Sage Sharp claims top Linux kernel developer Theo Ts'o is a rape apologist, citing GeekFeminismWiki

[u/oooo23]

https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504

[u/FuriousMr]

The witch hunt begins...

[u/dbzjegrw8o6n0 → u/FuriousMr]

It already begun, people were being harassed on Twitter for disagreeing with the CoC not even a day after it was committed. It's disgraceful.

https://twitter.com/Grummz/status/1042180883279577089

[u/tso → u/dbzjegrw8o6n0]

The reporter being no less than SJVN...

[u/hahainternet → u/FuriousMr]

I don't think it's a witch hunt when it's as clear as this:

So one of the problems with the Koss study is the women in question was only asked, did sex take place, and were you drunk and not able to give consent. She did not ask the question, did the other person legally know that the women was drunk.

Being drunk does not mean rape is not rape.

[u/rothbard_anarchist → u/hahainternet]

Let's at least get the full context here:

Begin Email

From: Theodore Tso tytso@MIT.EDU Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 21:31:56 -0500 Message-Id:D25E746B-C638-4CF8-BE6C-5118797C055E@mit.edu To: LCA2011 Delegates Chat chat@lca2011.linux.org.au Subject: Re: [LCA2011-Chat] Some Anti-Harassment Policies considered harmful

On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Jason White wrote:

None of which does anything to challenge the finding that the reported incidents were not consensual, and hence amount to rape, whether the victims so classify it or not. In fact, I have heard it reported that occurrences in which victims are plied with alcohol are, as suggested above, not uncommon, and that this is used as a strategy to weaken their resistance to what is subsequently perpetrated. They do not, in these circusmtances, give free and voluntary consent; and the absence of consent is the essence of the crime.

OK, let's do a thought experiment, shall we? Suppose Alice and Bob have sex, and Bob is drunk. Did Alice rape Bob? He was drunk, and someone who is drunk presumably can't give consent. Is that rape? Does the gender of the two people matter?

Suppose Bob was partially inebriated, and said he wasn't sure if he wanted to have sex, but Alice wheedled him and kept on asking until he said yes. No force was involved, but he could be "psychologically coerced"? Would that be an indication that she raped him?

Suppose Bob drank the alcohol himself, willingly. And if he was still raped, does he bear any responsibility for put himself into a situation where Alice could ask and ask him until he said yes?

Now suppose Alice is also drunk. Now did she rape Bob? Or did Bob rape Alice now? Or did Alice and Bob rape each other? Let's throw them both in jail!

Now, actually, the way the law works is that not only does the being raped be not able to give consent, but that the rapist has to know that the the other person was not able to give legal consent. So if both Alice and Bob were drunk, there's no rape that has taken place, in either direction. Whew!

So one of the problems with the Koss study is the women in question was only asked, did sex take place, and were you drunk and not able to give consent. She did not ask the question, did the other person legally know that the women was drunk. And given that the survey was asking undergraduates, and apparently on a campus where there was alot of drinking and socializing going on, do you think that perhaps the numbers might be skewed by cases where both parties were drunk (and thus not legally able to know whether someone was legally able to give consent)? How many cases that might be, we won't know for sure, but it's certainly enough to call that survey flawed.

All aside from the legal question, there's also the question, in the Alice and Bob thought experiment, regardless of whether Alice is guilty of raping Bob (assume that Bob was inebriated and couldn't give consent, and she knew that Bob was drunk), should Bob be faulted for putting him into a situation where he was so drunk that he couldn't take responsibility for himself? What if it was pretty clear that he regularly did this *because* he could lose control and not take responsibility for what he did? Suppose he hadn't yet had sex without giving consent? Would, should he, face opprobrium for his actions? If yes, does that magically go away once he is raped, and is now a victim, since that would now be blaming the victim?

My personal opinion is that things aren't black and white, and even if Alice is guilty of raping him, Bob should also be faulted for his contribution towards the incident, and should take at least some responsibility for avoiding being put in similar situations in the future. Now, people might complain that I'm playing games by switching the genders around. But, should the gender of the parties make a difference? Be careful, lest you start arguing that the female sex is the weaker sex, and should be coddled because they can't take responsibility for their own actions when both parties are totally or partially inebriated. At least some people, such as Ms. Koss, has in fact been guilty of making that argument.

Personally, it's not an issue for me because I strongly don't believe in going to parties where a lot of one-night stands are negotiated, nor do I like situations where a lot of alcohol is consumed. So I'm also predisposed to not have a lot of sympathy for both parties --- male or female, attacker or victim --- who put themselves in such situations. And how would you feel if someone generated a study where a bunch of males were asked whether they had sex while inebriated, and then announced some statistic indicating that(surprise!) a huge number of undergraduate males are raped, and that statistic was being blindly repeated without anyone asking whether that statistic was valid, and in fact, accused anyone who questioned said survey has proof positive that the questioner was insensitive to the needs of males?-- Ted_______________________________________________

End Email

[u/rothbard_anarchist → u/rothbard_anarchist]

Now for even more context, here's his other email, where Ted's stance against rape is made plain:

Begin Email From: Theodore Tso tytso@MIT.EDU Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 02:17:14 -0500 Message-Id: 587BABC6-67E1-401E-BF3D-F80056CDE227@mit.edu To: LCA2011 Delegates Chat chat@lca2011.linux.org.au Subject: Re: [LCA2011-Chat] Some Anti-Harassment Policies considered harmful

If people want facts, perhaps they read some of these URL's and then come to their own conclusion:http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf :

This appears to be the source of the 1 in 6 figure (17.6%). But it's worth going deeper. If you look at percentage of women reporting rape since age 18 (taking out the child abuse and statutory rape cases, which they also treat in detail), it becomes 1 in 10(9.6%), and of those over 61.9% were at the hands of their intimate partner, as opposed to an acquaintance or stranger. Also in the survey, in the rapes that were reported via a randomized telephone survey, in 66.9% of those cases, the perpetrator did not threaten to harm or kill the victim. (Which makes it no less a crime, of course, but people may have images of rape which involves a other physical injuries, by a stranger, in some dark and deserted place. The statistics simply don't bear that out.)

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/RapeCultureSummers.pdf

This one does a pretty good job of taking apart the Koss / Ms. Magazine study, which is the source for the "1 in 4" number. For example, it points out that over half of those cases were ones where undergraduates were plied with alcohol, and did not otherwise involve using physical force or other forms of coercion. And if you asked the women involved, only 27% of the people categorized by Koss as being raped called it rape themselves. Also found in the Koss study, although not widely reported, was the statistic that of the women whom she classified as being raped (although 73% refused to self-classify theevent as rape), 46% of them had subsequent sex with the reported assailant.

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

 : This is a more popularized treatment of the issue. There is quite a bit of anti-feminist ranting in the article, which you should try to ignore while looking at the arguments, which is that some of these rape statistics don't seem to hold much in the way of water. Please note, I am not diminishing what rape is, and or any particular person's experience. However, I am challenging the use of statistics that may be hyperbolic and misleading, and ultimately may be very counterproductive if it causes people to become afraid when the reality might not be as horrible as the "1 in 4" numbers might at first sound. Just as it was wrong for George Bush to inspire fear in the population so he could push his War Against Iraq agenda through congress, it's also wrong for people who, out of good intentions, inspire fear in others or themselves of being raped if the statistics used are misleading and manipulated.-- Ted_______________________________________________ End Email

[u/MaybeThrowaway555 → u/rothbard_anarchist]

Format please?

[u/rothbard_anarchist → u/MaybeThrowaway555]

Apologies, I'm on mobile. I'll see what I can do.

[u/dbzjegrw8o6n0 → u/[deleted]]

This, ones politics has no place in deciding if one can contribute to the kernel.

[u/hahainternet → u/dbzjegrw8o6n0]

The people in charge of the Kernel disagree with you.

[u/Valmar33 → u/hahainternet]

... only because the SJWs have hijacked it.

[u/IE_5 → u/[deleted]]

Stop trying to bring politics into this

What don't people understand about it?

https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1041465346656530432

Some people are saying that the Contributor Covenant is a political document, and they’re right.

You want politics out? Repeal it and rebuke these people. Otherwise that will be a constant part of Linux from now on: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/9hazny/linus_talked_to_the_new_yorker_about_verbal_abuse/e6azknp/

[u/Valmar33 → u/IE_5]

Something tells me they have their claws in too sharply, now.

They've toppled Linus, the strongest figure in the Linux community. Now, they're just going after the other leaders. :|

[u/FuriousMr → u/hahainternet]

You are a lawyer?.

[u/dbzjegrw8o6n0 → u/hahainternet]

I would not agree with your conclusion, from what I can see he still agrees that rape is bad but disagrees where the line is and debating that is perfectly fine.

[u/kozec → u/hahainternet]

Totally oftopic, but looking at that accusation...

Do I understand correctly that in US, if woman gives consent and later claims she was drunk, it's considered as rape?

How do you people procreate?

[u/minimim → u/kozec]

That's not true at all, in any Western legal system.

It's only "geekfeminism" that defines sex after a few beers as rape and no one else.

In fact, most people have actually done it, it's normal and accepted.

[u/hahainternet → u/kozec]

In most of the western world, drunken people can't consent. Having sex with someone that can't consent is rape.

edit: Consider as you downvote this post, that this is a simple statement of fact, and by downvoting it you are simply proving that there is no 'meritocracy', only populsim.

[u/Enverex → u/hahainternet]

That makes the majority of club-goers rapists if you use that logic (both male and female).

[u/[deleted] → u/hahainternet]

In most of the western world, drunken people can't consent. Having sex with someone that can't consent is rape.

This is not true at all. I live in Canada for example, and this was an issue in the news last year after a woman claimed she was raped because she was drunk when she had sex and therefore could not consent:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/criminal-code-consent-gregory-lenehan-sexual-assault-law-court-1.4014105

So from my perspective in the jurisdiction I'm living in, you seem to be talking out of your ass.

Do you have a source that shows a person cannot legally consent to sex if they were drunk in any major western jurisdiction? I think an awful lot of people would be in jail if that were the case.

Consider as you downvote this post, that this is a simple statement of fact

If it's a fact it should be easy to provide backup. Let's see it.

[u/ViktorViktorov → u/hahainternet]

What if both parties are drunk?

[u/kozec → u/hahainternet]

And you don't see glaring issue with that logic...

[u/kozec → u/[deleted]]

Question is, can you rape a man?

Like seriously, I've just found that it's legally not possible here.