4 ms·
Just a quick thought from skimming this thread: It seems like there are two issues, radicalism and eccentricity. Saying that the government may have caused 9/1
by mbateman 15y ago
Just a quick thought from skimming this thread: It seems like there are two issues, radicalism and eccentricity.
Saying that the government may have caused 9/11 is eccentric. It's crazy and "radical" in an uninteresting way, and most intelligent people will ignore it.
But the idea that one shouldn't use Google docs if one values freedom is radical. I think RMS is completely and totally wrong, but the radicalism or apparent impracticality of the idea is not what I object to.
The cheesy campaigns and slogans have elements of both. They are radical ideas presented in an eccentric way. I think the 7 sins stuff, Swindle, etc., are stupid and childish and really have no upside.
But contrary to what the OP seems to suggest, while many people are turned off by radicalism, radicals are influential way out of proportion to what one would be led to expect by making a quick survey of people's negative reactions to them.
It can be hard to separate what's radical and what's merely eccentric. Especially if you're the one trying to figure out how to present radical ideas.
- waterhouse 15y agoYes, I came to the comments intending to say that. I agree with the author that talking about 9/11 that way just makes him look crazy, but he should not in any way cut down on his free software rhetoric because of "practical" considerations. An activist like him is selling two things: his ideas, and a call to action. If he restricted himself to giving "practical" recommendations, he would no longer be selling his ideas; he might get some people to switch to using free software, but they wouldn't be part of the "movement"; they'd switch back to proprietary software as soon as their job or some particular task required it, and then he'd be left with nothing. Whereas if he argues for his ideas, and takes them to their logical conclusion, he will convince a few people (many, if he's lucky) that will likely become members for life (if not necessarily active members) and can build a real community that has a chance of growing and eventually achieving total success. Now, it might help to give people some things they can realistically do right now. But the life of a movement lies in its radical members, and "practicality" should not come at the expense of the promotion of the (radical) ideas. Cf. the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement.
- pw 15y ago> radicals are influential way out of proportion to what one would be led to expect by making a quick survey of people's negative reactions to them. Is radicalism a hack for getting attention? Is RMS's radicalism such a hack? If not, could it have started out as such? Is Swindle, RMS's use of 9/11, et alia a misguided attempt to use this radicalism hack?
- Sukotto 15y agoI believe that radicals are the most influential when they contrast against (and serve as a warning about ignoring) the moderates. Imho, the problem the FSF has is that they don't have a MLK to Stallman's Malcolm X. Eben Moglen? maybe? Is he active anymore?