forclarity

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by forclarity 3y ago

   From your link: "suggesting that the financier's victims somehow consented to the sex trafficking scheme" This is incorrect. He said that the victims would have appeared to Minsky to have consented, because the coercion
2. 2.▲
   by forclarity 4y ago

   > There were also his comments about Minsky and Epstein. He is entitled to his opinions, but as a leader of an important org with such stringent beliefs, delving into other topics was a distraction for the org. Being a leader requires fo
3. 3.▲
   by forclarity 5y ago

   > I learned last night that Richard M. Stallman (RMS) has articles about him on Vice that are narrowly focused on some of his weighing in on the Epstein case. If you mean https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke&#
4. 4.▲
   by forclarity 7y ago

   At least in the case of the Daily Beast article by Blake Montgomery, enough context was included that a plain reading of the quoted material makes clear that the surrounding text and headline were radically incorrect. Journalistic malpract
5. 5.▲
   by forclarity 7y ago

   Defending Epstein narrowly with regards to the age of his victims might not be off-brand. Defending the coersion and threats would be entirely off brand. Apparently, neither happened. The material provided in the Daily Beast article is obv