On 10/12/2019 05:19 AM, Jean Louis wrote:
https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman
"In short: Stallman made some technically-correct-but-utterly-tactless comments...."

Here are the comments:

“deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting
one of Epstein’s victims [2])”

The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault”
is so vague....

The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in
some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
Only that they had sex.

We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that
she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was
being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her
to conceal that from most of his associates.

I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it
is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.

I'm unhappy to see dozens if not hundreds of emails and blog posts that regurgitate Stallman's exact argument, "taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X." If all of this Stallman logic produces such braindead puppetry, then it is indeed time for new leaders, people who will embrace critical thought. Besides, there is no way these men are getting these transactions without assault or coercion taking place. Just because Epstein mediated that force so that the clients didn't have to get their hands dirty is no reason to make a stink over how preying on defenseless people in a peaceful manner is not violence. There is no way they could do that without someone doing the violence for them. The money cleans that from their conscience, but they are still involved with the abuse because it is part of the service that they buy.

https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UbQ1kc1vQU or
https://watchkin.com/y/7UbQ1kc1vQU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGF17TbbBcE

Try to watch YouTube videos by using hypervideo or youtube
downloaders.

That is biased articles and even if all that is true, GNU project
shall be socially and politically independent of all of the opinions
of their leader or developers.

Because if we would join the GNU project for reason of what their
individual members are thinking, then it is not GNU project any more.

That we agree on GNU as free operating system, that is what we share
in common and any other opinion outside of GNU as Free Operating
System shall be discussed outside of the GNU websites.

I don't mind if such opinions are discussed on mailing lists supported
by GNU, as such allow two-way communication and responses.

What I am protesting is that rumor mongering is ruining the Guix
project of being politically independent, they are taking their side
to feminists politics, or call it how you want, I don't even know,
but that they are taking their side to certain political movements
others than free software movement, is what is damaging the GNU as
politically independent (other politics but free software).

RMS is not require to remain politically independent but he does not
share his political viewpoints on GNU project, not others but free
software movement. That is why he has non-GNU www.stallman.org
website.

Same shall be done by everybody who is supporting GNU project but has
political stances on other politics but free software, they shall
publish such opinions on their websites not related to GNU projects.

Jean

-- 
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/