4 ms·

Humanity is converging on ideological monoculture. There is one correct way to think, and if you're dumb enough to step outside of those bounds, people _will_ c

• barry-cotter 7y ago
  Even the US isn’t an ideological monoculture. The woke are ~8% of the US population. No one in China cares. The social strata in India and Pakistan that ape the English speaking world is on the retreat politically. This cultural moment is mostly a US thing, and to a lesser extent an Anglosphere thing, with especially English proficient vassal states like the Dutch or Scandinavians also taking part. If it ever burns out in the US it’ll just disappear everywhere else in short order. RMS life was not ruined for an argument on a mailing list, but because he has no allies because he’s constitutionally incapable of playing politics.
  • toxik 7y ago
    It may be true that "the woke," as they are so disparagingly called, is a small group. Actually, I'd say 8% isn't a very small group at all -- but that is besides the point. The point is that this small group has much more than 8% impact on the outcomes of events like these. They may be 8% of the general population, but they are 99% of the people who care at all.
    • AsyncAwait 7y ago
      I agree, however every time this discussion comes up I feel conflicted about agreeing because it usually devolves into smearing the left, as if it was some monolithic entity. You did not frame it that way, which I really appreciate, because I view myself as a leftist, but find these groups detrimental. I refer to them as sofa activists, whose goal in life is to feel good, without actually doing anything that can't be done from the comfort of their sofa, that is most impactful, worthy changes. In fact RMS himself is a leftist. The woke group is extremely vocal and extremely damaging to the left-wing movements worldwide, but it is still a minority.
    • ukj 7y ago
      Relevant reading: 1. https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Logical conclusion: To be intolerant of intolerance is a moral virtue. I am having trouble deciding if this is a race to the top or bottom.
• DanBC 7y ago
  > There is one correct way to think, Yes, when it comes to "is raping children okay?" there is only one way to think - "No, raping children is not okay".
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • roenxi 7y ago
    But, and this is important, there is no natural law algorithm for working out what the words "raping" and "children" mean. People have to occasionally talk about difficult issues to find out. There isn't a common moral or legal standard about what either of those words mean on the margins, in globally or in the US. If people can't voice opinions that are wrong, they have no easy way of finding out why those opinions are wrong.
    • DanBC 7y ago
      There are plenty of places where you can talk about what "rape" and "children" mean. There are lots of legal discussion groups that would welcome this conversation. Except he's going to have to meet a somewhat higher bar than "I haven't got a fucking clue what I'm talking about, but here's what I reckon anyway". When someone linked to your organisation is accused of raping a child that's probably a bad time to start a discussion saying "was she really a child?", and "was it really assault?" and "was it really rape?". The fact that RMS is incapable of seeing that it was the wrong time to launch this discussion, that there are better places to have that discussion, is precisely why he needed to go.
      • hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        Can you clarify who you are accusing of raping a child?
        • DanBC 7y ago
          I'm not, Stallman is when he says "let's assume Minsky did this".
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]