5 ms·

Sometimes bad things are being done, by bad people, and those things and people should be spoken of harshly, not in neutral, Vulcan-like delivery. Rossmann can

Sometimes bad things are being done, by bad people, and those things and people should be spoken of harshly, not in neutral, Vulcan-like delivery. Rossmann can be a bit severe, but nearly always with good reason: the people he's speaking ill of are generally crooks of one kind or another. Of course, speaking or writing with nothing BUT appeals to emotion is vacuous and cynical, and the horde of youtube grifters that have sprung up to make money off getting people wound up are trash. But unlike them, Rossmann actually has well-considered content behind his passion, not just hot air.

0xbadcafebee 5y ago
Having a well-reasoned argument doesn't justify abusive language. And just because there are bad people in the world doesn't mean it's okay to treat them badly. Sometimes abuse and badness are necessary, such as in war or for self-defense. But when it's not necessary, it shouldn't be used just because you find yourself on the convenient side of the moral picket fence.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- imperialdrive 5y ago
  A well-reasoned person can handle abusive language, especially at the level you're comparing Rossman too. If you're comparing what Rossman outputs to the level of abuse and badness found in war or self-defense... well... think about that and maybe edit the comment afterwards.
- asddubs 5y ago
  is his language abusive? I would say it's abrasive, but I don't really see how it's abusing anyone except maybe large faceless companies. He doesn't really go after specific individuals
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Right-to-Repair is such a wonderful idea stained by people such as Rossmann IMO. Contrast this with EFF and iFixit's approach and contribution to this movement. > Sometimes abuse and badness are necessary Sure, but we tend to only support this argument as far as it echoes in our echo chambers. We've silenced right-wing social media and a bunch of other "abuse and badness" and HN gives a green ticket to it. Some of it is truly horrifying, but there was a lot of collateral damage to freedom of expression and speech. I don't support badness and abuse. Protesting for a cause is more about gaining support for the cause and convincing people that are against it. It is a "pull" model, not "push". By pushing harder, you're creating more echo chambers of vile, contemptful vigilente justice damaging the original cause and making no progress at it. Self defeating.
  - vimacs2 5y ago
    You're using an awful lot of adjectives but so far, no concrete examples. What specific statements has Rossmann made that could be genuinely construed as "vile, contemptful vigilante justice"? I also completely disagree that we should ever sugercoat our language when addressing practices that have clear malice and greed behind them. Prioritising the feelings of some millionaire/billionaire shareholder over the thousands to millions of customers being exploited and short-changed smells of messed up priorities frankly. The only people this approach genuinely "pushes" away are a group that you cannot expect to act in good faith in the first place - the companies deliberately obstructing the right to repair. You don't ask them nicely to do something they have zero profit motivation towards. You force them by enacting legislation or creating enough of a backlash that they calculate that supporting Right to Repair is better for their bottom line.
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      > The only people this approach genuinely "pushes" away are a group that you cannot expect to act in good faith in the first place - the companies deliberately obstructing the right to repair. This is true, fair enough. The incentives aren't aligned here for big corporations. My points about protesting were more generic and beyond R2R initiative. You make good points that being nice to large corporations isn't going to achieve anything. But, would getting angry do anything? I am not quite convinced because regular Joe is going to buy that shiny piece of unrepairable equipment. We're just so used to throw-away culture, problem is much deeper. Both - businesses as well as consumers are to blame. Unfortunately, the slice of consumers that care about R2R is vanishingly small.

0xbadcafebee 5y ago

Having a well-reasoned argument doesn't justify abusive language. And just because there are bad people in the world doesn't mean it's okay to treat them badly. Sometimes abuse and badness are necessary, such as in war or for self-defense. But when it's not necessary, it shouldn't be used just because you find yourself on the convenient side of the moral picket fence.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
imperialdrive 5y ago
A well-reasoned person can handle abusive language, especially at the level you're comparing Rossman too. If you're comparing what Rossman outputs to the level of abuse and badness found in war or self-defense... well... think about that and maybe edit the comment afterwards.
asddubs 5y ago
is his language abusive? I would say it's abrasive, but I don't really see how it's abusing anyone except maybe large faceless companies. He doesn't really go after specific individuals
systemvoltage 5y ago
Right-to-Repair is such a wonderful idea stained by people such as Rossmann IMO. Contrast this with EFF and iFixit's approach and contribution to this movement. > Sometimes abuse and badness are necessary Sure, but we tend to only support this argument as far as it echoes in our echo chambers. We've silenced right-wing social media and a bunch of other "abuse and badness" and HN gives a green ticket to it. Some of it is truly horrifying, but there was a lot of collateral damage to freedom of expression and speech. I don't support badness and abuse. Protesting for a cause is more about gaining support for the cause and convincing people that are against it. It is a "pull" model, not "push". By pushing harder, you're creating more echo chambers of vile, contemptful vigilente justice damaging the original cause and making no progress at it. Self defeating.
- vimacs2 5y ago
  You're using an awful lot of adjectives but so far, no concrete examples. What specific statements has Rossmann made that could be genuinely construed as "vile, contemptful vigilante justice"? I also completely disagree that we should ever sugercoat our language when addressing practices that have clear malice and greed behind them. Prioritising the feelings of some millionaire/billionaire shareholder over the thousands to millions of customers being exploited and short-changed smells of messed up priorities frankly. The only people this approach genuinely "pushes" away are a group that you cannot expect to act in good faith in the first place - the companies deliberately obstructing the right to repair. You don't ask them nicely to do something they have zero profit motivation towards. You force them by enacting legislation or creating enough of a backlash that they calculate that supporting Right to Repair is better for their bottom line.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    > The only people this approach genuinely "pushes" away are a group that you cannot expect to act in good faith in the first place - the companies deliberately obstructing the right to repair. This is true, fair enough. The incentives aren't aligned here for big corporations. My points about protesting were more generic and beyond R2R initiative. You make good points that being nice to large corporations isn't going to achieve anything. But, would getting angry do anything? I am not quite convinced because regular Joe is going to buy that shiny piece of unrepairable equipment. We're just so used to throw-away culture, problem is much deeper. Both - businesses as well as consumers are to blame. Unfortunately, the slice of consumers that care about R2R is vanishingly small.