3 ms·

RMS is a man with deep seated principles -- a radical. He has a vision that is well thought out and extreme by most people's standards. We need radicals as a so

by Duff 15y ago

RMS is a man with deep seated principles -- a radical. He has a vision that is well thought out and extreme by most people's standards. We need radicals as a society, people who see the world in black and white bring needed clarity to those of us who live in a world that consists of shades of grey. Asking someone like Stallman to moderate his message displays a profound misunderstanding of who he is and what he stands for.

cynicalkane 15y ago
William F. Buckley, a man who was, politically, very different from Stallman, showed us that you can be a deeply radical and influential person without being childish or unreasonable. In fact, he was instrumental in kicking the nuts--Randists, Birchers, and so on--out of the movement he helped to found, neoconservativism. Though I suspect most people here (me included) would mostly disagree with him, you have to admit things went pretty well for the neocons. Asking someone like Stallman to not moderate his message through the collimator of reason shows a profound misunderstanding of how to stand for something and how to influence people. I hate the idea that you have to be a troll in order to make a point.
- Duff 15y ago
  The point is that you don't ask a radical to moderate themselves and get a productive result -- it just isn't who they are. Likewise, if Buckley were alive, you probably would not have been successful at getting him to become a cheerleader for the tea party mob. The answer to the "out there"-ness of Stallman are the mainstream people and companies that make open source work in the real world. The answer to the maniacs on the opposite side of the argument -- organizations like RIAA and RightHaven, are the content owners who embrace creative commons or make art available at no cost.
dasil003 15y ago
Yes, his principles are internally consistent and well thought out. The problem is with his crackpot government conspiracy theories. By talking about that stuff publicly he's harming the truly important principles he stands for.

by Duff 15y ago

cynicalkane 15y ago

William F. Buckley, a man who was, politically, very different from Stallman, showed us that you can be a deeply radical and influential person without being childish or unreasonable. In fact, he was instrumental in kicking the nuts--Randists, Birchers, and so on--out of the movement he helped to found, neoconservativism. Though I suspect most people here (me included) would mostly disagree with him, you have to admit things went pretty well for the neocons. Asking someone like Stallman to not moderate his message through the collimator of reason shows a profound misunderstanding of how to stand for something and how to influence people. I hate the idea that you have to be a troll in order to make a point.

Duff 15y ago
The point is that you don't ask a radical to moderate themselves and get a productive result -- it just isn't who they are. Likewise, if Buckley were alive, you probably would not have been successful at getting him to become a cheerleader for the tea party mob. The answer to the "out there"-ness of Stallman are the mainstream people and companies that make open source work in the real world. The answer to the maniacs on the opposite side of the argument -- organizations like RIAA and RightHaven, are the content owners who embrace creative commons or make art available at no cost.

dasil003 15y ago

Yes, his principles are internally consistent and well thought out. The problem is with his crackpot government conspiracy theories. By talking about that stuff publicly he's harming the truly important principles he stands for.