Vectorfield @Vectorfield@qoto.org

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

“Equity”

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.


“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”).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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”

“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.


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.”


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.


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.”


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.”


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”

“Diversity”

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.


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.”


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.


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.


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.


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.


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。

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。


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。


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？


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：


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。


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。


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。


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。

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.


I talked with her to explain the dilemma and get her thoughts.


Civil Rights Activist Nadine Strossen’s Response To #CancelStallman:


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.


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!


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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。

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


(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. )


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。


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。


其余需要修正的推论：


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。


这一段应改成：


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。


还有这两段


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。


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。


它们应改成：


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。


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。


还有这一段：


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。


应该改成：


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。

在Richard Stallman 事件中我的观点

我此前关注的主要是Richard Stallman对于自由软件的看法，对于他的私生活并没有太多关注，但近期围绕着Richard Stallman是否可以重返FSF(自由软件基金)的争论使得我开始主动地去了解这一问题的始末。根据我在互联网上搜寻到的资料，我可以概括出以下几点内容。


1.Richard Stallman 创立了FSF(自由软件基金)，是自由软件运动的发起者。


2.在2019年一场与爱泼斯坦有关的事件中，Richard Stallman受到压力被迫从FSF辞职。


3.2021年三月，Richard Stallman宣布他将重返FSF，这一举动再次受到了抵制，包括 Mozilla 和 the Tor Project在内的1500人发布了一张联名公开信，信中主要有两个诉求，第一个诉求是解散整个现有的FSF委员会 ，第二个诉求是解除Richard Stallman的一切领导地位，并且禁止他日后加入任何领导层，包括Gnu。此外，该信还要求Richard Stallman 不再参加与自由软件，技术道德，数据权利相关的活动，并退出技术社区。(https://rms-open-letter.github.io/)

Richard Stallman 所受到的指控:

Richard Stallman受到的指控围绕在两个内容上：他在MIT内部邮件中的言论，以及他的个人私生活，主要是认为他言行不当，并在私下中对女性有骚扰行为。


值得注意的一点是，对于Richard Stallman指控的具体内容一直在变，在2019年9月14日Vice对此展开报道的时候，所用的标题是《Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As ‘Entirely Willing’》(著名的计算机科学家Richard Stallman将爱泼斯坦的受害者描述成’完全自愿的’)(https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing)，然而几天后Techcrunch在报道这一事件时，标题就变成了
《Computer scientist Richard Stallman, who defended Jeffrey Epstein, resigns from MIT CSAIL and the Free Software Foundation》(替爱泼斯坦辩护的计算机科学家Richard Stallman从MIT CSAIL和FSF辞职)(https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist-richard-stallman-who-defended-jeffrey-epstein-resigns-from-mit-csail-and-the-free-software-foundation/)，到了Mozilla 和 the Tor Project的公开信中，指控则变成了”He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety” (Richard Stallman证明了他是一个厌女主义者，健全主义者，恐同主义者，此外还有着其它的严重不当言行)


这些标题给人的感觉就是Richard Stallman在替爱泼斯坦的恶行辩护，认为爱泼斯坦的受害者是自愿被爱泼斯坦害的。真的是这样吗？


要弄明白这一点，我们需要找到原始材料，看看Richard Stallman倒底说了什么，原始材料可以在 vice 这篇报道的底部找到，是MIT内部的邮件记录。(https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing)


事情的起因是，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是自愿与Marvin Minsky性交的，没有证据表明她受到了强迫。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。事情的经过大概是这样，对于这一事件，中英文的维基百科都有简要的描述，大体上与原始的邮件记录相符。


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。


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。


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。


由此可见，媒体对Richard Stallman的报道确实有不少扭曲，Richard Stallman辩护的是Marvin Minsky，到了媒体的嘴里就成了辩护爱泼斯坦，Vice最初报道的标题就有误导之嫌，随后的Techcrunch更是直接把标题改成了”Stallman替爱泼斯坦辩护” 。到了 Mozilla 和 the Tor Project，对Richard Stallman的指控则发展成了”一个厌女主义者，健全主义者，恐同主义者”。Richard Stallman说媒体对他报道不实，确实是有根据的。


对于Richard Stallman的另一指控就是他骚扰女性，这一指控的来源应该是MIT学生Selam G 在Medium上的一篇文章(https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88)，Selam G可能是汉族人，因为她在文中提到了她母亲教育她要”吃苦”，Selam G在这篇文章中写道，Richard Stallman经常对女学生表白，有一次他在吃完饭后突然就对一个女学生说，如果她不和自己一起出去的话，他就会自杀。此外，他还把床垫放在办公室的地板上，把门大开，许多的女学生因此都绕道而行。这篇文章的最大问题就在于没有证据，正如作者自己承认的：”In this section, I acknowledge that I do not have as many photos, emails, or written records as evidence. I do, however, have witnesses.” 这篇文章中所描述的事件并没有客观事实为证，甚至都不是作者的一手经历，而是她的朋友告诉她的。因此，就我目前看到的材料而言，认为Richard Stallman骚扰女性的这一指控是很可疑的。

开除Richard Stallman会带来哪些影响？

如果我们采用 Mozilla 之类的机构和媒体的官方说法，开除Richard Stallman是一个正义之举，因为Richard Stallman是一个不道德的人，而思想左倾，一身正气的左派学生和Mozilla这样富有觉悟的公司则是道德的化身，好人打败了坏人，结果自然是正义的胜利，而且，据说自由软件运动之所以不温不火，就是因为Richard Stallman这种人把外人吓跑了，如果FSF的领导层换成正义斗士，自由软件运动就很可能遍地开花。


我不这么认为，相反，正如身份政治在西方的实际影响是减少了公民的自由，使得工人运动四分五裂一样，同样的这一套左翼觉悟政治会毁掉自由软件运动。Richard Stallman被封杀的实际作用是使人事权转移到封杀了他的那一群人手中，Richard Stallman下台后，取代他的下一位领袖势必要小心警慎，因为那一群人能封杀掉Stallman，当然就也能封杀掉他，人事权是一项很大的权力，一但这种权力被一群无法追责，自命正义的人士所掌控，这些群体便会利用这种权力强制施行自己的意志。如果大家认真地阅读了那篇公开信的话，便会发现他们的诉求并不仅仅是封杀掉Richard Stallman，而是撤掉整个领导层，撤掉之后换上什么人呢？恐怕是他们眼中的”自己人”。也许新的领导层会很”多元”，有黑人，有女人，有变性者，有残疾人，可是他们信奉的将是同一种意识形态。


觉悟左派的意识形态可以用三个词来概括:”Diversity, Inclision, Equity”(多元，包容，均等)(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3jLNgLABuTw)，所谓多元，指的是身份的多元，例如性别，种族，健康状况的多元，而不是思想的多元；所谓包容，是指人们说话时要遵守政治正确，少数群体需要”安全空间”，不能听到可能会冒犯到自己的言论；所谓均等，是指结果平等而不是法律面前人人平等，例如美国有百分之几的黑人，自由软件基金会就应该有百分之几的黑人代表。与”多元，包容，均等”三位一体相随的，还有福柯式的权力本质论，认为代表压迫势力的权力结构无形中深深地植根于社会的每一个角落，每一个例都体现了”系统化的压迫”，各种”ist”和” phobia”(Racist, Misogynist, Homophobia, Islamphobia) 都在相方设法地迫害弱势群体，因此他们需要觉悟左派的正义斗士们保护。


这种意识形态是与自由软件的精神相冲突的


自由软件的核心思想就是任何人都可以不受限制地自由使用、复制、研究、修改和分发软件，可是这意味着”极端右翼分子”，”白人至上主义者”，” 仇女主义者”，”恐同主义者”，”法西斯主义者” 也能自由使用、复制、研究、修改和分发这些软件，怎么办？要不要禁止这些人的自由？右翼分子还利用去中心化技术在Mastodon上散播无法审查的仇恨言论，会对弱势群体和少数族裔造成难以估量的伤害，要不要强迫Mastodon的使用者通过意识形态测试，或者说要从政府那里申请许可？纽约时报的Kevin Roose说加密通讯软件加剧了虚假信息的传播，所以我们要不要设计一种替政府留后门的加密算法，以帮助他们实现正义？Master和Black会激起黑人的痛苦回忆，要不要禁止这两个词出现在源码中？也许自由这一概念本身就源起于西方，代表了压迫的西方霸权主义，帝国主义，欧洲中心主义，应该把它换成别的什么名字，以体现”多元”，”平等”，”宽容”？


自由软件，说到底，关注的是人们的自由，而自由意味着所有人的自由，正如罗莎·卢森堡所言，自由是“其他人的自由”。这里说的”其他人”当然就包括了与你想法不同的人，你讨厌的人，甚至坏人。如果一群人认为像Stallman这样的人不配拥有自由，甚至仅仅是没有积极反对Stallmam的人也不配拥有自由，他们又会认为谁配拥有自由呢？这些人还会把自由当做自己的目标吗？自由软件运动还会是自由软件运动吗？还是说变成一场”觉悟运动”呢？(有人会争辩说没有人禁止Stallman的自由，可是如果一个人仅仅因为自己的言论，或者仅仅因为没有做出”正确”的表态，就要丢掉自己的职位，他就是没有自由的。而且Richard Stallman算是知名人物，封杀他起到的是一种杀鸡儆猴的效果，如果他能被封杀，更何况那些不如他那么知名的人呢？)


西方当代的觉悟政治就像病毒一样，入侵了它能渗透的每一领域：学术界，媒体行业，科研领域，左翼政党，平权运动……每当要入侵一个新领域时，它都会寻找该领域的问题，然后宣称这体现了”系统化的压迫”，再以此为理由把自己的那一派人安插进去，连基督教和无神论都不能幸免，如果自由软件运动被其渗透，我相信在短时间内它就会变成人们无法认识的模样。

替Richard Stallman的辩护

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。


我能想象出来，实际上我已经多次看到这样的一种反驳，那就是：Richard Stallman说的轻巧，而是他不知道自己的言论在客观对受害者会造成多大的伤害，这些伤害虽然是间接的，却同样地不可容忍。换句话说，如果某种言论在”客观”上会损害正义的事业，这种言论就不配拥有自由。


说这些话的人从来都没有想到过，同样的逻辑也可以适用他们自己。


二战期间的英国，一个记者在论坛报上发表了一篇对苏联进行抨击的文章，引发了刊然大波，许多人愤怒地写信，斥责他是傻瓜和骗子，还暗示道，即便他知道自己所说的是真相也应该缄口不语，因为这会损害英苏关系。乔治·奥威尔注意到了这一现象，为此特地写了一篇文章，他写道：


“如果你把世界划分为甲方和乙方两个阵营，假定甲方代表了进步，而乙方代表了反动，有人会说，任何对甲方不利的事实都不应该披露。但在说出这番话之前，我们得意识到它将引发的后果。我们所指的反动是什么意思？我想大家都同意纳粹德国是最卑劣的反动派，或最卑劣的反对派之一。而在英国，战争期间给纳粹的宣传机器提供了最多素材的人正是那些告诉我们批评苏联是在“客观上”支持法西斯的人。我不是指那些处于反战阶段的共产党人，我指的是所有的左翼人士。渐渐地，纳粹电台从英国左翼报刊中获得的材料比从右翼报刊中获得的还要多。情况就只能是这样，因为对于英国制度的严肃抨击就主要来自于左翼报刊。每一次对贫民窟或社会不平等的揭露，每一次对保守党领袖的攻击，每一次对大英帝国的谴责，都是送给戈培尔的一份礼物。而且这未必是一份薄礼，因为德国有关“英国财阀统治”的宣传在中立国产生了深远的影响，尤其是在战争的早期。”


也就是说，英国的左翼人士对英国的批评，在客观上反而成为了纳粹的宣传材料，有利于法西斯主义，因此，按照这种逻辑，左翼人士他们自己就不应该对英国有任何的批评。


这一逻辑也可以适用于当代，比方说，美国的左翼和主流媒体长期以来把美国表述成一个无可救药，带有原罪的种族主义国家，纽约时报甚至专门组织了一个1619计划，说美国的建国时期是1619而非1776，独立战争是为了阻止黑奴的解放。因此，当有人指控中国共产党在新疆建立集中营，强迫劳动时，外交部的华春莹可以轻松地列举出美国的劣行，并且指出一个带有原罪的种族主义国家没有资格对其它国家指手画脚。这是不是证明了美国的左翼和主流媒体应该闭嘴呢？


我们知道，共产主义在20世纪犯下的罪行罄竹难书，发生在共产主义政权下的大规模屠杀累计杀死了近1亿人，但是当代的美国左翼有多少人反对共产主义呢？2020年发生了轰轰烈烈的BLM运动，其创立人之一 Patrisse Cullors却自称”Trained Marxist”，BLM在网上列出的目标包括了瓦解西方核心家庭结构和推翻资本主义(https://web.archive.org/web/20200408020723/https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) (https://uk.gofundme.com/f/ukblm-fund)，这些人推到了华盛顿的雕像，却没有动西雅图的列宁雕像，这是不是意味着应该把BLM列为恐怖组织呢？而美国几乎所有的主流媒体都曾赞助过BLM，他们是不是也该被诛连？这些媒体还鼓吹过伊拉克战争，这些做法在客观上造成的伤害难以估量。美国人是不是应该因此找这些媒体算帐？


但是这些人被没有被算账，因为他们生活在一个自由社会，自由社会支持人们拥有异端思想的权利，也支持人们拥有犯错的权力，任何社会，只要有人存在，异端思想就会存在，有害的思想也会存在，问题在于如何应对这些思想，正是不同的应对方式才体现了自由与不自由之间的区别，在一个自由的社会中，真理是在不同的思想的碰撞中出现的，是在理性的辩论和对话中诞生的，而不是一小撮自命不凡的”正义人士”自上而下地规定的。也许有害的思想会利用这种自由进行传播，但正如约翰·弥尔顿在《论出版自由》中说到的那样：


1.”我们知道，在这个世界中，善与恶几乎是无法分开的。关于善的知识和关于恶的知识之间有着千丝万缕的联系和千万种难以识别的相似之处”
2.”如果一种善是隐秘而不能见人的；没有活动，也没有气息，从不敢大胆地站出来和对手见面，而只是在一场赛跑中偷偷地溜掉；这种善我是不敢恭维的。”
2.”善在恶的面前如果只是一个出世未久的幼童，只是因为不知道恶诱惑堕落者所允诺的最大好处而抛弃了恶，那便是一种无知的善，而不是一种真纯的善。它的洁白无瑕只是外加的一层白色而已。”


他还说到：


“如果对成年人每一种行为的善恶问题都加以规定、限制和强迫，那末美德就将徒具空名，善行也就无须赞扬了，严肃公正和节制也就没有好处了。有许多人抱怨天意不应当让亚当逆命。这真是蠢话！上帝赋给他理智就是叫他有选择的自由，因为理智就是选择。不然的话他就会变成一个做作的亚当，木偶戏中的亚当。”


也正如乔治·奥威尔在动物农场的序文《出版的自由》中所说到的：


“思想自由一直是西方文明的突出特征之一，如果它有意义的话，它意味着每个人都应该有权利表达和出版他认为是真相的内容，只要这些内容不会以某种确凿无疑的方式伤害别人。”


替Richard Stallman辩护的理由可以有很多，例如说他技术过硬，聪明过人，是一个天才，他开创了自由软件运动，使其发展了起来，等等等等，但我想这些说法都没有触及最关键的一点，那就是：


在一个真正自由的社会中，一个人不应该因为表达自己的真实想法(不论它有多么愚蠢)，或者是因为他的言论可能会冒犯他人，或是因为他的言论会对某人造成间接的”客观”伤害，而失去他的工作。维护和建设这样的一种自由社会，才是自由软件的目的所在。也只有在这样一种自由的社会中，自由软件运动才能成长起来。而要捍卫这种自由，对试图封杀Richard Stallman的势力展开反击就是第一步。


(我只是最近才开始关注这一事件，因此阅读的材料可能不全面，如果有人可以给出不同的证据，或者是反面的证据，可以在下面发出来，我会据此修改我的观点，如果有人能提供更全面的正面证据，也同样欢迎)

我认为现在的西方主流媒体不堪入目，低智、偏执、思想贫乏、立场先行，最重要的是丧失了基本的诚实，这一点在川普上台后尤其明显，川普下台后也依然如此，川普很可能只是暴露了这些媒体的腐化。

作为替代品，我推荐一些与"正统思想"相对的另类刊物，如果有对英美政治感兴趣的，大可以离开丧失信誉的主流媒体，而把目光转向这些另类刊物。

1. Spiked (https://www.spiked-online.com/)

Spiked是一家英国的左翼报刊，与热衷于身份政治主流左翼不同的是，该报刊依然坚持阶级政治，主张普世价值和启蒙思想，并且把自由放在很高的位置，该刊的总编Brendan O'Neill自称是Libertarian Marxist(自由意志马克思主义者)，是一个重视自由传统的英国左派。

2.Quillette (https://quillette.com)

Quillette是来自澳大利亚的一家刊物，由记者Claire Lehmann创立，Quillette一词源自法语，寓意着埋在泥土中柳条会生根发芽，该刊的宗旨是为人们提供一个抨击左翼正统的环境，该刊主要关注的是言论自由与身份政治。

3.Reason (https://reason.com)

Reason是美国的一家自由意志主义刊物，其关注的重点自然也就是自由，不光是经济自由，还有政治自由与思想自由，创立于1958年，在我列举的四家刊物中，它是历史最悠久的，Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Szasz, and Thomas Sowell 等重量级人物都曾为之撰稿。

4.UnHerd (https://unherd.com)

UnHerd来自于英国，是一个年轻的杂志，它的撰稿人既有左派出身的人物，也有右翼人士，该杂志的目标是以新颖大胆的思想打破群体思维的禁锢，该杂志主要关注的是思想观念和文化。

这些另类刊物虽然规模不大，但它们关注的都是切实存在的问题，而且尊重事实和理性，它们言语平实，不用故弄玄虚的行话，与主流媒体的情绪煽动和空洞无物形成了鲜明对比，这些另类刊物的阅读价值远胜于主流媒体。

有一位朋友质疑卫报的这篇文章是否真的主张把言论置于政府和巨头的控制之下，抑制去中心化技术，这是我的回答，由于原本的讨论串并不公开，所以我再重新发一遍：

问：我希望你能解释一下，原文中到底哪里暗示“要打击"仇恨言论" 和 "纳粹主义"，就要把言论置于政府和巨头的控制之下，这些去中心化平台是不允许存在的。”？

答：如果你觉得原嘟文的暗示还不够明显的话，我愿意再补充一些：

The technical details are perhaps less important than the practical effect: no one has authority over these platforms: no one owns them. While governments and users can place pressure on the big social media companies to ban problematic users or communities, for better or worse, no one can stop anyone creating their own servers or peer-to-peer networks.

These technologies, then, are effectively uncensorable. According to a report by Emmi Bevensee, the co-founder of research consultancy Rebellious Data and the social media monitoring tool SMAT, extremists have been advocating, and even developing them, for years.

" The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends "

“Every marginalized community knows what it’s like to be systematically deplatformed”, says Bevensee, who uses non-binary pronouns, pointing to the way in which groups such as sex workers have adopted platforms like Mastodon after finding themselves unable to advertise their services.

But as Bevensee’s report shows, peer-to-peer platforms are a double-edged sword. “The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends,” they explain.

“You know who really doesn’t understand it? The FBI,” Bevensee adds: “we’re talking about a technology that can’t be subpoenaed. It can’t be surveiled” and, in order to carry out remote surveillance of private chats, “you would have to back door every single device in the world”.

This opens the way for extremists to propagandize and organize on platforms that are beyond the reach of legal authorities and tech giants alike. After the far right-friendly social media site Gab encountered hosting problems and app store bans, it rebuilt itself on Mastodon’s software, despite determined opposition from the platform’s creators and users.

文章提到，假如用户使用的是去中心化平台，这些平台就不会因为外部的施压而封杀"问题用户"。 (去中心化保护问题用户)

文章还提到，"极端主义者"长年以来一直在推行在研发这类技术。(研发去中心化和p2p等技术的是坏人)

文章还提到，因为这些技术无法被监控，无法被传唤，极端主义者就可以利用这些技术进行宣传和组织。(使用这些技术的是坏人)

问：我还看到了：
"a double-edged sword"
"The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends"

为什么你看到卫报提到 "can’t be surveiled" ，就觉得它是在强调censorship的重要性？还有，下面讲的这些利用技术为恶的难道不是事实？为了不被闭嘴而转行研发这些技术的确实有一大部分人是极端人士啊。

答："can't be surveiled 来自于该文对Bevensee报告的引用，该文在其后又加入"This opens the way for extremists to propagandize and organize on platforms that are beyond the reach of legal authorities and tech giants alike. " ，再联系前文的"While governments and users can place pressure on the big social media companies to ban problematic users or communities" ，可推导出该文主张把这些人困在中心化的平台中。的确，极端分子利用技术为恶是事实，但首先，我们要把重点集中在有权有势的人用利用技术所行的恶，也就是政府和技术寡头所行之恶，其次，任何技术都有好处有坏处，但总体而言，我认为去中心化的技术是利大于弊的技术，再者，在去中心化技术出现以前，就已经有过印刷术，电报，电话等传播信息的技术，这些技术当然也曾经被坏人使用，但我不认为应该禁止印刷术，电报，电话。即使没有任何技术，只要人有一张嘴，就有可能传播坏思想，但我认为不应该因此封住所有人的嘴。最后，要想完全扼杀人们的恶行，只有靠扼杀人们的自由意志，只有没有自由的地方，完全的安全才是可能的，但这种安全是无意义的。

对于该报道的内容，也许人们会有不同的理解，我没有时间遂条反驳，所以放出原文供大家自行判断，有意的朋友可以翻译这篇文章：

Far-right supporters move to open source to evade censorship

A suicide and a strange bitcoin bequest have opened a window on to the new frontier of extremist online media

Fri 12 Mar 2021 10.10 GMT

On 8 December last year, a Frenchman called Laurent Bachelier gave away a total of 28.5 bitcoins – worth $556,000 – to 22 people. On the same day, he killed himself.

In suicide notes written in French and English, he explained that the burden of illness (he suffered from a neurological pain disorder) and his loss of hope for the future had led him to despair. After railing against the decline of western civilization and attacks on free speech, he wrote that he had decided to “leave his modest wealth to certain causes and people”.

Allusions to the “14 words” slogan used by white supremacists offered a clue as to the causes he favored. The beneficiaries of Bachelier’s largesse were all either prominent far-right agitators, or platforms offering them a home. The donations immediately attracted the attention of cybersecurity researchers, extremism watchers and law enforcement officers.

Bachelier gave the video platform BitChute two bitcoins (in January, the price of a single bitcoin ranged between $30,000 and $40,000). The neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer got one, the French Holocaust denier Vincent Reynouard got 1.5, and the US white nationalist celebrity Nick Fuentes, an attendee of the riots in Charlottesville and the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol in Washington, received 13.5 – worth over $450,000.

A Guardian investigation can now reveal that one of the lesser-known beneficiaries is a YouTube influencer of sorts – one with a history of promoting far-right political ideology. Luke Smith, now a Florida resident, maintains a monetized YouTube channel with 109,000 subscribers. He received at least one bitcoin from Bachelier, valued at the time of writing at just over $30,000.

It’s possible that Bachelier saw in Luke Smith a like mind and a shared purpose. Beyond their common ground in far-right politics, each saw technology as a weapon in their war against liberal, tolerant societies.

Like Bachelier, Smith eschews so-called proprietary software – like MacOS or Microsoft Word – and communications tools like Facebook or Twitter, built and controlled by Silicon Valley firms. Instead, Smith is an advocate for so-called “open source software” – the kind that makes it possible to use, copy, redistribute and modify software legally. And recently, he has been promoting communications platforms that might help extremists to operate beyond the reach of censorship – and even the law.

What Smith preaches: a war against the modern world

The man being funded by Bachelier’s donation likes to present himself as a latter-day Ted Kaczynski – the so-called Unabomber, whose infamous manifesto Smith has at times earnestly recommended to his followers.

Kaczynski, a terrorist still imprisoned for a 17-year bombing campaign that killed three and injured 23, was motivated by a hatred of the modern technological world. In recent years, his apocalyptic account of an industrial civilization on the brink of collapse has resonated with rightwing extremists – including the Christchurch mosque murderer, Brenton Tarrant – who describe themselves as “eco-fascists”.

In 2019, Smith said in a video he wanted to live in a “Unabomber cabin” to escape the surveillance and censorship which he believes is especially aimed at the far right. In a post on his blog in the same year – since deleted – he described the modern world as one “where your every action is watched, if you use proprietary software and communicate only via social media services”.

 The fantasy of the US splintering along ethnic lines has long been entertained by white nationalists

Public records show that Smith moved to a rural property that year near Mayo, in northern Florida, whose title is held by a family member. Since then, most of his videos have been recorded in and around the property.

In various videos and podcasts, Smith rehearses other ideas associated with the far right. He advocates breaking the US up – potentially into racial enclaves “maybe [by] dividing by states, maybe [by] dividing by ethnic groups”. The fantasy of the US splintering along ethnic lines has long been entertained by white nationalists, who have taken to calling themselves the “Balk Right”.

This is not the only place where Smith touches on ideas associated with white nationalism. In a 2018 podcast, he offers an account of human history that relies on arguments made in The 10,000 Year Explosion, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a white nationalist book. Smith also directed readers to websites like radishmag, where readers are asked to “reconsider” slavery and lynching is painted in a positive light.

Luke Smith did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Taken together, these beliefs come back to another far-right splinter ideology: the neoreactionary movement, which in the last decade has been enjoying an online renaissance of sorts, especially among some of Silicon Valley’s tech elite.

The birth of the neoreactionary movement

The neoreactionary movement traces its history to 2007, when the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Curtis Yarvin started a popular blog under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug. He used it to attack liberalism, democracy and equality, discussed racial hierarchy in the euphemistic terms of “human biodiversity”, and counseled followers to simply detach themselves from the society ruled by the institutions of liberalism.

Journalist Corey Pein wrote an account of the culture of Silicon Valley which, in part, examines the influence that Yarvin’s ideas had in the tech world. Pein says that while neoreactionary ideology is somewhat incoherent, what is consistent is the members’ commitment to extricate themselves from liberal democracy. This “exit” doctrine was influential among some Silicon Valley leaders, including the tech billionaire Peter Thiel, who once memorably said: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”

Smith follows the same ideological path. His principal outlet for these ideas is his YouTube channel, where he offers tutorials on how to use austere open source software applications, encouraging viewers to detach themselves from Silicon Valley’s products. The channel is both relatively successful and lucrative, and followers rate him highly. His videos have had more than 18.7m views,meaning he could earn anywhere up to $31,100 a year from his channel on current numbers.

 Smith has been pushing users in the direction of decentralized social media platforms in the so-called 'fediverse'

YouTube confirmed that Smith’s channel remained in their partner program, meaning that he continues to earn money from the channel, but that they had removed one video, featuring racial slurs, which the Guardian had asked about.

Media representatives for Google responded to requests for comment with their
own request for clarification of questions about Smith’s channel and
their community guidelines, but ultimately offered no comment.

Smith has lately been pushing users in the direction of decentralized, resilient social media platforms in the so-called “fediverse”, a network of independent social media sites that communicate with one another, and allow people to interact across different sites. This could allow far-right activists to operate in ways that make them very difficult to shut down.

Though many prominent programmers and advocates in both the wider open source software movement and the fediverse are motivated by progressive, anti-corporate or anti-authoritarian political ideals, now the tools they have created might be used to shelter far-right extremists from the consequences of their hate speech and organizing.

Manipulating the open source movement for nefarious ends

The free and open source software movement has attracted many people with progressive politics, who have used it to help provide digital tools to those with few resources, to breathe new life into hardware that might otherwise have been added to a growing mountain of e-waste, or to move public institutions from Barcelona to Brasília away from dependence on expensive software.

However, experts say that it is not surprising that someone like Smith would be tolerated or even welcomed by some elements of open source culture.

Megan Squire is a professor of computer science at Elon University who has published research on both the far right and open source software communities. She says that “the dominant open source culture historically has been one of extreme misogyny, unfounded meritocracy, toxicity and abuse of everyone,” and that Smith is one of those resisting efforts to change that culture.

In recent years, and especially since the Gamergate movement intensified scrutiny on toxicity in tech, some responded to the blatant sexism, antisemitism and racism online with codes of conduct after realizing this behavior was actually starting to hurt them (Squires says they couldn’t recruit and retain developers).

The provision of safer online spaces for marginalized groups is a large part of the motivation of many of the people who have created the underlying software. On those platforms, tools for moderation and easy ways to flag sensitive content are baked in by design. But Smith is among a small group who repeatedly rail against the introduction of such codes of conduct within open source projects.

 Some open source communications platforms do away with the need for servers by implementing a 'peer-to-peer' network

In a video recorded a week after the Capitol riots, when social media bans were removing rightwingers from Donald Trump down to prevent further violence, Smith said that those who wanted to bypass censorship should use the Twitter-like platform, Pleroma.

Open source software like Pleroma, Mastodon and Matrix reproduce the functions of Twitter, allowing users to send out brief messages to followers. But their implementation and structure are much more decentralized, allowing anyone to set up their own platform on their own server, after which they can join up, or “federate”, with other such communities.

Some open source communications platforms go a step beyond this, and do away with the need for servers altogether by implementing a “peer-to-peer” network. PeerTube, for example, allows users to browse and watch videos in a similar way to YouTube, but instead of streaming it to users from a central server, each user watching a video acts as a relay point.

The technical details are perhaps less important than the practical effect: no one has authority over these platforms: no one ownsthem. While governments and users can place pressure on the big social media companies to ban problematic users or communities, for better or worse, no one can stop anyone creating their own servers or peer-to-peer networks.

These technologies, then, are effectively uncensorable. According to a report by Emmi Bevensee, the co-founder of research consultancy Rebellious Data and the social media monitoring tool SMAT, extremists have been advocating, and even developing them, for years.

 The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends

“Every marginalized community knows what it’s like to be systematically deplatformed”, says Bevensee, who uses non-binary pronouns, pointing to the way in which groups such as sex workers have adopted platforms like Mastodon after finding themselves unable to advertise their services.

But as Bevensee’s report shows, peer-to-peer platforms are a double-edged sword. “The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends,” they explain.

“You know who really doesn’t understand it? The FBI,” Bevensee adds: “we’re talking about a technology that can’t be subpoenaed. It can’t be surveiled” and, in order to carry out remote surveillance of private chats, “you would have to back door every single device in the world”.

This opens the way for extremists to propagandize and organize on platforms that are beyond the reach of legal authorities and tech giants alike. After the far right-friendly social media site Gab encountered hosting problems and app store bans, it rebuilt itself on Mastodon’s software, despite determined opposition from the platform’s creators and users.

Beyond Gab’s ambiguous place in the fediverse, the Guardian found dozens of servers using peer-to-peer, open source tools, which were either exclusively or disproportionately devoted either to far-right politics, or to conspiracy theories that mainstream social media services have previously cracked down on, including coronavirus denialism, “incel” culture and neo-Nazism.

With the far right under pressure from mainstream social media companies and internet hosts, this may be just the beginning.

But experts say that despite their recurrent complaints about Silicon Valley’s platforms, extremists will maintain their foothold in the mainstream for as long as they can. As Squire says of Smith’s internet activity: “Why is he still on YouTube? Because that’s where the eyeballs are, that’s where the money is.”

• In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is at 800-273-8255 or chat for support. You can also text HOME to 741741 to connect with a crisis text line counselor. In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org or jo@samaritans.ie. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at www.befrienders.org

纽约时报的专栏作家Kevin Roose在今年也发布了一篇抨击加密通讯软件的文章，该文章认为不受权威机构管控的加密通讯会"助长虚假信息的传播"。此人还发布过一篇文章，号召拜登政府设立"真理官"。

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/technology/personaltech/telegram-signal-misinformation.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/technology/biden-reality-crisis-misinformation.html

卫报发布了一篇文章，宣称Fediverse除了Gab之外。还有着几十个通过p2p技术和开源软件从事极右政治，宣扬阴谋论和新纳粹主义的实例。这篇文章还引用一个叫做 Megan Squire的"专家"的说法，声称主流的开源文化长期以来一直是"极端厌女主义"的体现，"对社会充满了毒害"，"虐待着所有人"。该文章指出，类似于Pleroma, Mastodon 和 Matrix 的社交平台和Facebook, Twitter这些巨头不一样，由于它们的去中心化特性，这些平台是无法遭到审查的。在Guardian看来，这是一个很严重的问题，因为这意味着权威机构和技术巨头不能审查言论，Guardian暗示道，要打击"仇恨言论" 和 "纳粹主义"，就要把言论置于政府和巨头的控制之下，这些去中心化平台是不允许存在的。

"Beyond Gab’s ambiguous place in the fediverse, the Guardian found dozens of servers using peer-to-peer, open source tools, which were either exclusively or disproportionately devoted either to far-right politics, or to conspiracy theories that mainstream social media services have previously cracked down on, including coronavirus denialism, “incel” culture and neo-Nazism."

"Megan Squire is a professor of computer science at Elon University who has published research on both the far right and open source software communities. She says that “the dominant open source culture historically has been one of extreme misogyny, unfounded meritocracy, toxicity and abuse of everyone,” and that Smith is one of those resisting efforts to change that culture."

"Some open source communications platforms go a step beyond this, and do away with the need for servers altogether by implementing a “peer-to-peer” network. PeerTube, for example, allows users to browse and watch videos in a similar way to YouTube, but instead of streaming it to users from a central server, each user watching a video acts as a relay point.

The technical details are perhaps less important than the practical effect: no one has authority over these platforms: no one owns them. While governments and users can place pressure on the big social media companies to ban problematic users or communities, for better or worse, no one can stop anyone creating their own servers or peer-to-peer networks.

These technologies, then, are effectively uncensorable. According to a report by Emmi Bevensee, the co-founder of research consultancy Rebellious Data and the social media monitoring tool SMAT, extremists have been advocating, and even developing them, for years."

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/12/far-right-open-source-technology-censorship

https://poa.st/objects/3c198fd5-7927-4a14-acce-4b9c74b2f8c5