干不可剥夺的权利，其中包括生命权、自由权和追求幸福的权利。正是为了保障这些权利，人们才在他们之间建立政府，而政府之正当权力，则来自被统治者的同意。任何形式的政府，只要破坏上述目的，人民就有权利改变或废除它，并建立新政府。_**
<br>
也就是说，人的基本权利是与生俱来的，是造物主赋予他们的，人的自然权利本身，要优先于人们为保护这些权利所做出的制度安排。至于具体的法律，人们在制定它的时候，总是要反复推敲，考虑其可行性的。第一修正案只对政府做限制，我想更大程度上是因为它在现实中可以操作，如果它连非政府组织也要管的话，一是不现实，二是会损害人们的其它权利，例如自由结社的权利。可是，虽然第一修正案没有对政府以外的领域进行规定，但这并不表明在这些领域中言论自由权就是不存在的。第一修正案没有对这些领域进行规定，不代表在这些领域中言论自由无关紧要，恰恰相反，这正好表明了在这些领域中，言论自由更需要人们的争取和捍卫，因为"自由的代价就是永远保持警惕"
既然法律管不了，那么自由就只有靠民众自觉的捍卫。政府管制固然是对自由的一大威胁，但公众舆论、道德习俗对自由的威胁，也就是约翰·密尔说的"习俗的暴政"，同样不可轻视。 如果在民间社会中言论自由的精神不再被坚守，那么再好的法律也无法保护言论自由的权利。正如孟德斯鸠在《论法的精神》中说的："政体的原则一旦腐化，最好的法律也会变坏，成为对国家有害的法律。但是当原则健全的时候，即使是不好的法律也会产生好的法律效果；原则的力量能够带动一切事物。" 言论自由，作为现代民主制度的核心价值，远非是法律条文上的规定那么简单。
<br>
那么言论自由是否不意味着你可以免于批评或免于承担后果呢？当然不是！因为自由是所有人的自由，每个人都有批判或赞扬的权利，我无意否认这一点。但是我的确认为，基于理性和证据的文明讨论，要远远地好于煽动情绪的断章取义，和掩盖事实的恶意中伤。
<br>
言论自由当然也不意味着所有的言论可以免于承担后果。问题在于，这里的"后果"指的具体是什么？如果某人刻意地散播关于另一个人的谣言，对另一个人造成了明显的经济损失，或者向外国散播本国的军事情报，那么他当然应该受到法律的制裁。可以如果某个人只是真实地表达了自己与正统意见不同的看法，就要被媒体和社交封杀，丢掉自己的工作，那么这无疑是对言论自由的无耻攻击。我不认为所有言论都可以免于承担后果，但我的确认为，任何人都不应该因为持有异端思想而被封杀。寡头企业与觉悟左派是当代言论自由的大敌，捍卫言论自由即意味着与这两者作战。

@KirisameUkiyo@nya.one 就算是虚假的版本的赛伯朋克在我看来也比现状坏得多。

@perfume63 ，现在的农民工至少能吃上肉，不会饿死了。毛时代农民的命运还要悲惨得多。

@brown
总体而言我同意你的观点，但是我有以下几点意见：

1.用"强者"称呼Stallman很可能会造成误解，有些人会理解成Stallman很坚强，但另一些人会理解成他是一个"强人"，认为他性格专断，手段独裁。而且"强者"是与"弱者"相对立的，如说Stallman一个强者，这是不是说他瞧不起弱者呢？

因此我认为更合适的说法是Stallman是一个坚守自由原则，不愿妥协的人。

2."如果没有透明的软件，人类离灭亡也就不远了。" 这种说法比较夸张，实是求是地说，没有自由软件，人类也不会灭亡，但生活在一个信息时代，没有自由软件，人类在其它领域的自由也会逐渐丧失，最终陷于奴役。

3.Stallman是一名英雄，但他并不是救世主，他也是一个人，是人会犯错，就会有缺点，我们对Stallman的认识应该基于现实。而且，不论Stallman有多么出色，自由软件运动光靠他一人是无法成功的，自由靠的是每一个人的争取，Stallman只是开创了自由软件的事业，这一事业需要人们继承下去，做持久的努力。

Luckily, another co-author on the book has spent a lot of time pondering inclusion, women’s rights, children’s rights, and free speech. Her name is Nadine Strossen and her credentials run deep. She served as the first female President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), America’s largest and oldest civil liberties nonprofit, from 1991 to 2008. When she stepped down as President, three Supreme Court Justices participated in her farewell luncheon (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and David Souter). Strossen is a Professor Emeritus at New York Law School and currently an advisor to the EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center), FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), the ACLU, and Heterodox Academy. She is the author of the widely acclaimed books HATE: Why we should fight it with speech not censorship (2018) and Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women’s Rights (1995). She has far too many awards, publications, and prominent appearances to name.
<br>
I talked with her to explain the dilemma and get her thoughts.
<br>
Civil Rights Activist Nadine Strossen’s Response To #CancelStallman:
<br>
I find it so odd that the strong zeal for revenge and punishment if someone says anything that is perceived to be sexist or racist or discriminatory comes from liberals and progressives. There are so many violations [in cases like Stallman’s] of such fundamental principles to which progressives and liberals cling in general as to what is justice, what is fairness, what is due process.
<br>
One is proportionality: that the punishment should be proportional to the offense. Another one is restorative justice: that rather than retribution and punishment, we should seek to have the person constructively come to understand, repent, and make amends for an infraction. Liberals generally believe society to be too punitive, too harsh, not forgiving enough. They are certainly against the death penalty and other harsh punishments even for the most violent, the mass murderers. Progressives are right now advocating for the release of criminals, even murderers. To then have exactly the opposite attitude towards something that certainly is not committing physical violence against somebody, I don’t understand the double standard!
<br>
Another cardinal principle is we shouldn’t have any guilt by association. [To hold culpable] these board members who were affiliated with him and ostensibly didn’t do enough to punish him for things that he said - which by the way were completely separate from the Free Software Foundation - is multiplying the problems of unwarranted punishment. It extends the punishment where the argument for responsibility and culpability becomes thinner and thinner to the vanishing point. That is also going to have an enormous adverse impact on the freedom of association, which is an important right protected in the U.S. by the First Amendment.
<br>
The Supreme Court has upheld freedom of association in cases involving organizations that were at the time highly controversial. It started with NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) during the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s, but we have a case that’s going to the Supreme Court right now regarding Black Lives Matter. The Supreme Court says even if one member of the group does commit a crime - in both of those cases physical violence and assault - that is not a justification for punishing other members of the group unless they specifically intended to participate in the particular punishable conduct.
<br>
Now, let’s assume for the sake of argument, Stallman had an attitude that was objectively described as discriminatory on the basis on race and gender (and by the way I have seen nothing to indicate that), that he’s an unrepentant misogynist, who really believes women are inferior. We are not going to correct those ideas, to enlighten him towards rejecting them and deciding to treat women as equals through a punitive approach! The only approach that could possibly work is an educational one! Engaging in speech, dialogue, discussion and leading him to re-examine his own ideas.
<br>
Even if I strongly disagree with a position or an idea, an expression of an idea, advocacy of an idea, and even if the vast majority of the public disagrees with the idea and finds it offensive, that is not a justification for suppressing the idea. And it’s not a justification for taking away the equal rights of the person who espouses that idea including the right to continue holding a tenured position or other prominent position for which that person is qualified.
<br>
But a number of the ideas for which Richard Stallman has been attacked and punished are ideas that I as a feminist advocate of human rights find completely correct and positive from the perspective of women’s equality and dignity! So for example, when he talks about the misuse and over use and flawed use of the term sexual assault, I completely agree with that critique! People are indiscriminantly using that term or synonyms to describe everything from the most appaulling violent abuse of helpless vulnerable victims (such as a rape of a minor) to any conduct or expression in the realm of gender or sexuality that they find unpleasant or disagreeable.
<br>
So we see the term sexual assault and sexual harrassment used for example, when a guy asks a woman out on a date and she doesn’t find that an appealing invitation. Maybe he used poor judgement in asking her out, maybe he didn’t, but in any case that is NOT sexual assault or harassment. To call it that is to really demean the huge horror and violence and predation that does exist when you are talking about violent sexual assault. People use the term sexual assault/ sexual harassment to refer to any comment about gender or sexuality issues that they disagree with or a joke that might not be in the best taste, again is that to be commended? No! But to condemn it and equate it with a violent sexual assault again is really denying and demeaning the actual suffering that people who are victims of sexual assault endure. It trivializes the serious infractions that are committed by people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein. So that is one point that he made that I think is very important that I strongly agree with.
<br>
Secondly and relatedly, [Richard Stallman] never said that he endorse child pornography, which by definition the United States Supreme Court has defined it multiple times is the sexual exploitation of an actual minor. Coerced, forced, sexual activity by that minor, with that minor that happens to be filmed or photographed. That is the definition of child pornography. He never defends that! What the point he makes, a very important one, which the U.S. Supreme Court has also made, is mainly that we overuse and distort the term child pornography to refer to any depiction of any minor in any context that is even vaguely sexual.
<br>
So some people have not only denounced as child pornography but prosecuted and jailed loving devoted parents who committed the crime of taking a nude or semi-nude picture of their own child in a bathtub or their own child in a bathing suit. Again it is the hysteria that has totally refused to draw an absolutely critical distinction between actual violence and abuse, which is criminal and should be criminal, to any potentially sexual depiction of a minor. And I say potentially because I think if you look at a picture a parent has taken of a child in a bathtub and you see that as sexual, then I’d say there’s something in your perspective that might be questioned or challenged! But don’t foist that upon the parent who is lovingly documenting their beloved child's life and activities without seeing anything sexual in that image.
<br>
This is a decision that involves line drawing. We tend to have this hysteria where once we hear terms like pedophilia of course you are going to condemn anything that could possibly have that label. Of course you would. But societies around the world throughout history various cultures and various religions and moral positions have disagreed about at what age do you respect the autonomy and individuality and freedom of choice of a young person around sexuality. And the U.S. Supreme Court held that in a case involving minors right to choose to have an abortion.
<br>
By the way, [contraception and abortion] is a realm of sexuality where liberals and progressives and feminists have been saying, “Yes! If you’re old enough to have sex. You should have the right to contraception and access to it. You should have the right to have an abortion. You shouldn’t have to consult with your parents and have their permission or a judge’s permission because you’re sufficiently mature.” And the Supreme Court sided in accord of that position. The U.S. Supreme Court said constitutional rights do not magically mature and spring into being only when someone happens to attain the state defined age of majority.
<br>
In other words the constitution doesn’t prevent anyone from exercising rights, including Rights and sexual freedoms, freedom of choice and autonomy at a certain age! And so you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say well we’re strongly in favor of minors having the right to decide what to do with their own bodies, to have an abortion - what is in some people’s minds murder - but we’re not going to trust them to decide to have sex with somewhat older than they are.
<br>
And I say somewhat older than they are because that’s something where the law has also been subject to change. On all issues of when you obtain the age of majority, states differ on that widely and they choose different ages for different activities. When you’re old enough to drive, to have sex with someone around your age, to have sex with someone much older than you. There is no magic objective answer to these questions. I think people need to take seriously the importance of sexual freedom and autonomy and that certainly includes women, feminists. They have to take seriously the question of respecting a young person’s autonomy in that area.
<br>
There have been famous cases of 18 year olds who have gone to prison because they had consensual sex with their girlfriends who were a couple of years younger. A lot of people would not consider that pedophilia and yet under some strict laws and some absolute definitions it is. Romeo and Juliet laws make an exception to pedophilia laws when there is only a relatively small age difference. But what is relatively small? So to me, especially when he says he is re-examining his position, Stallman is just thinking through the very serious debate of how to be protective and respectful of young people. He is not being disrespectful, much less wishing harm upon young people, which seems to be what his detractors think he’s doing.

#RichardStallman
<br>
Hannah Wolfman-Jones，《System Override: How Bitcoin, Blockchain, Free Speech & Free Tech Can Change Everything》的作者之一，在We The Web的网站上，对Richard Stallman事件的始未进行了清楚详细的阐述，并与民权活动家，ACLU的首位女性领袖，Nadine Strossen，共同对Richard Stallman进行了辩护。《System Override》这本书由Hannah Wolfman-Jones，Nadine Strossen和Richard Stallman共著而成。https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web 这篇文章是Hannah Wolfman-Jones与Nadine Strossen在该网站上对Richard Stallman事件做出的正式回应。

这篇文章值得一读。

@matrikslee 你只是重申了自己的看法，并没有正面回复我发的文章中的主要观点，即程度的不同足以造成性质的差异，恐怕我们没有继续讨论的必要了。

在再次阅读原始邮件后，我感到我需要修正一下我的描述：

Richard Stallman的看法并不是Virginia自愿与Marvin Minsky性交，而是说Virginia受到了胁迫，但Marvin Minsky对此未必知情
<br>
(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. )
<br>
我第一次浏览邮件时其实看到了这段话，但再次翻阅时却没找到，所以遗漏了这段话，因此我匆匆地根据( 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. )这句话得出了不正确的结论。这里的presented herself指的应该是表面装作自愿。
<br>
修正之后的事件始末是：2019年，有人发现MIT暗中接受了爱泼斯坦的捐赠，而爱泼斯坦是一个著名的性罪犯，因此，MIT CSAIL的人员便在内部邮件的讨论串中对此展开了抗议，在讨论的过程中，话题发生了转向，内容变成了已故的MIT教授Marvin Minsky是否也性侵犯了爱泼斯坦的受害者，一些人认为Marvin Minsky的确性侵犯了了爱泼斯坦的受害者，理由是Virginia Louise声明爱泼斯坦指使了她与Marvin Minsky性交(当时她只有17岁)，而Richard Stallman则不这么认为，他认为”性侵犯”一词过于模糊和随意，而且”侵犯”意味着强迫与暴力，Stallman设想了许多场景，他认为最可能的情况是Virginia装作自愿与Marvin Minsky性交的，Marvin Minsky自身未必知晓。 有人向Stallman质疑，Virginia未满18岁，还没有到能够自己做决定的法定年龄，Stallman则回应道，用年龄或地理位置来判定是不是强奸是十分荒诞的。
<br>
其余需要修正的推论：
<br>
对于原始材料分析后，我们可以看到，首先，Richard Stallman辩护的对象是Marvin Minsky，而不是爱泼斯坦。其次，Richard Stallman 的确主张Virginia是自愿的，不过这里的自愿指的是Virginia对Marvin Minsky的自愿(究竟是不是自愿，不在当前的讨论范围内，因为现在讨论的问题是Richard Stallman对该事件的反应，而非该事件的详细过程)，他认为，既然是自愿的，那么不论两者的年龄差距有多大，不论当事人有没有到达法定的能独立做出决定的年龄，双方就可以性交。
<br>
这一段应改成：
<br>
对于原始材料分析后，我们可以看到，首先，Richard Stallman辩护的对象是Marvin Minsky，而不是爱泼斯坦。其次，Richard Stallman 并不主张Virginia是自愿的，而是认为Virginia展示得像是自愿，Marvin Minsky未必知情(究竟是不是知情)，不在当前的讨论范围内，因为现在讨论的问题是Richard Stallman对该事件的反应，而非该事件的详细过程)，他认为，既然Marvin Minsky很可能是在不知道Virginia受强迫的情况下与其性交，并且Marvin Minsky没有强迫Virginal，那么Marvin Minsky便算不上强奸。
<br>
还有这两段
<br>
如果Richard Stallman真的认为Virginia是自愿的，那么Richard Stallman实际上就是在认为自愿优先于保护。我不认同他的这种看法，并且能想出许多反向观点，例如未成年人的自愿很可能是缺少考虑的自愿，而且经济上的困境可能会导致一种名为自愿实为被迫的情况，但是我并不认为拥有Stallman这种观点的人就一定道德败坏，而且，我认为解决这种争端的最佳方案是鼓励沟通与辩论，而不是让少数人或少数团体一锤定音。
<br>
如果Richard Stallman并不真的认为Virginia是自愿的，即Richard Stallman根本是在口是心非，他明明知道Virginia是被迫的，却装作认为她是自愿的，Stallman所说的自愿原则是骗人的，他自己都不相信这一点。这种可能性也不是不存在，但这是一个不可证伪的假设，而且缺少依据。因为Richard Stallman很早就持有类似的主张，而不是突然改变了想法。例如,2003年英国曾试图制定一个新的审查法律，该法律将禁止任何关于儿童与青少年的性描写，并且禁止鼓励14岁以下的人参与性活动，Richard Stallman则认为14岁就应该可以性交了，青春期的性交值得鼓励。
<br>
它们应改成：
<br>
如果Richard Stallman真的认为Marvin Minsky没有强迫Virginia，那么他就是认为一个人在未强迫对方，且不知道对方被强迫的情况下与另一个人性交，不能算作强奸，即便对方未成年。这种说法在逻辑上说的通，但不怎么符合人的常识，但我依然不认为拥有Stallman这种观点的人就一定道德败坏，Stallman应有提出反对意见的权利，而且，我依然认为解决这种争端的最佳方案是鼓励沟通与辩论，而不是让少数人或少数团体一锤定音。
<br>
如果Richard Stallman并不真的认为Marvin Minsky没有强迫Virginia，即他明明知道Marvin Minsky强迫了后者，却装作不知道，这种可能性也不是不存在，但这是一个不可证伪的假设，而且我找不到Richard Stallman为一个死去五年的教授辩护有什么功利的动机，我认为更大的可能是Richard Stallman已经习惯于口无遮拦了，因此在这一事件上也口无遮拦地表达了自己的看法。
<br>
还有这一段：
<br>
正如我在之前已经说过的，媒体对Richard Stallman进行了不实的报道，在2019年的那场事件中，他并没有替爱泼斯坦进行辩护，而是就Marvin Minsky受到的指控提出了反面观点，他的依据是自愿即可性交，即便未到法定年龄，这是与他此前的言论相一致的，尽管在该事件之后他又该变了看法。 我不认同他的观点，但是他的观点在一个自由的社会中应当有存在的余地，辩论和沟通才是问题的解决之道。
<br>
应该改成：
<br>
正如我在之前已经说过的，媒体对Richard Stallman进行了不实的报道，在2019年的那场事件中，他并没有替爱泼斯坦进行辩护，而是就Marvin Minsky受到的指控提出了反面观点，他的依据是一个人在未强迫对方，且不知道对方被强迫的情况下与另一个人性交，不能算作强奸。在我看来，他的观点比较脱离现实，但是他的观点在一个自由的社会中依然应当有存在的余地，辩论和沟通才是问题的解决之道。