> firstly dependenttypes pretends not to know "which sentence" we are talking about despite the fact that my post directly references that damning sentence

I can't read your mind, sorry. By "that sentence" I presumed that you meant something that I said in my post.

> He

Nice assumption you got there.

> then addresses that sentence

I guess so. Without my knowledge at least, after all as you said your post "directly references that damning sentence".

> then moves on to an outrageous statement that in "most" places children can consent to sex with adults

I said minors, not children (except if you consider a 17 year old person to be a child). Anyway, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent_-_Glo... for a "proof" of that "outrageous" statement.

> and that it just happens to be RMS was in a place where that's not true?

Not RMS, Minsky.

> A few nations allow for parental permission to override this state of affairs

A small minority, yes. In most countries to my knowledge you only need the consent of the teenager that is above the age of consent to have sex with them.

> but in general it's tough to find a nation without laws around child rape.

There wouldn't be any point to the age of consent laws if sex with a person under the allowed age wasn't considered at least as bad as statutory rape, so ofc the countries with age of consent laws also have laws around "child rape".

> But this once again centers the actions of the women

If this was the issue with what Stallman said then you should have been clear from the start, rather than attacking a misquoted version of what he said that's easier to criticize on issues that do not apply with his full quote.
Anyway, Stallman used the "presented herself to him as entirely willing" in order to argue against the use of "sexual assault" that they accused Minsky of (which Stallman claims that implies force or violence on Minsky's part -- after all you do not need to use force or violence to have sex with someone who "presents themselves as entirely willing").

> Finally, dependenttypes suggests that typing "stallman sexism" in google doesn't show (for me in incognito at last) four articles in the top ten results full of explanations

I never suggested that. I asked about what sexist thing he said in this specific instance. I am not interested on being Stallman's personal defence guardian nor do I follow him blindly on everything that he has ever said.

> This person tried to imply that it was only puritanical legal technicalities that prevented what appears to be a teenage sex slave from consenting

I never tried to imply that. If you are unsure if I am trying to imply something you can just ask me.

> We don't hear, "that isn't sexism because..."

We don't hear "that isn't sexism because..." because I have no idea what you consider as sexist in this specific instance. If you decided to tell me what you consider as sexist I would gladly tell you why I consider or don't consider it as sexist.

And a quote from before:

> Suggesting that this is all a big misunderstanding ... is not only slanderous, but its profoundly disrespectful to all parties.

Since you misunderstood me multiple times during this conversation have you considered the possibility that you might have done the same (unintentionally ofc) with Stallman?

> And looking more closely at their post history, I stand by this assessment.

I would be interested in seeing what you consider as instances of malicious behaviour by me in other threads.