3 ms·

This is a lot of words to defend someone when you -as you say - don't know what he said nor what he meant. The fact that many people in open source don't care

by DanBC 6y ago

This is a lot of words to defend someone when you -as you say - don't know what he said nor what he meant. The fact that many people in open source don't care about Stallman's defence of eugenics says a lot.

smsm42 6y ago
> This is a lot of words That's your response? "too long, didn't read"? Well, good job, I guess, here's your participation trophy. > The fact that many people in open source don't care about Stallman's defence of eugenics says a lot. No, it actually says nothing at all. That's the whole point, which you may have understood if you bothered to actually read. RMS's views on random subjects is just idle thoughts of a random dude, and nobody in any community owes anybody any care about what random dude once said about random subjects. If RMS were nominated for the Secretary of Health, then his views on reproductive decisions may be slightly more relevant. Call me back when that happens.
- sascha_sl 6y ago
  The point is that maybe you should stop doing a theoretical defense in 1000 words and head over to stallman.org and read up on the words you're defending first. It's really not that hard.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    I know the words. The whole point is - for the third time - is not that those words aren't as bad as the Woko Haram on Twitter tries to present it, though this is also true. The point is even if they were what they claim, it still wouldn't be a reason for ruining somebody's life, because the whole concept of "people like that" is complete and utter bullshit. People are complex. Somehow most people people by now get that reducing somebody to their gender, or disability, or condition, or skin color, or ethnicity, or some other single trait is wrong. But it's still hard to get how reducing somebody to one single random statement - made years ago at that - is wrong. I am still not sure if it's performative obtuseness or geniune psychological blockage.

by DanBC 6y ago

smsm42 6y ago

> This is a lot of words That's your response? "too long, didn't read"? Well, good job, I guess, here's your participation trophy. > The fact that many people in open source don't care about Stallman's defence of eugenics says a lot. No, it actually says nothing at all. That's the whole point, which you may have understood if you bothered to actually read. RMS's views on random subjects is just idle thoughts of a random dude, and nobody in any community owes anybody any care about what random dude once said about random subjects. If RMS were nominated for the Secretary of Health, then his views on reproductive decisions may be slightly more relevant. Call me back when that happens.

sascha_sl 6y ago
The point is that maybe you should stop doing a theoretical defense in 1000 words and head over to stallman.org and read up on the words you're defending first. It's really not that hard.
- smsm42 6y ago
  I know the words. The whole point is - for the third time - is not that those words aren't as bad as the Woko Haram on Twitter tries to present it, though this is also true. The point is even if they were what they claim, it still wouldn't be a reason for ruining somebody's life, because the whole concept of "people like that" is complete and utter bullshit. People are complex. Somehow most people people by now get that reducing somebody to their gender, or disability, or condition, or skin color, or ethnicity, or some other single trait is wrong. But it's still hard to get how reducing somebody to one single random statement - made years ago at that - is wrong. I am still not sure if it's performative obtuseness or geniune psychological blockage.