Comment by bfkwlfkjf

> The injustice [done to Minsky] is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X. (…)

> The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.

> We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.

> I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.

This seems a very reasonable thing to say. Also useful concept "accusation inflation" thanks for linking.

> "sex with someone under 18 is rape”, “sex with a prostitute under 18 is enslavement”, and “making a nude photo of someone under 18 is a sexual assault.”

What is happening here is law being repurposed. Rape already has big sentences, and we want to give under 18s extra protections, so let's redefine what the word rape means so we can reuse the rape law.

> Efforts against the business of making and distributing images of that are justified — but these must not be done by dangerous methods.

Dangerous methods meaning redefining words.