@freemo I think he should step down, but be given the opportunity to apologize, work with an organization and talk to victims of child sex trafficking, then be allowed to rejoin the fsf.

When I say "allowed", I say be allowed without social repercussions.

@geotechland
So few things.. first his comments about the fact that the victim wrt minsky presenting herself as willing makes perfect sense.

First as he said it is no less wrong but because she is being coerced she would not have said so to Minsky. Epstein is the bad person for coercing for sure, and he had said as much,. But since its unlikely minsky knew, and the victim never said anything to the contrary, its a perfectly reasonable assumption and not in anyway hurtful, to think Minsky was ignorant to that coercion and that the guilt of doing so rests on Epsteins shoulders not Minsky's... How does speaking the truth on the matter hurt victims? Its not like he implied the act was ok or that the victim was any less victimized, he simply stated where the blame for corersion rested.

Second what he said on pedophilia needs to be taken in context. What he said was it doesn't make sense for pedophilia to be morally defined by where you live. A 17 year old would be underage in the USA but that is the age of consent in england for example. In fact since he said it while talking about a case where the woman was 17 it is clear he was talking about cases where the age is borderline. He was never talking about consenting 10 year olds being ok. This argument as well is nothing to throw a fit over, his point is entirely valid in that regard.

Im fact nothing he said in those emails were even remotely problematic and in no way should even be an issue right now. In my mind it makes no sense and comes across as just toxic and unnecessary yo blow it up the way people have.

@geotechland @freemo

>That can be hurtful to the victim and could make other victims of sex trafficking more reluctant to come out due to fear of being doubted.

Under this theory of harm, it seems that the person who leaked the emails, rather than rms is the one who should apologize before being allowed back in polite society. If I’m understanding correctly, rms said his private thought in the context of a private email conversation, and the leaker, by making them public, introduced all of the alleged harms to the person rms was discussing, as well as trafficking victims at large.

How sociopathic would someone have to be to cause all of that harm as mere collateral damage to out rms as a no-no thoughts thinker?

@anonymoose

I know that was tongue in cheek but there is some truth to that....

There is a **huge** difference between considering ideas in private, and making a public statement about your stance.

If what we care about is truly harm, and our goal is not thought policing, then this distinction is paramount.

@geotechland

@freemo @anonymoose Good points.

I think leaking the email can prevent future harm from RMS and his views so I see the net harm being lower.

I'm not sure if I consider a work email exchange private. Maybe semi-private.

I don't view it as thought policing. I think the free/opensource community socially pressuring one of their own to be better is fine.

My criticism of RMS critics is that they should provide steps RMS can take to redeem himself. I don't believe in canceling in most cases.

@freemo @anonymoose If RMS redeems himself without stepping down, then I am fine with that too. But I think it would be preferable for him to temp step down the same way Linus Torvalds did and changed up the way he communicates.

@geotechland

Redeem himself for what? His opinions did no harm, and were perfectly reasonable within context.

@anonymoose