Oooh, I don't remember where I heard it specifically, (hm maybe I do) the discussion went along the lines: "Stallman was logically consistent as he is and concluded sex (of any kind) is not a problem as long as it is between two consentual individuals"
PS: Following the links in that blog post to another and then to the medium page, you will see that _person_ who startled the fire, this is at the bottom of her "addendum":
Perhaps the only criticism I will accept is that I, personally, have been lucky enough to avoid a lot of gender-related discrimination in comparison to my peers. I, personally, was not someone with a terrible advisor or a sexist professor or lecturer and while I am often the only woman in a room or the only woman in the section of my office building,** I am surrounded by mostly nice, well-meaning men** who have taught me a lot about engineering. I acknowledge that this is a privilege I have. The privilege to face only microaggressions.
Did I even really know who Richard Stallman was before those emails? To be honest, not really — I’m a mechanical engineer who didn’t pay enough attention, apparently. I did not possess the awe and reverence many people commenting and retweeting seemed to. Maybe if I had known I would have been more “careful”. Maybe if I had known I, too, would have been able to let such comments and behavior slide because of “genius”.
Yet here we are. I don’t regret a thing. ✌🏽
Just to summarize: Stallman in the particular text quoted by her was objectively arguing against the semantics in "sexual assault" cases as used by the media. She did NOT know him, she did NOT know his character to even give an analysis to what he had said. She only went off her emotions, read this, it's a funny zoomer thing on "HOW ENRAGED I WAS, JUST IMAGINE, PEOPLE":
I couldn’t stop thinking about it. During my 45-minute drive home, when I normally listen to podcasts or music, I just sat in complete silence.
Oh no! Good for her she didn't hit the next pole during the 45-minute drive in complete silence.
On terms of satire:
MIT does not deserve its women.
The world does not deserve them either.
Ok then... suicide?
She puts Stallman in one row with rapists (not very objective, typically (dare I say) emotional):
) which stands out: “ I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily (pubescent, ages 11-14 according to wiki) or ("mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19") and by the sarcastic tone I would say it is the latter, but this is nothing but a guess. We've had a girl in class who married a rich ~60y/o man at the age of 19 iirc. Now legally - it would be illegal at the age of let's say 17.9y/o. How much difference does it actually make? ... Also to pick up on the point about parents: It's easier for the girl to accuse her partner (only if it was consentual) than to admit under the pressure of her parents that she did voluntarily have sex with a guy - although forbidden by her very own parents or religion.
Now I learned about the mere existance of the above concept from the author of (I had only watched one, but it was a different one). As a final note I will disclaim; that I do not endorse any of the above, but as said, at a logical level he appears consistent and had not promoted neither rape nor pedophilia.
I'm not even going to touch her trigger-friendly warped perception of humour, this comment exploded already. But we are at a point where a vocal minority is trying to police thought. ✔✔✔ while the majority continues to passively consume media and adapt themselves (unconciously) to the "average" accepted opinion.
I couldn’t stop thinking about it. During my 45-minute drive home, when I normally listen to podcasts or music, I just sat in complete silence.
That part was so typical that proves why women in the workplace are such a trouble.
(post is archived)