22 ms·

If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying

• thomasfoster96 10y ago
  > mwfunk 2 minutes ago If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. Thanks for saying that - that's one reason why I struggle to take this article seriously.
• gjdimitrov 10y ago
  couldn't agree more :)
  • edanm 10y ago
    It's considered more proper on HN to simply upvote a comment you agree with, not to add another comment. (This is to reduce comments that don't add value to the conversation).
• bramen 10y ago
  Ditto, that silly political wordplay always drives me nuts.
• kristianc 10y ago
  Thank you for this. It's been a feature of UK journalism for a while (Bliar, Gideon, ConDems etc etc) and I haven't been able to put my finger on why I felt so vehemently opposed to it, other than a generic feeling that it was abandoning argument. This is much closer.
• Gorgor 10y ago
  Democrap and the like are simply derogatory terms. And so are abbreviations like M$ for Microsoft or the German term Windoof (could be translated as Windumb) for Windows. But this is not the kind of terms Stallman uses. Instead, he usually tells you why he uses a specific term and I have yet to come across a case where he doesn't have a point with his term. Microsoft can be regarded as „Malware“, because it does things you do not expect and may not want it to do (like spy on you). Facebook users can be regarded as used, even though I don't think there is any point in denying that they themselves use Facebook, as well. I'm not educated enough to talk about DRM, but it seems he has a point in calling it Digital Restrictions Management, too. If I'm not mistaken, Stallman now actually prefers the term libre to the term free, because it is less ambiguous. Or he sees the value in it; I don't recall it exactly.
  • Arnavion 10y ago
    >But this is not the kind of terms Stallman uses. https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/FAQ.html#windows_woe32 https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/FAQ.html#windows_woe32 >What does Woe32 mean? >“Woe32” denotes the Windows 32-bit operating systems for x86: Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista and Windows 95/98/ME. Microsoft uses the term “Win32” to denote these; this is a psychological trick in order to make everyone believe that these OSes are a “win” for the user. However, for most users and developers, they are a source of woes, which is why I call them “Woe32”.
    • Gorgor 10y ago
      Good find. I didn't know about that one.
      • jonathankoren 10y ago
        Infamously MS Windows bindings for emacs are are prefaced "w32-" instead of the standard "win32-" because RMS decreed "Windows is not a 'winning' platform."
  • GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    Back in the day, "MS-DOS" used to always be "MS-DOG" and you can still find references to that: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/MS_002dDOS.html https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/MS... and as late as 2014 it was still there in emacs: http://osdir.com/ml/emacs-diffs-gnu/2014-08/msg00048.html http://osdir.com/ml/emacs-diffs-gnu/2014-08/msg00048.html
• c_c_c 10y ago
  Not going to comment on the efficacy of "used" versus "user" in RMS' argument here. However, your comparison to "Democrap", etc. doesn't seem to fit here very well. The former is a shorthand for his entire argument and technically correct. Facebook "users" are "used" by Facebook. This is their business model. The latter is just simple name calling serving no useful purpose.
  • sukilot 10y ago
    If your thesis is that Democrats are bad people, Democrap is an accurate term.
    • rhizome 10y ago
      By that reasoning, "Democrap" is a signifier for an exclusionary (and thus anti-democratic) line of thought.
    • rwallace 10y ago
      Even if that's your thesis, it's still a bad term because it doesn't say anything about why. If you're going to use an atypical term in a debate, it should convey some information about why you hold your beliefs.
• drdaeman 10y ago
  You have a point, but I believe warping the language from the norms can be different. I can't know what Stallman meant exactly and what are his intentions, but from reading the text I believe what he tries to do is to either create a neologism (cf. "enforce a meme"), or avoid a word misuse that may lead to some invalid connotations or suggestions (cf. calling a photocopier "xerox"). Probably both, but the latter case is important. There are a lot of cases where saying an established term for something (with term invented and enforced by marketing/politics) serves in favor of some an agenda, and one may deliberately decide to change the language to combat this. Consider that Stallman's also known to ask to avoid calling copyright infringement as "theft" or "piracy". Avoiding agendas, almost certainly not the case with "democra[tp]s", as it's just name-calling. Most likely it's the case with "piracy", as using this term mixes in some incorrect allusions. And, while personally I think "useds" instead of "users" isn't a good idea, it's probably somewhere in the gray area in the middle that may have some reasonable justification besides just Stallman trying to pull a strawmen.
  • ppopoff 10y ago
    Except that Stallman uses what you identify as name-calling all the time (cf. Amazon Swindle). Also, the oft-repeated notion that "piracy" is a contemporary slur invented to associate copyright infringers with violence on the high seas is simply wrong. It's documented since 1603 (The Wonderfull yeare, T. Dekker), and is the term used by the 1883 Berne Convention. That's covers most of the history of the word in English usage. Fine if you want to change the dialogue on IP, especially based on changing technology, but that doesn't justify rewriting history.
    • drdaeman 10y ago
      1. Yes, and no props to him on that. Name-calling's just inappropriate for a public rhetoric. But as for this particular article - it's a different case. 2. It's not about history rewriting. When one uses different term and disagrees with the commonly used one, they don't (well... normally) deny the facts that there is such use. The usual attitude is "they say 'piracy' but I believe it's wrong to use this term in such context"
• geff82 10y ago
  RMS, to some extend, is like the pope. He often says strange things, where many people do not instantly agree. But he won't change his message just to please you, which is what we are used to get from most people, especially politicians. You can count on him and his, at heart, very humanist views. I recently was at one of his keynotes, and we all, including me, could only laugh at his over-and-over usage of words like "the Amazon Swindle" or Service-as-a-Software-Substitute (for SaaS). The "problem" with him, while he sometimes sound ridiculous, he makes me think and sense stuff I otherwise wouldn't have a critical look at. I'd say he does good (to the world) - while not caring if his recipe tastes well.
  • bobwaycott 10y ago
    I had never heard of Service-as-a-Software-Substitute, but I think it makes a lot of sense.
    • viraptor 10y ago
      It's not even wrong or bad. It's pretty much what it is in some of the SaaS cases. (those that only operate on your data)
  • vacri 10y ago
    The problem is that saying "Swindle" instead of "Kindle" works when he's talking to people who already agree with him, but is seen as adolescent crap by people who don't agree with or don't understand his message. It's preaching to the choir. "Digital Restrictions Management" is a good semantic switcheroo, but "Swindle" is just name-calling. I've read his reasons for it, but really, it just makes it harder for people "outside the choir" to hear his message.
    • xiaoma 10y ago
      He's not trying to be the bridge. He is the standard bearer. In the 90s, others such as ESR and Linus were the bridges. Stallman has always been the idealist who will hold firm to his ideal. Back in the day, like you, I thought he was extreme and kind of silly. ESR had a far more socially acceptable and commercially palatable message (which is pretty shocking in retrospect, considering the direction his writing and politics have taken). Nearly 20 years later, it's clear that Stallman is almost certain to be a historical figure remembered hundreds of years from now. His older "crazy" pieces like The right to read look more prophetic by the day. If nothing else, his utter disregard of popular views has made him free to speak truths that others can't.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• beagle3 10y ago
  I do not use "democrap" or "republicant", as they do not promote the discussion or understanding in any way. However, I did adopt Stallman's "Copy Restriction" (instead of "Copy Protection") and "Digital Restriction Management" (instead of "Digital Right Management") - because they are a much better description of what the concept actually is for 99% of the people. I started doing this after I told someone that I will not buy a Depeche Mode CD I wanted and was holding in my hand in the store, because it has copy protection; they looked at me completely puzzled, asking "Why wouldn't you want your copy to be protected?", and a little more inquiry revealed that they believed it was a somehow more robust (by virtue of being "protected") than non-copy protected CDs. Language is a very potent medium of control. You are, indeed, used by facebook when you interact with it, and introducing it into the language is a way to bring it to the surface. He's not using "useds" to be clever. He's bringing it to the surface. It might look stupid to you, but I assure you that you are not immune to this kind of bias (and neither am I). I know that's why he does that, because I've heard him personally explain that when attending one of his talks. In fact, if you look at the works of Kahenman & Tversky, you see that equivalent questions worded differently get opposite responses from people who we expect to know better (e.g. doctors, pilots, ...). Stallman is basically trying to counter the (essentially unlimited) bias that the media has against what he believes, and I don't know of any tool that does that better than the rhetorical device(s) he is using.
  • andrei_says_ 10y ago
    I think you'll enjoy this lecture by linguistics professor George Lakoff: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM Among other things he speaks of the think-tank-driven concerted effort to influence political support by using language invoking specific metaphors to frame important issues. Like "Tax Relief" for dramatically reducing taxes for the rich etc. Changed how I process political speech and pretty much any media-supported narrative.
    • kerkeslager 10y ago
      In the same vein, Orwell's Politics and the English Language[1] is an earlier observation of similar phenomena. [1] https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
• yongjik 10y ago
  > ...because he wants to shoot himself in the foot as soon as possible. So... it's almost like he's shooting the foot that feeds him? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
• dunkelheit 10y ago
  Are you trying to say that RMS is an irrational zealot? I agree with you wholeheartedly! But he changed the world with persistent application of irrational and at times childish zeal. Many would say the change was for the better. The problem IMO is not that he uses dishonest rhetorical devices but that his recent proclamations sound old and boring and failing to confer sufficient emotional charge to the reader.
  • rhizome 10y ago
    Appealing to emotion is such a poor rhetorical device.
    • dunkelheit 10y ago
      Depends on how crudely it is done. I'd argue that all great speeches and manifests are great precisely because their message resonated powerfully with emotions of the audience.
• andrei_says_ 10y ago
  He refuses to use the commonly established language which distorts reality. It is a radical choice (given how well established the manipulative language is). I can see how some may find this irritating. You may want to take a look at this lecture to see why language is so important and influential. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM
  • aninhumer 10y ago
    Some of his substitutions are arguably valuable rhetorical devices, but the majority are just childish digs which don't add anything because they're far more distracting than they are challenging. Every time I run into one of his idiosyncratic terms, it interrupts my train of thought, and dislodges any argument he had been constructing there.
    • p4wnc6 10y ago
      > Every time I run into one of his idiosyncratic terms, it interrupts my train of thought, and dislodges any argument he had been constructing there. In the spirit of ergodic literature, such as the use of extensive, awkward footnotes in Infinite Jest, some consider this to be a good and effective thing. If the reader isn't willing to put in the cognitive effort to constantly overcome this and extract the meaning of the overall argument, then that reader was probably just looking for some easy confirmation bias reason to disgree or criticize in the first place. By constantly jarring you out of feeling comfortable while reading, it means that, if you are determined to read it seriously, you will have to exert more effort and by the end will likely have gotten much, much more out of it than if it had been designed to feel pleasant for the reader. I actually love this style of writing and can't get enough of it. I also like the music of the band Swans and eat lots of meals with bitter foods (like huitlacoche, bitter melon, extremely earthy green tea). I don't know what it is, but I feel this kind of constant, just-on-the-cusp-of-being-too-unpleasant disruption for almost any sense qualia really leads me to appreciate things more, dig into them more deeply, retain more about them later on, and quickly separate things I do care about consuming from things I don't care about consuming. It's kind of like putting up with the pain of a deep tissue massage to get the more satisfying muscular relaxation that comes later.
• chillwaves 10y ago
  So you only support the newspeak that supports your point of view? How do you feel about terms like "collateral damage" that used to be "murdered civilians" in war? Secondly there is internal logic to "used" that is not present in the name calling you compare it to. False equivalency does not strengthen your argument.
  • ajkjk 10y ago
    I don't think the OP said anything about supporting other kinds of newspeak. I don't think the OP said anything that seemed falsely equivalent. Constantly saying "used" instead of "user" is clearly similar to saying "Democrap" in at least one obvious way: that you're childishly substituting a replacement for a common word in an attempt to be clever and subversive, while alienating anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Their point was very clear and it seems like you're misinterpreting it on purpose, as though you have your hands over your ears.
  • wmccullough 10y ago
    Right now, you're undermining his point by drawing an example from something he clearly didn't even talk about (i.e. Your example not his). Whether you love or hate Stallman, OP has made a valid point here. You can't expect to capture the hearts and minds of a prospective audience by alienating them intellectually. If I had no idea who Stallman was, and I read this, I wouldn't even consider taking it seriously. It comes off like a spoiled child who's just angsty enough to "fight the power".
• programmarchy 10y ago
  Your entire post consists of red herrings / ad hom, and you failed to make a single argument or counter any of the points he made in the article.
  • superobserver 10y ago
    That much is obvious to anyone here, but I'm noticing an odd spate of downvotes that contradict that post. Any insights? I'm seeing at least 6 downvotes to my posts alone.
  • relaytheurgency 10y ago
    Is disagreeing with the style of someone's rhetoric really the same as an attack on the person? The parent comment is making the point that Stallman uses exclusionary tactics while speaking and that they are a turn off if you aren't already a convert. I think it's a cogent point and I think it applies in a more general sense to a lot of lazy techniques employed by those who seek to be divisive.
    • programmarchy 10y ago
      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument
      • trungaczne 10y ago
        I don't think he dismissed the original argument ("Facebook is bad for you") at all, he's just commenting on the use of bad rhetoric and how it detracts from Stallman's goal of convincing people not to use Facebook. I don't think everyone would listen to a person flinging insult, even if their argument has some basis. I wouldn't listen to a person who rely on bad rhetoric either.
        • ktRolster 10y ago
          Responding to tone is already reaching level 3 on the hierarchy: http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html So it's better than it could be.
• saynsedit 10y ago
  Yes yes, let's focus on the superficial components of his arguments via false equivalences and ignore the very legitimate criticisms he makes. RMS argues like an idiot therefore Facebook is probably blameless. Progress.
  • edanm 10y ago
    That wasn't the argument OP was making. He was making a (legitimate, IMO) objection to RMS' rhetorical style, and saying that it makes many people not want to read his writing. OP never said that this makes FB blameless.
    • saynsedit 10y ago
      If the OP doesn't intend to defend Facebook against RMS's claims, his criticism of RMS's rhetorical style is wholly irrelevant to his core point and, in turn, this discussion.
      • zardeh 10y ago
        That's not true. You can criticize that which you respect, in order to improve it.
        • saynsedit 10y ago
          Yes, let's criticize arbitrary off-topic things ad infinitum, because we can.
  • Sanddancer 10y ago
    Rhetorical criticism is fairly common and vital, as the message and the medium are pretty closely intertwined. The twists of words Stallman uses are to cause a guttural reaction to what he is saying and to try to evoke a populist response. Much like speeches by recent political figures, such as Donald Trump, Stallman's rhetorical style will agitate people who already support him, but alienate him to the greater number of people who disagree with him. As much as people try to claim that the medium doesn't matter, it does, a lot. Stallman is a poor user of the mediums he is given, and as such, the points made are difficult to discuss. Were he to use less slanted language, and stick to the facts, he would be more effective in getting his point across, and would not open himself, or his arguments, to such criticism.
• bunderbunder 10y ago
  What strikes me here in particular is that this article is mirroring most of my own reasons for being uncomfortable with Facebook, but I still find myself wanting to disagree with him. The rhetorical style makes him come across as a bully, and on a gut level I don't like to side with bullies. So I'd like to say that after some more measured, thoughtful reflection I come around to his side. But I don't. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, and even after taking a few breaths and trying to read it more calmly, his hyper-paternalistic posture still gets to me. I read his writings, and I don't ever see a glimmer of an attempt to empathize with the people he's ostensibly standing up for. Instead, it seems to me that he's only thinking about his own feelings on the subject, and assuming that everyone else either (A) thinks about it exactly the same way he does, or (B) doesn't know from beans and needs to be browbeaten into realizing it. It's a wonder he doesn't use the word "sheeple" more often.
  • rhizome 10y ago
    Why do you consider RMS to be your enemy?
    • vacri 10y ago
      That's not what bunder said. 'enemy of my enemy is not my friend' just means that a common opponent means nothing for your relationship with another party.
  • bjourne 10y ago
    > The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, and even after taking a few breaths and trying to read it more calmly, his hyper-paternalistic posture still gets to me. Can you give some examples from the text? Like you are expressing frustration over something but what is it? It's a long list of arguments with links to supporting articles. I don't understand what your complaint is.
    • pyre 10y ago
      Sounds like the complaint is about tone.
• belorn 10y ago
  You were bringing up a interesting/intellectual point until you mention the word free. At that point, either you are pointing towards a tribe of thinking, or simply ignoring the massive amount of Philosophy that has been written around the concept of freedom and the many and large volume of thought that has been written about it. John Locke wrote 400 years ago a definition of freedom that fits what RMS says, and its not without reason that RMS often says that the word liberty is a better word since its less ambiguous, except for in the US where liberty has been associated with a political party. GPLv2 even call a clause "liberty or death", rather than "freedom or death". Is it really that wrong to use freedom and liberty as two interchangeable words? Having read some philosophy, even those trying to define the words often use both words. As an example, "Persons have a right or liberty to follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited" and "Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society".
  • worik 10y ago
    It is not that freedom and liberty are interchangeable. It is that free and costless are interchangeable. That is an ambiguity in English and not a big deal. We can borrow libre.
• yuhong 10y ago
  How about "undemocratic party" for the Democratic party?
  • relaytheurgency 10y ago
    It's childish. I don't understand why people try to do this. The organization is called the Democratic party. It is not clever to change the name as some kind of shorthand for your own personal opinion.
    • yuhong 10y ago
      To be honest, the name dates back to at least decades ago.
    • Spivak 10y ago
      > I don't understand why people try to do this. It's not about being clever, calling your political party "The Democratic Party" is itself a rhetorical device and a brand that is cultivated by hundred million dollar ad campaigns. If you're going to break those associations you need to call them something else while still having your reader understand what you're talking about and 'childish insults' are one way to accomplish that. Language is powerful and controlling it controls people's perceptions. Maybe a more obvious example would be the PATRIOT Act. Who would be unpatriotic enough to vote against that?
• yvsong 10y ago
  Users and Facebook use each other voluntarily, for their own gain. It's a normal business that anyone can choose to use or not. Both terms users and useds are ok to describe the 2 aspects of the business, and for arguing which aspect weighs more. Users use Facebook first, so overall users is the more proper term.
• Retric 10y ago
  It's useful to have someone out the outer edge of a issue as a benchmark. At somepoint the person who compromises less wins. Copy protection does not protect copy's it prevents them. Calling it protection is letting one side win before you start talking.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    There's a term for this in the realm of public debate, which I am presently unable to recall, but the gist of it is the idea that you ask for a much greater concession than you really want in the hope the stakeholders settle closer to your ideal than if you'd simply laid your cards on the table. By doing this repeatedly and over time we can (slowly, maybe less slowly?) change the course of history.
    • sordina 10y ago
      Anchoring, and door-in-the-face?
      • TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
        Door-in-the-face[1] corresponds with what I was thinking of, thank you, though I seem to have it filed away in my brain under some other term still. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique
    • sangnoir 10y ago
      > There's a term for this in the realm of public debate, which I am presently unable to recall, but the gist of it is the idea that you ask for a much greater concession than you really want...By doing this repeatedly and over time we can (slowly, maybe less slowly?) change the course of history. That concept is likely moving the Overton Window[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
      • TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
• superobserver 10y ago
  But that's what Facebook users are - useds. They're targets for Facebook's platform, namely, delivering ads. You've actually made a strawman of RMS' argument by attempting to draw the false parallel between ex1 and ex2. The appropriate understanding of RMS' use of language is similar to how any philosopher might use language with idiosyncratic coinages thrown in. In other words, it is simply a manifestation of a particular philosophical outlook. Edit: it would appear quite a few other responders to your post are making this point as well. I think you should seriously reconsider how you're attempting to characterise RMS' way of making a point.
  • Udik 10y ago
    They're also users. Or, you could use the same inversion for about everything: we're not buying cars for getting around, it's the automotive industries that lure us into giving them money with stuff that can be used for travelling. We're not consumers of potatoes, it's the potatoes that use us to reproduce themselves. Facebook is, apparently, satisfying some needs. Users pay for it by giving a share of their attention to ads, but they wouldn't watch the ads if there wasn't a value in Facebook itself. Seems to be a win-win relationship.
    • superobserver 10y ago
      You're only emphasising the legitimate use of "useds" by RMS. The notion, in any case, is that being a used of Facebook undermine's one's claim to privacy. Potatoes and cars don't apparently do the same thing, so they qualify as red herrings at best - having no relationship or bearing on the larger claims RMS puts forward. C'mon. It's no secret that Facebook doesn't give much concern to users/useds privacy. Any claim to the contrary is highly suspect. This is only to reiterate that the target market of Facebook does not include those who wish to maintain a greater level of privacy by not using it.
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
• jordigh 10y ago
  > Even the appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty. He did not "appropriate" the term free. FreeBSD and OpenBSD call what they do "free software" and they also call the gcc "free" and the phrase "free software" predates the Free Software Foundation. He insists on the term, but he doesn't mean something very specific when he says "free". Unlike what most of his opponents seem to believe, he does not mean "copyleft only" when he says "free". He means the exact same thing as "open source", just like "global warming" means the same thing as "climate change". Same thing, different political slant.
  • kstrauser 10y ago
    > He insists on the term, but he doesn't mean something very specific when he says "free". Unlike what most of his opponents seem to believe, he does not mean "copyleft only" when he says "free". He means the exact same thing as "open source", just like "global warming" means the same thing as "climate change". Same thing, different political slant. That's not remotely true. When RMS says "free", he means "copyleft". Open Source means merely that interested parties can look at the source but does not imply rights to alter and redistribute. It derives from precedents like the Open Software Foundation (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation) which was open-as-in-specified, certainly not open-as-in-GPL. Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...
    • dllthomas 10y ago
      You seem confused about the definition of copyleft. When something licensed to me under, say, the BSD 2-clause license, I have the ability to look at the source, to alter it, and to redistribute it (with or without modification). It is not copyleft, because it does not require that derived works be released under a comparable license.
    • ppopoff 10y ago
      I would even agree that RMS appropriated the term free, but what your statement that RMS says free == copyleft is not remotely true and contradicted by your "source." His definition of "free" is aligned with the OSI definition of "open source" (the term he dislikes). RMS is a waterbearer for copyleft because he doesn't respect proprietary uses, but he includes BSD/MIT licenses under his definition of "free." He doesn't include software that has public source but restricts free commercial use, modification etc. This notion of free though certainly isn't what most nonhackers/software people would generally associate with the term. It's his formulation.
• type0 10y ago
  Yeah, "useds" doesn't sound grammatically correct. The most annoying is when people ask: "do you have facebook?", the obvious answer should be: "you can not have facebook unless you're one of the shareholders, the facebook has you!"
  • majewsky 10y ago
    Re grammatical correctness, I think the "-s" on "useds" needs to be dropped. Compare to "the deceased" (rather than "the deceaseds").
• kerkeslager 10y ago
  > If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point, it makes it very hard to feel like anything they're saying is credible. It's a bit of a long read, but David Foster Wallace's Tense Present[1] proposes something about language which I believe to be true. Wallace proposes that language communicates two things: 1) its direct meaning, and 2) the membership of the speaker/writer in a discourse group--that is, a community which uses a specific dialect. I think that your reaction to Stallman's choices of words is not to the direct meaning of Stallman's words, but to the communication of Stallman's discourse group. He's using a dialect, one which he had a large part in creating. I don't think you can argue easily that Stallman is using the word "used" incorrectly in this writing, but it's easy to see how it's offputting and even a little insulting. And more importantly, it's exclusionary--when Stallman uses a dialect that we don't use, he's establishing himself as being in a different discourse group of which you and I are not a member. Or to put in your words, he's preaching to the choir. It's normal for humans to react negatively to being excluded in this way. But the flipside of that is that specialized dialects serve to elevate the discourse of a discourse group on topics that interest that discourse group. There are rumors that Eskimos have X > 10 words for "snow", but we can observe the same thing in dialects of English: Medical English differentiates between a break and a fracture and borrows frequently from Latin, Programmer English uses "tree", "heap", "loop", etc. in ways that non-programmers never use them, Psychology English has specific meanings for "narcissist" and "OCD" that differ significantly from their usage in other English dialects. These differences are exclusionary, but their purpose isn't exclusion, it's as a shorthand for complex ideas that otherwise wouldn't be pragmatically possible to express in other dialects of English. It's not just preaching to the choir. These dialects were created to allow specific and accurate communication of the ideas of their discourse group. I think that, at some level, that's what Stallman is trying to do. It does come across a bit heavy handed: while most dialects occur organically to meet the needs of their discourse groups, Stallman's dialect is to some extent synthetically created by Stallman. But Stallman's dialect does, to some extent, meet the needs of a discourse group. I, for example, find it very useful to differentiate between Free (Libre), Free (Gratis), and Open Source. These aren't differences which can be talked about as succinctly without Stallman's dialect, but they are differences that have deep implications for our society. I agree with you that this usage of language is apt to alienate people who aren't members of Stallman's discourage group (or in your words, alienate his non-choir audience right out of the gate). But the same can be said of other dialects: Feynman, for example, talks about how Physicists start by teaching students models which are fundamentally incorrect, and iteratively change the model until the student understands a model closer and closer to the truth[2]. I'm not sure Stallman understands the implications of his jarring use of language for the uninitiated, and I think he would be more effective if he shifted his dialect to match the discourse group of his audience. However, I do think Stallman fills an extremely valuable role by defining the language of this discourse group. There are many advocates of Free (Libre) Software who use more accessible language when talking to a more general audience. I like to think that I'm one of them--I've adopted a bit more of Stallman's dialect for this post than usual. But when talking with members of Stallman's discourse group I shift more toward Stallman's dialect, and this elevates the conversation. There are lots of people effectively advocating Free Software, but there aren't many people contributing to the creation of a dialect around Free Software. It's also worth noting the level of control that corporations, politicians, and other political organizations exert over the dialect you're using. I'd posit that the dialect of English you are comfortable with using makes a distinction between "user" and "used" that is not representative of the phenomena those words describe, and that is largely because of the influence of the dialect Wallace calls "Advertising English" on your own dialect of English. [1] http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html [2] I think this is described in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, but I'm having trouble finding a link; anyone care to help?
• ComodoHacker 10y ago
  >that makes me think that they think I'm an idiot and that they think they can actually manipulate me with such silliness. So "Brexit" was made up just to manipulate British people? That's how language evolves, isn't it? New words get coined, some of them stick and stay, some go away. "Dumbocrat" won't stay for long because it carries nothing but insult.
  • ppopoff 10y ago
    Brexit is not a pejorative corruption of a pre-existing name or term. Incidentally, it's a basically neutral coinage used by both Leave and Remain camps.
    • hypnotortoise 10y ago
      I'd argue Brexit was a neutral coinage, same with Bremain. Those terms dominate the press because of its simplicity but have a weighting effect on its readers and are naturally directing discussion into one side of the debate.
• Frondo 10y ago
  Thanks for putting this all so eloquently. I'd even go so far as to say, the fact that so much of us are talking about this rhetorical device (one I think is pretty childish and distracting) means he's missed the mark in writing a persuasive essay. A lot of us aren't talking about the merits of using Facebook vs not, because we're talking about that dumb neologism instead. Shakespeare, he is not. Which is too bad, because a lot of his points are worth discussing--not necessarily agreeing with, but at least discussing. Like, what value are people getting in return from Facebook? Why are people OK giving away their content, exposing their eyeballs to ads, being tracked, etc.? Is it that they don't know? That they know but don't care, i.e. have different priorities in life? What alternatives could there be to this service that so many people (even in the comments here) find value in using? Facebook is bad, rah rah, but people want to connect and it's there and it works. What would you ask people to do when we all shut down our facebook accounts? All these questions are being lost because of "useds". That's too bad.
  • avindroth 10y ago
    Seeing the discussion about this neologism as the first comment on the thread was disappointing. There were many important issues raised in the article. In a way, Stallman uses the word "used" because he is writing for a certain audience. For one, he is writing for himself, but also the vast majority of his audience are hackers. And these hackers are curious enough to read the strange language choice and think about what that might mean. One might be led to ask how impure and tilted the language around our relationship with these products is. If he really wanted to make an approachable article, this should be titled, "21 reasons why you should stop using Facebook". But Stallman isn't trying to please everyone, he is trying to please his audience (including himself).
    • stephenr 10y ago
      > but also the vast majority of his audience are hackers. And these hackers are curious enough to read the strange language choice and think about what that might mean. The focus of this very comment thread is proof that isn’t the case. Plenty of us agree with the basic premise, but take issue at his entire approach to communicating with people, and thus don’t consider the article “good”. > If he really wanted to make an approachable article, this should be titled Or he could just write it like he’s expecting adults to read it, and drop the condescending and childish names he makes up for everything he disagrees with.
• carapace 10y ago
  I downvoted this because you're criticizing Stallman's rhetoric (which I agree is not hot) but not addressing his points. Given that he's not great at communication, but that you do seem to understand what he's trying to say, what do you think about Facebook?
• llamaz 10y ago
  > you literally do not possess you don't seem to understand what the word literally means, and are appropriating it to further your own intellectual dishonesty. "Literally" has such an intuitive meaning and I find that your violent disinclination to conform to the norms of positive contributers to society to be deeply frustrating. > It's not like an isolated incident, it is literally his primary rhetorical device in nearly everything he's written over the last 3 decades. This is just hyperbole. You might have some legitimate arguments hidden in your vitriolic strawman-riddled banter, but as is, you are alienating the readers of your comments. In future, please try give your arguments a fighting chance, and not place a rod into the front wheel of your moving bicycle. (Point of my post: I think you're nitpicking on something insignificant and dismissing the entire argument based on that.)
• logicallee 10y ago
  so you state the great example, >Even the appropriation of generic terms like "free" to mean very, very, very specific and non-intuitive things reeks of intellectual dishonesty The GNU copyleft (another neologism) is very specific, and means something like "irrevocably community-assigned copyright." If instead of calling it free, he had called it irrevocably community-assigned copyright, today there would be no free Linux, Debian, etc ecosystem. While you personally might think that issues can be decided purely on their merits, the facts speak otherwise. You've listed an example. This is not an academic philosophical journal. This is the real world.
• suprgeek 10y ago
  He is not "wrapping" the very language. He is trying to correct the semantic imbalance that is tilted towards the $100 Billion corporation. The thing you need to grok about RMS is that he is a purist. This fact strikes many people as stubborn, too idealistic, impractical etc - except that from RMS perspective it is the least he could do to stay true to himself. Also consider this - the world of software has been infinitely enriched by RMS (and the like) so he has the absolute right to put forth arguments with the expectation that software developers pay attention. Facebook on the other hand has not done so - to put it mildly.
  • pyre 10y ago
    Is it the angry punk on the street corner screaming at you that convinces you to stop eating meat? Or the reasonable person that cooks you a tasty vegan meal and can hold a conversation with you? Just because the person has some amount of credentials doesn't change this fact. It's more about how people work than anything else.
    • ktRolster 10y ago
      RMS is both.....emacs and gcc and the GNU userland, etc are the tasty meal.
  • stephenr 10y ago
    > expectation that software developers pay attention RMS doesn't have an expectation that devs pay attention. He has a pre-disposed opinion that he is absolutely ethically and morally right, and that we snivelling shits should be glad to have the opportunity to accept his humble offerings of knowledge.
• pdonis 10y ago
  > If someone can't state their point without warping the very language they use to support their point Part of Stallman's point is that the "ordinary" language that most people use to describe things is already warped. For example, Facebook describes itself as a "social network", when what it actually is is a network for harvesting data on people. The socializing people do on Facebook is a side effect, not the network's primary purpose. Sometimes the only way to fight warped language is by warping it back in the other direction. > it is literally his primary rhetorical device in nearly everything he's written over the last 3 decades Yes, because he genuinely thinks that so much of the world and our language is already warped that he doesn't think ordinary discourse, using ordinary language, will have any effect. You might not agree with his viewpoint in toto; but his behavior is IMO understandable for someone who genuinely has that viewpoint.
• kartickv 10y ago
  That's an insightful point. I also find the crude name-calling to detract from rather than support the message. I remember once reading one of his posts on a topic where I was in strong agreement with his point of view before I began reading, but finished it alienated and pissed off. Thinking back later, I was surprised — nobody ever managed that. If one's tone of writing is pissing off even those who agree with him, that's a complete failure of communication, and one needs to stop and re-evaluate one's communication style. I haven't read any more posts from Stallman in almost a decade. Life is too short to read something that's more likely to annoy you than enlighten you.
• avindroth 10y ago
  There are instances where people use wordplay to gain an emotional/rhetorical advantage in a debate. For the seasoned, this might be irksome at best, but I agree, repeatedly hearing "Dumbocrat" can get old and I, for one, will quickly lose respect for that person. But comparing Stallman's use of the word "used" to conventional, quite childish wordplay seems like a very, very far stretch. Stallman is redefining those people we know as "Facebook users", because in this case, "user" is not a correct term. A user is someone who uses a product to gain utility. By using a product, you gain something from the experience. A used is someone who is on the opposite end, where you are on the losing end of the deal. In a relationship between Facebook the corporation and the Facebook "user", who is gaining more utility, and who is on the losing end? Stallman argues that Facebook "users" are on the losing end. Thus they are appropriately termed "useds", with evidence backing his redefinition.
  • pyre 10y ago
    A junkie is a drug user, but they are being used by the criminal infrastructure providing those illicit substances. To say that they are not a user because they are being used via their usage is just nitpicking. Facebook users are using Facebook and gaining utility through it, regardless of what they are giving up (whether they realize it or not) to do so.
    • avindroth 10y ago
      The distinction might be petty, but for even a junkie, used might be a more accurate descriptor than user. As a non-junkie and non-member of the criminal infrastructure, one might see "drug users" feel used more than empowered through their gain of utility. Same is true for facebook "users" as well. If you see "user" as someone who uses a product, then this discourse is pointless. But if you think of a "user" as someone empowered by products, then using the term "Facebook users" should make you feel uncomfortable.
• chflags 10y ago
  Stallman's writing is reminiscent of The Jargon File or FOLDOC. There are many "silly" terms like the ones you mention in those collections. (More on textfiles.com.) Stallman was a part of that era. Maybe he's just an original 1970's "hacker" trying to stay true to his ideals. They liked to create their own counter culture vocabulary. Then you have Zuckerberg who puts some blurb in Facebook's first SEC filings that his website^W company will follow the "hacker" ethos. What was he doing there, using that term? He sure has a lot of corporate sponsorship for a "hacker". Imagine Stallman and Zuckerberg in a certain American game show that ran for several decades. Hint: The game's title relates to honesty. "Will the real 'hacker' please stand up?"
• beedogs 10y ago
  History has proven Stallman right about most things, time and time again. He's right about this, too.
• cel1ne 10y ago
  RMS is a "maniac", and I don't mean that in any derogative sense, but I can't find a better word. He is able to put forward enormous amounts of passion and energy for his cause. Sometimes there are people who commit to ideas in such a way. Think of Gandhi and his absolute commitment to non-violence in any situation. It's good that these people do what they do, but it's also important that they are taken with a grain of salt.
• hubert123 10y ago
  ok great, you dont like how he uses one word. Another meta comment which adds nothing