So wait, I am not engaging in good faith because I read what Stallman posted and did not detect anything that seemed sexist? Is everyone who disagrees with you arguing in bad faith? Isn't the one who "holds forbidden knowledge" on sexists thing that Stallman said regarding the Epstein incident but refuse to say what exactly these are the one engaging in bad faith?
> You can say this, but I'm pretty sure my post history tells another story.
Having read many of your post in threads on similar topics and having replied to a few, I'm sorry to say that I must agree with others that your post history pretty clearly doesn't.
Weird, because at least once we've talked on a feminist subject and I didn't accuse you of this. Musta been a fluke. But just for you, my longtime friend, I'll explain my thought process just this once.
But seriously, firstly dependenttypes pretends not to know "which sentence" we are talking about despite the fact that my post directly references that damning sentence. He then addresses that sentence, then moves on to an outrageous statement that in "most" places children can consent to sex with adults and that it just happens to be RMS was in a place where that's not true? Where does he get that from? A few nations allow for parental permission to override this state of affairs, but in general it's tough to find a nation without laws around child rape.
Then, dependenttypes draws a distinction (on the sentence that they claim wasn't clear from context), between a woman appearing to be willing vs being willing. But this once again centers the actions of the women and suggests Minsky has no responsibility to recognize things might not be right, as I suspect a rational person might in such circumstances. It centers the women's act of presenting herself as opposed to Minsky's responsibility to not rape kids.
Finally, dependenttypes suggests that typing "stallman sexism" in google doesn't show (for me in incognito at last) four articles in the top ten results full of explanations. Similar searches on twitter reveal firsthand accounts of both sexist and profoundly inappropriate behavior.
Upon reading this, it was pretty clear to me that:
0. This person isn't here to talk. They're here to Fisk posts aggressively.
1. This person tried to imply that it was only puritanical legal technicalities that prevented what appears to be a teenage sex slave from consenting is pretty outrageous. Generally, slaves don't have a choice and Epstein was a slaver.
2. This person has a definition of sexism that does not appear to be reasonable, OR they're so completely unwilling to even examine an opposing viewpoint that they can't read the wealth of other sources on this.
3. Given these things, the subsequent claim "I have read these things and found no evidence of sexism" strongly suggests someone who will simply refuse to adopt a reasonable definition or reasonable evidence of sexism as a matter of personal belief.
Note in his posts we don't hear some sort of positive refutation. Rather we hear a negative one: "this is fine what is your problem?" We don't hear, "that isn't sexism because..." we hear, "I don't see any evidence of sexism at all."
We're well past the point where any reasonable actor could come to such a conclusion. So I concluded this person is acting in bad faith. This doesn't mean "they disagree with me." This means, "they're not here to discuss the evidence or what people are saying but rather to refute it by any means necessary."
And looking more closely at their post history, I stand by this assessment.
> firstly dependenttypes pretends not to know "which sentence" we are talking about despite the fact that my post directly references that damning sentence
I can't read your mind, sorry. By "that sentence" I presumed that you meant something that I said in my post.
> He
Nice assumption you got there.
> then addresses that sentence
I guess so. Without my knowledge at least, after all as you said your post "directly references that damning sentence".
> then moves on to an outrageous statement that in "most" places children can consent to sex with adults
> and that it just happens to be RMS was in a place where that's not true?
Not RMS, Minsky.
> A few nations allow for parental permission to override this state of affairs
A small minority, yes. In most countries to my knowledge you only need the consent of the teenager that is above the age of consent to have sex with them.
> but in general it's tough to find a nation without laws around child rape.
There wouldn't be any point to the age of consent laws if sex with a person under the allowed age wasn't considered at least as bad as statutory rape, so ofc the countries with age of consent laws also have laws around "child rape".
> But this once again centers the actions of the women
If this was the issue with what Stallman said then you should have been clear from the start, rather than attacking a misquoted version of what he said that's easier to criticize on issues that do not apply with his full quote.
Anyway, Stallman used the "presented herself to him as entirely willing" in order to argue against the use of "sexual assault" that they accused Minsky of (which Stallman claims that implies force or violence on Minsky's part -- after all you do not need to use force or violence to have sex with someone who "presents themselves as entirely willing").
> Finally, dependenttypes suggests that typing "stallman sexism" in google doesn't show (for me in incognito at last) four articles in the top ten results full of explanations
I never suggested that. I asked about what sexist thing he said in this specific instance. I am not interested on being Stallman's personal defence guardian nor do I follow him blindly on everything that he has ever said.
> This person tried to imply that it was only puritanical legal technicalities that prevented what appears to be a teenage sex slave from consenting
I never tried to imply that. If you are unsure if I am trying to imply something you can just ask me.
> We don't hear, "that isn't sexism because..."
We don't hear "that isn't sexism because..." because I have no idea what you consider as sexist in this specific instance. If you decided to tell me what you consider as sexist I would gladly tell you why I consider or don't consider it as sexist.
And a quote from before:
> Suggesting that this is all a big misunderstanding ... is not only slanderous, but its profoundly disrespectful to all parties.
Since you misunderstood me multiple times during this conversation have you considered the possibility that you might have done the same (unintentionally ofc) with Stallman?
> And looking more closely at their post history, I stand by this assessment.
I would be interested in seeing what you consider as instances of malicious behaviour by me in other threads.
