4 ms·

"Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another or the practice of claiming to have moral standards or

"Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another or the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform." RMS is as close to the opposite of hypocrite as it gets. He definitely practices what he preaches to the degree that he used a slow Loongson when he couldn't get an Intel machine with free BIOS, for example. He might not act diplomatic, be way outside social norms, or not people-please, but that does not make him a hypocrite.

jtbayly 5y ago
He borrows people’s mobile phones and uses them. Like the Amish. Both condemn certain tech, but then use it. Both are not being honest, but hypocrites.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  I really don't see Amish as hypocritical when they hire a car or take the train. They are using the absolute minimum of tech that lets them get on with their life, I suppose Stallman is doing the same when he borrows a phone, otherwise avoiding them to the best of his ability.
- mehrdada 5y ago
  To portray RMS as "against tech" is a very misleading characterization of him (he is an OS developer after all). To judge someone as a hypocrite, you have to first understand (1) what they say, (2) how they act, and then (3) compare the two. I don't think he ever said "don't use tech". You are vastly mischaracterizing what his position is.
  - ska 5y ago
    > To portray RMS as "against tech" is a very misleading characterization of him It's also a poor characterization of the anabaptists, for that matter - they are not in general against technology but against the impacts of particular technology (nothing to do with RMS's concerns, theirs are about community). For example, some anabaptist communities disallow cars, some allow them in limited ways, some allow them completely - but this is decided based not on a doctrine but on their communities evaluation on the impact of peoples housing spreading apart...
  - jtbayly 5y ago
    Both condemn certain tech. You are vastly mischaracterizing the few sentences I wrote. In the case of RMS it is non-free software tech. In the case of the Amish it is many kinds of tech and depends (as the child comment mentions) on the community. One community I lived among they weren’t allowed to own phones, but they would borrow them all the time. To call everybody to stop using non-free software phones while depending on thise same people to own them and let you borrow them in order to live is hypocritical. Sorry if that bothers you.
Osiris 5y ago
Everything has software. If he follows his ideology that everything he uses be open source then he can't do anything except live off completely off grid without anything that has a semi conductor in it. No electric meter at his house, no internet (even if his router is running open source, the ISP he's connected to certainly isn't), no transportation of any kind, no entertainment of any kind, no shopping of any kind (inventory management, cash registers, logistics). The equipment used to manufacture all the pieces of his precious decade old laptop was running proprietary software (not to mention all the small firmwares like wifi and Ethernet controllers). You cannot escape it. So, we should be pragmatic about it. We should push for it, but realize that it's impossible to live in society without interacting with closed source software.
- dylan604 5y ago
  >no transportation of any kind How do you figure this. Cars did not always have computers in them, and you can still find older cars available. >The equipment used to manufacture all the pieces of Who actually cares about this? The consumer should only care about the thing produced.
  - splitstud 5y ago
    People who can't formulate values from first principles.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      This isn't children sewing soccer balls with their teeth type of principles. This is a machine controlled by code the end user doesn't get access to building another thing the user actually buys that has no closed code in it. Who cares how the thing was built using whatever software to control the things to build the product? That software affects the end user in no way other than to produce the thing. That's like in an entirely different universe than running code on your computing device where you should be able to decide who/what/when/where type of questions. Telling a manufacturing company to do something regarding their software in their processes is out of this world insane. It is their software after all, so your freedom to run stuff your way should also reciprocate to them doing what they will with theirs.
Osiris 5y ago
He never talks about running open source CPU microcode. That's the ultimate attack vector.
- mehrdada 5y ago
  With all due respect, I don't believe you are familiar with RMS positions. I'd argue most people who have not followed him closely and haven't carefully listened to what his PoV is, have a very hand-wavy understanding of the nuances of what he stands for. The fact that you talk about open source is the tell. The term "open source" was deliberately invented to de-emphasize what RMS cares about in favor of a business-friendly justification for why it benefits businesses to share source code with others. Open Source philosophy is not about emphasizing the user rights and ownership over their computers. And yes, he is concerned about microcode--he still uses a Core 2 Duo laptop that can work without the microcode blobs in firmware, as opposed to more modern processors, for that exact reason.
danudey 5y ago
He refuses to own a cell phone, because they're all closed-down, closed-source systems and that goes against his principles, but he's totally fine with using one when he needs to make a phone call. This comes across as startlingly performative. I thought I remembered other instances, but none of them come to mind and obviously googling has turned up a ton of opinion pieces without a lot of actual substantative points made, so I'll leave it at that; not enough to argue that he is, by his nature, a hypocrite, but also not 100% pure to his principles in every circumstance.
- Y_Y 5y ago
  He played Age of Empires II at a friend's house once. Is that enough? I think he makes a pretty big tradeoff that nobody else would, without completely shooting himself in the foot. Even if he had a fully FOSS phone, the people he called probably wouldn't. He's drawn the line far enough out that I don't doubt his sincerity.
- mehrdada 5y ago
  My point is you have to understand his principles first before calling him a hypocrite: in your cell phone example, the phone call he is making with someone else's phone is not depriving him of his freedom/privacy, but its owner's. He would likely advise and nudge the owner not to carry a cellphone for the owner's own benefit, in his capacity as an advocate, but if they have made the choice to carry one anyway, his use of someone else's cellphone for making a call is no different to him than utilizing a landline phone in his capacity as a user. In fact, he has stated his principles/policies publicly and clearly, and someone posted it here as well. He never says "You are not supposed to use someone else's cellphone, but it's okay when I use it." That would make him a hypocrite. Thus your example is a strawman here, with the implicit assumption that he has said "you ought not to use any cellphone" which he never said. I think most misunderstandings of RMS come from the fact that people project on him what they think he would say and how he would act, not what he actually says and how he actually acts; while assuming he is merely some sort of activist engaging in civil disobedience and boycott, just trying to make a point and show the world a pure example of how to live. The way he should actually be thought of is he is fighting a war against people building proprietary software that, based on his theory, inevitably will lead to unjust power over users' lives through control over their devices. He is very pragmatic in that sense and willing to take any strategic advantage he can get in that fight, not deprive himself of that just to make a point. My understanding is at the beginning he used proprietary UNIX compilers to build GCC, for example.

jtbayly 5y ago

He borrows people’s mobile phones and uses them. Like the Amish. Both condemn certain tech, but then use it. Both are not being honest, but hypocrites.

jazzyjackson 5y ago
I really don't see Amish as hypocritical when they hire a car or take the train. They are using the absolute minimum of tech that lets them get on with their life, I suppose Stallman is doing the same when he borrows a phone, otherwise avoiding them to the best of his ability.
mehrdada 5y ago
To portray RMS as "against tech" is a very misleading characterization of him (he is an OS developer after all). To judge someone as a hypocrite, you have to first understand (1) what they say, (2) how they act, and then (3) compare the two. I don't think he ever said "don't use tech". You are vastly mischaracterizing what his position is.
- ska 5y ago
  > To portray RMS as "against tech" is a very misleading characterization of him It's also a poor characterization of the anabaptists, for that matter - they are not in general against technology but against the impacts of particular technology (nothing to do with RMS's concerns, theirs are about community). For example, some anabaptist communities disallow cars, some allow them in limited ways, some allow them completely - but this is decided based not on a doctrine but on their communities evaluation on the impact of peoples housing spreading apart...
- jtbayly 5y ago
  Both condemn certain tech. You are vastly mischaracterizing the few sentences I wrote. In the case of RMS it is non-free software tech. In the case of the Amish it is many kinds of tech and depends (as the child comment mentions) on the community. One community I lived among they weren’t allowed to own phones, but they would borrow them all the time. To call everybody to stop using non-free software phones while depending on thise same people to own them and let you borrow them in order to live is hypocritical. Sorry if that bothers you.

Osiris 5y ago

Everything has software. If he follows his ideology that everything he uses be open source then he can't do anything except live off completely off grid without anything that has a semi conductor in it. No electric meter at his house, no internet (even if his router is running open source, the ISP he's connected to certainly isn't), no transportation of any kind, no entertainment of any kind, no shopping of any kind (inventory management, cash registers, logistics). The equipment used to manufacture all the pieces of his precious decade old laptop was running proprietary software (not to mention all the small firmwares like wifi and Ethernet controllers). You cannot escape it. So, we should be pragmatic about it. We should push for it, but realize that it's impossible to live in society without interacting with closed source software.

dylan604 5y ago
>no transportation of any kind How do you figure this. Cars did not always have computers in them, and you can still find older cars available. >The equipment used to manufacture all the pieces of Who actually cares about this? The consumer should only care about the thing produced.
- splitstud 5y ago
  People who can't formulate values from first principles.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    This isn't children sewing soccer balls with their teeth type of principles. This is a machine controlled by code the end user doesn't get access to building another thing the user actually buys that has no closed code in it. Who cares how the thing was built using whatever software to control the things to build the product? That software affects the end user in no way other than to produce the thing. That's like in an entirely different universe than running code on your computing device where you should be able to decide who/what/when/where type of questions. Telling a manufacturing company to do something regarding their software in their processes is out of this world insane. It is their software after all, so your freedom to run stuff your way should also reciprocate to them doing what they will with theirs.

Osiris 5y ago

He never talks about running open source CPU microcode. That's the ultimate attack vector.

mehrdada 5y ago
With all due respect, I don't believe you are familiar with RMS positions. I'd argue most people who have not followed him closely and haven't carefully listened to what his PoV is, have a very hand-wavy understanding of the nuances of what he stands for. The fact that you talk about open source is the tell. The term "open source" was deliberately invented to de-emphasize what RMS cares about in favor of a business-friendly justification for why it benefits businesses to share source code with others. Open Source philosophy is not about emphasizing the user rights and ownership over their computers. And yes, he is concerned about microcode--he still uses a Core 2 Duo laptop that can work without the microcode blobs in firmware, as opposed to more modern processors, for that exact reason.

danudey 5y ago

He refuses to own a cell phone, because they're all closed-down, closed-source systems and that goes against his principles, but he's totally fine with using one when he needs to make a phone call. This comes across as startlingly performative. I thought I remembered other instances, but none of them come to mind and obviously googling has turned up a ton of opinion pieces without a lot of actual substantative points made, so I'll leave it at that; not enough to argue that he is, by his nature, a hypocrite, but also not 100% pure to his principles in every circumstance.

Y_Y 5y ago
He played Age of Empires II at a friend's house once. Is that enough? I think he makes a pretty big tradeoff that nobody else would, without completely shooting himself in the foot. Even if he had a fully FOSS phone, the people he called probably wouldn't. He's drawn the line far enough out that I don't doubt his sincerity.
mehrdada 5y ago
My point is you have to understand his principles first before calling him a hypocrite: in your cell phone example, the phone call he is making with someone else's phone is not depriving him of his freedom/privacy, but its owner's. He would likely advise and nudge the owner not to carry a cellphone for the owner's own benefit, in his capacity as an advocate, but if they have made the choice to carry one anyway, his use of someone else's cellphone for making a call is no different to him than utilizing a landline phone in his capacity as a user. In fact, he has stated his principles/policies publicly and clearly, and someone posted it here as well. He never says "You are not supposed to use someone else's cellphone, but it's okay when I use it." That would make him a hypocrite. Thus your example is a strawman here, with the implicit assumption that he has said "you ought not to use any cellphone" which he never said. I think most misunderstandings of RMS come from the fact that people project on him what they think he would say and how he would act, not what he actually says and how he actually acts; while assuming he is merely some sort of activist engaging in civil disobedience and boycott, just trying to make a point and show the world a pure example of how to live. The way he should actually be thought of is he is fighting a war against people building proprietary software that, based on his theory, inevitably will lead to unjust power over users' lives through control over their devices. He is very pragmatic in that sense and willing to take any strategic advantage he can get in that fight, not deprive himself of that just to make a point. My understanding is at the beginning he used proprietary UNIX compilers to build GCC, for example.