4 ms·

More context please. In what sense is that clairvoyance?

wiz21c 9y ago
In the sense that it's my subjectivity that is at play here, such as Stallman, such as Green. But I agree with both of them, so I call it "clairvoyance" instead of "lack of pragmatism".
- dash2 9y ago
  I'm very sorry, but I do not understand what you mean.
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    To be honest I have no idea what he means either, but since I had already asked for a clarification once I thought that insisting would be seeing as confrontational and provocative and get me downvoted (like you got downvoted).
  - __s 9y ago
    He means it as a kind of foresight, thinking longterm
- nl 9y ago
  I think you mean idealism, not clairvoyance? Clairvoyance generally involves some kind of prediction or guess about the future and I'm not sure that makes sense with the context you provided.
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    I think he means that Stallman's ideas are pragmatic, if you look far enough into the future. Or by clairvoyant he just means "correct, in the long term". But of course, the rest of us can't see the future so we don't know if they are correct.
- wiz21c 9y ago
  Answering questions. I was joking :-) More simply and seriously : I like Stallman and Greene point of view. I agree with them because they are idealistic. But, since the ideal they describe correspond quite well with my own, then I call that clairvoyance. I know it's not "right", but I was emphasizing the fact that when people agree with each other on political/ethical things, they often tend to think they're "right". So for me, I tend to see Stallman and Green has "clairvoyant". Of course, people who disagree with such clear cut idealism will often oppose the "lack of pragmatism" argument ('cos ideal don't work, everybody knows that !). I agree that's a very indirect demonstration. But I wanted to 1/ share my idealism and 2/ explain that I know that's idealism.
- pas 9y ago
  How is proper enforcement of white collar laws not pragmatic? I think letting big companies do shitty and shady things is in the name of GDP is utterly bonkers and almost unbeliveably simplistic, so kind of faith-based, almost like a wishful idealism.
  - wiz21c 9y ago
    The fact is that most of time the most unethical behavior is perfectly lawful. Justice and law are very different things. Now Green job is to ensure law is applied. But law always has a part of interpretation. That's why I love Green comment so much : he mixes is job with ethics.

In the sense that it's my subjectivity that is at play here, such as Stallman, such as Green. But I agree with both of them, so I call it "clairvoyance" instead of "lack of pragmatism".

dash2 9y ago
I'm very sorry, but I do not understand what you mean.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  To be honest I have no idea what he means either, but since I had already asked for a clarification once I thought that insisting would be seeing as confrontational and provocative and get me downvoted (like you got downvoted).
- __s 9y ago
  He means it as a kind of foresight, thinking longterm
nl 9y ago
I think you mean idealism, not clairvoyance? Clairvoyance generally involves some kind of prediction or guess about the future and I'm not sure that makes sense with the context you provided.
- akvadrako 9y ago
  I think he means that Stallman's ideas are pragmatic, if you look far enough into the future. Or by clairvoyant he just means "correct, in the long term". But of course, the rest of us can't see the future so we don't know if they are correct.
wiz21c 9y ago
Answering questions. I was joking :-) More simply and seriously : I like Stallman and Greene point of view. I agree with them because they are idealistic. But, since the ideal they describe correspond quite well with my own, then I call that clairvoyance. I know it's not "right", but I was emphasizing the fact that when people agree with each other on political/ethical things, they often tend to think they're "right". So for me, I tend to see Stallman and Green has "clairvoyant". Of course, people who disagree with such clear cut idealism will often oppose the "lack of pragmatism" argument ('cos ideal don't work, everybody knows that !). I agree that's a very indirect demonstration. But I wanted to 1/ share my idealism and 2/ explain that I know that's idealism.
pas 9y ago
How is proper enforcement of white collar laws not pragmatic? I think letting big companies do shitty and shady things is in the name of GDP is utterly bonkers and almost unbeliveably simplistic, so kind of faith-based, almost like a wishful idealism.
- wiz21c 9y ago
  The fact is that most of time the most unethical behavior is perfectly lawful. Justice and law are very different things. Now Green job is to ensure law is applied. But law always has a part of interpretation. That's why I love Green comment so much : he mixes is job with ethics.