This is my #1 issue with the FSF, and a lot of these types of arguments originate with RMS himself. RMS has always put a lot of energy into trying to get people

This is my #1 issue with the FSF, and a lot of these types of arguments originate with RMS himself. RMS has always put a lot of energy into trying to get people to use other words to describe common things, and the other words always spin those things in some really obvious and extreme way. Insisting that everyone say GNU/Linux is the one most people are familiar with, but other things like always referring to DRM as "Digital Restrictions Management", etc. Or heck, trying to redefine the very generic but positive word "free" to mean a whole host of very very specific and often unintuitive things. The FSF/RMS insistence on calling things by different words seems so irrational and dishonest. Likewise with taking common words with many meanings (like "free") and claiming that word as their own, then claiming that what "free" really means in the context of software can only be expressed once you tack on several KB of legalese that tells you what you can't do with it and how you're a bad person if you do. It's like the naming of the PATRIOT Act- it had nothing to do with patriotism, but it surely changed people's perceptions of it in subtle ways. What congressman would vote against patriotism? How could anyone be opposed to freedom? It's the same BS rhetorical trick, and it makes whoever uses that trick seem less honest and more irrational (to me at least). It's still an effective propaganda technique, which is exactly why they should avoid these sorts of rhetorical tricks. I don't want to hear their propaganda, I want to hear their philosophy. Because if their philosophy is truly built on a foundation of propaganda and rhetorical tricks, then their philosophy is meaningless. I agree with much of what the FSF advocates but they've always done such a terrible job advocating for it.