> It's kind of like when someone tries to talk politics, but they can't stop using terms like "libtards" or "conservatards" to belittle their ideological oppone

> It's kind of like when someone tries to talk politics, but they can't stop using terms like "libtards" or "conservatards" to belittle their ideological opponents. They can't effectively communicate their actual message to you because they're too busy denigrating everyone who hypothetically disagrees with them. I get the gist of your argument, I think - needlessly insulting people unrelated to your point just takes attention off of it. I'm not so sure it's the same thing. Usually, when people talk about "libtards" and "conservatards", they're strawmanning, which means their argument is not as logically coherent as they might think. I don't think Stallman is building a strawman here - he never speculates about what useds are doing, in fact, almost all his arguments are about Facebook. It is precisely Stallman's argument that people are made into hapless pawns of a megacorp. The usage of the word is his point, and all the argumentation is to demonstrate why the usage of the word is appropriate. Think of a parallel to cults - it's definitely offensive and insulting to some cult members to be described as being part of a cult. However, when your argument is indeed "X is a cult", what words would you use? Would you shy away from using 'cult members' and 'cult'? It's also not obvious that it is Stallman's goal to convince people who are happily using Facebook to stop using it - many of his arguments are about people being pressured into joining Facebook, through friends and relatives, and pressured into giving up their anonymity. His arguments could relieve some of the social anxiety those people are feeling("am I the only one that doesn't like Facebook? I should shut up and join..."), for example, and help them reject Facebook.