4 ms·

I find it interesting that you told this story without linking to the video, in light of admitting you posted the video itself. Curiously you do not admit havin

I find it interesting that you told this story without linking to the video, in light of admitting you posted the video itself. Curiously you do not admit having posted it until called out on the discrepancy between your paraphrase and the actual words RMS spoke. You paraphrased his words even though it would have taken seconds to get the (utterly different) exact wording from your own video. I think you are deliberately spreading misinformation. An honest commentator would have posted the exact wording and the link, especially if he is the source of the very video in question.

throwanem 7y ago
I find it interesting that you have no stronger argument in support of your own interpretation than to argue that all others, including mine, must be lies with some scurrilous ulterior motive behind them. Again, I understand that you regard this statement of RMS's - and the many similar statements attested by others - as innocuous, and any interpretation otherwise to be false and motivated by a witch-hunting desire to tear down a great man for no better reason than because his greatness makes others feel small. You've been quite clear about that. You haven't done a good job arguing for it, though. You reiterate the same unsupported assertions that you've already made, and in between times you sling accusations at people who disagree with you - all the while hiding behind anonymity, lest you risk having your behavior reflect poorly on you - in the hopes that those following along will be suckered into mistaking such personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims for an argument. You're welcome to do that, of course, if it doesn't embarrass you. I'd hope that it would, but I suppose the concealment of anonymity helps with that, too.
- abstractartist 7y ago
  Nonsense. I did not say I think his statements in the video were innocuous. I (and others) pointed out that you misrepresented his statements. I've said basically nothing else with this account and all of the handful of comments I've made with it are about this one issue of you misrepresenting your video.
  - abstractartist 7y ago
    Nor did I say anything about other peoples' views or mention anything about "witch hunts bringing down a great man". Can you answer point blank why your paraphrase is so far off from what was actually said? If your paraphrase is valid then perhaps we might find that "20 women left the room" is something of a paraphrase too? Edit: fix unclear wording, add question
    - throwanem 7y ago
      The uncharitability of my paraphrase does not make it inaccurate, and even at that I've already conceded that it was a joke. Specifically, it was a joke about wanting to see who among the audience he might want to fuck. No one has disagreed that this was the substance of the comment to which I and others took such exception. All that remains is to argue over whether or not that exception was merited, and "it was just a joke, god, why are you being so emotional, jeez" - another uncharitable but accurate paraphrase - doesn't strike me as much of an argument. Neither does, again, claiming that I must be lying about what people did, or how many, in response to that comment of his. Would you please step up your game? Answering the same tired objections over and over again, as they're reiterated in slightly different ways, grows dull, and it's difficult to distinguish one's interlocutors from one another when they're all saying the same things.
      - pmoriarty 7y ago
        "Specifically, it was a joke about wanting to see who among the audience he might want to fuck." Except it's not. You're misinterpreting his joke. It is a joke, but he's saying that: 1 - keeping the lights off is conducive to having sex 2 - although he might enjoy sleeping with some of the people in the room, that's not what they're there for 3 - instead, he would prefer to see the audience 4 - so he's asking for the lights to be turned on
        throwanem 7y ago
        Haven't you ever heard it said that a joke you have to explain is a joke that does not work? And look at all the effort that's had to go into trying to explain how this one was perfectly innocuous, a little in bad taste perhaps but hey, we're all broad-minded fellows here, and if a few silly women can't go along, well, more's the pity for them, eh? Are you really sure that's a place you care to stand? Because, whatever you may think you're saying, that's how you're being heard - and how your audience hears what you say is not a phenomenon subject to your control, or RMS's.

throwanem 7y ago

I find it interesting that you have no stronger argument in support of your own interpretation than to argue that all others, including mine, must be lies with some scurrilous ulterior motive behind them. Again, I understand that you regard this statement of RMS's - and the many similar statements attested by others - as innocuous, and any interpretation otherwise to be false and motivated by a witch-hunting desire to tear down a great man for no better reason than because his greatness makes others feel small. You've been quite clear about that. You haven't done a good job arguing for it, though. You reiterate the same unsupported assertions that you've already made, and in between times you sling accusations at people who disagree with you - all the while hiding behind anonymity, lest you risk having your behavior reflect poorly on you - in the hopes that those following along will be suckered into mistaking such personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims for an argument. You're welcome to do that, of course, if it doesn't embarrass you. I'd hope that it would, but I suppose the concealment of anonymity helps with that, too.

abstractartist 7y ago
Nonsense. I did not say I think his statements in the video were innocuous. I (and others) pointed out that you misrepresented his statements. I've said basically nothing else with this account and all of the handful of comments I've made with it are about this one issue of you misrepresenting your video.
- abstractartist 7y ago
  Nor did I say anything about other peoples' views or mention anything about "witch hunts bringing down a great man". Can you answer point blank why your paraphrase is so far off from what was actually said? If your paraphrase is valid then perhaps we might find that "20 women left the room" is something of a paraphrase too? Edit: fix unclear wording, add question
  - throwanem 7y ago
    The uncharitability of my paraphrase does not make it inaccurate, and even at that I've already conceded that it was a joke. Specifically, it was a joke about wanting to see who among the audience he might want to fuck. No one has disagreed that this was the substance of the comment to which I and others took such exception. All that remains is to argue over whether or not that exception was merited, and "it was just a joke, god, why are you being so emotional, jeez" - another uncharitable but accurate paraphrase - doesn't strike me as much of an argument. Neither does, again, claiming that I must be lying about what people did, or how many, in response to that comment of his. Would you please step up your game? Answering the same tired objections over and over again, as they're reiterated in slightly different ways, grows dull, and it's difficult to distinguish one's interlocutors from one another when they're all saying the same things.
    - pmoriarty 7y ago
      "Specifically, it was a joke about wanting to see who among the audience he might want to fuck." Except it's not. You're misinterpreting his joke. It is a joke, but he's saying that: 1 - keeping the lights off is conducive to having sex 2 - although he might enjoy sleeping with some of the people in the room, that's not what they're there for 3 - instead, he would prefer to see the audience 4 - so he's asking for the lights to be turned on
      - throwanem 7y ago
        Haven't you ever heard it said that a joke you have to explain is a joke that does not work? And look at all the effort that's had to go into trying to explain how this one was perfectly innocuous, a little in bad taste perhaps but hey, we're all broad-minded fellows here, and if a few silly women can't go along, well, more's the pity for them, eh? Are you really sure that's a place you care to stand? Because, whatever you may think you're saying, that's how you're being heard - and how your audience hears what you say is not a phenomenon subject to your control, or RMS's.