3 ms·

I think it's a matter of scope. You can respect Stallmans contributions to technology and "no thank you" his views on politics and society.

CuriousSkeptic 10y ago
I don't think you can. Some (most?) of those contributions were made exactly to promote those views on politics and society. To separate those contributions from that is disrespect in and of itself, almost by definition.
- twr 10y ago
  It's quite possible to comprehend, admire, and appreciate the labor and discoveries of renowned scientists and technologists, without sharing in the motivations and beliefs they possessed. Science is intertwined with the accomplished legacies of hated figures whose beliefs were shaped by prejudice, yet whose works became recognized and included in established theory. Computing fields tend to venerate their idols with a religious-like fervor, unfortunately.
  - CuriousSkeptic 10y ago
    I dont dispute that. Comprehend, admire and appreciate are all words that would fit in the paragraph I objected to. It was precisely the word respect I objected to.
- mastazi 10y ago
  So you're saying it's impossible to respect a person you don't agree with? Be careful; saying that disagreement and disrespect are the same thing takes you on a very very slippery slope. Plenty of tyrants around the world justify illiberal laws and cruel policies citing such assumptions.
  - CuriousSkeptic 10y ago
    No no, I respect a lot of people I do not agree with. What I'm saying is that even if you disagree you can respect only if you recognize the motivations behind someones labor. To say that GNU is good technology but don't agree with its premise is disrespectful because, by definition the design has failed if you don't agree with the agenda. So you could say that you respect the effort but think it has failed, or you can say that you like the result but don't really respect its origins.
- golergka 10y ago
  > To separate those contributions from that is disrespect in and of itself, almost by definition. Uhm, no. People do great things for strange motives all the time. Stallman may have written Emacs for some ideological crusade which I don't care about (and consider counter-productive to the world at large), but I can not pretend that it's a great technological achievement.

CuriousSkeptic 10y ago

I don't think you can. Some (most?) of those contributions were made exactly to promote those views on politics and society. To separate those contributions from that is disrespect in and of itself, almost by definition.

twr 10y ago
It's quite possible to comprehend, admire, and appreciate the labor and discoveries of renowned scientists and technologists, without sharing in the motivations and beliefs they possessed. Science is intertwined with the accomplished legacies of hated figures whose beliefs were shaped by prejudice, yet whose works became recognized and included in established theory. Computing fields tend to venerate their idols with a religious-like fervor, unfortunately.
- CuriousSkeptic 10y ago
  I dont dispute that. Comprehend, admire and appreciate are all words that would fit in the paragraph I objected to. It was precisely the word respect I objected to.
mastazi 10y ago
So you're saying it's impossible to respect a person you don't agree with? Be careful; saying that disagreement and disrespect are the same thing takes you on a very very slippery slope. Plenty of tyrants around the world justify illiberal laws and cruel policies citing such assumptions.
- CuriousSkeptic 10y ago
  No no, I respect a lot of people I do not agree with. What I'm saying is that even if you disagree you can respect only if you recognize the motivations behind someones labor. To say that GNU is good technology but don't agree with its premise is disrespectful because, by definition the design has failed if you don't agree with the agenda. So you could say that you respect the effort but think it has failed, or you can say that you like the result but don't really respect its origins.
golergka 10y ago
> To separate those contributions from that is disrespect in and of itself, almost by definition. Uhm, no. People do great things for strange motives all the time. Stallman may have written Emacs for some ideological crusade which I don't care about (and consider counter-productive to the world at large), but I can not pretend that it's a great technological achievement.