,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
[cw: child sexual assault]
Heh, well, as long as we’re going for “technically correct”...
You’re right. “All” Stallman did was defend Marvin Minsky’s rape of a 16-year-old girl.
Said rape was facilitated by Epstein, so in defending it, he indirectly defended Epstein’s actions.
Heh, well, as long as we’re going for “technically correct”...
You’re right. “All” Stallman did was defend Marvin Minsky’s rape of a 16-year-old girl.
Said rape was facilitated by Epstein, so in defending it, he indirectly defended Epstein’s actions.
Even if you object to drawing the line between defending the rape and defending Epstein, the fact remains that he
defended
Minsky’s
rape
of a 16-year-old girl.
defended
Minsky’s
rape
of a 16-year-old girl.
Let’s assume, for a minute, that the rape never happened. It’s STILL morally repugnant to defend the idea of Minsky, an old man, having sex with (i.e., raping) a 16-year-old girl.
“Sometimes it’s ok for an old man to rape a 16-year-old girl” is not a position that anyone with any power should hold. Full stop.
End of story ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
End of story ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Dear Stallman defenders,
You can try that nitpicking bullshit on me if you like, but know that my “technically correct” will _always_ run circles around yours.
Love,
Sarah
You can try that nitpicking bullshit on me if you like, but know that my “technically correct” will _always_ run circles around yours.
Love,
Sarah
Funny how Stallman dudes REALLY want to nitpick legalities and word choice...right up until I point out that Minsky having sex with a 16-year-old girl is legally rape, no matter how “willing” (ew) she appeared.
Then all of a sudden everything can be fudged 🤣🤣🤣
Then all of a sudden everything can be fudged 🤣🤣🤣
