4 ms·

Let's suppose that Glenn Beck died. What a lot of people, including me, would think is that while we didn't wish for him to die, the world of "politics" is much

by vvpan 15y ago

Let's suppose that Glenn Beck died. What a lot of people, including me, would think is that while we didn't wish for him to die, the world of "politics" is much better off without him. I think this is the way Stallman feels about Jobs. I really don't see why people say that this is "tactless".

pg 15y ago
The key is the difference between thinking it and saying it.
- MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
  If we can't say what we think, then we don't really have freedom, do we? :c
  - YuriNiyazov 15y ago
    I can't figure out if you are serious or not, because that is such a naive statement. But either way, obligatory PG essay link in case you are unfamiliar. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
    - joshes 15y ago
      It would be helpful if you could enumerate the ways in which his/her statement was naive. It seems to be a relatively logical conclusion that being told or influenced not to say something is restrictive of innate freedom of speech, no matter how seemingly innocuous a reasoning established social or cultural norms are (ie. don't criticize the recently deceased, it's tactless).
      - pg 15y ago
        It was naive in not seeming to grasp that there are many senses of "can't" and "freedom," and that the sentence could be either true or false depending on which you mean.
    - MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
      You're right, it is a very naive statement. But it's also a very serious one; the freedom to speak one's mind is the entire topic of this discussion, and I am of the opinion that freedom of speech is so important that it should be a reserved right, inalienable and indelible. That was a good essay. I liked it. What conclusions did you want me to draw from it?
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - YuriNiyazov 15y ago
        Much like brlewis said in his response to the GP, no one said that RMS can't say what he thinks: he will not be hauled away to labor camp for saying it. However, the other topic of this discussion is that the rest of the community has the freedom to pass judgment on tactless people like RMS, which is exactly what's happening.
        MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
        I see. Thank you.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - damoncali 15y ago
    Discretion does not imply constraint.
  - brlewis 15y ago
    Freedom is the presence of choices. It is not the absence of people passing judgement on our choices.
loup-vaillant 15y ago
Some idols you just don't criticise right after they died. That is an insult to their memory, and to whatever makes them an idol in the first place. Steve Jobs was such an idol. His media-foo was impressive, even after he passed away. Every soul in the western world old enough to talk knew about his death at most 30 hours after his last breath. Therefore, you just don't criticize Steve jobs until next spring. I know of another way of being a tactless jerk: criticizing a religion. It won't change the fact that there is almost certainly no God, though. Edit: I am being sarcastic here. Let me rephrase: > Some idols you just can't criticise right after they died without causing serious backlash. > I know of another way of being perceived as a tactless jerk. To be clear, Steve Jobs was a champion of Treacherous Computing, and there is no God. I suggest those I have just offended to turn on their brains. (I said "those I have just offended", not "those who disagree with my statement".)
- Daishiman 15y ago
  Why? I don't own and I don't like Apple products. Most people I know don't own Apple products and they don't have any impact whatsoever. I respect a lot of aspects about Jobs' life, but making a successful software and hardware company is no more important a milestone than any other. If anything, Stallman's legacy will probably be felt for much longer into the future.
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
    I was being half sarcastic. I wanted to point out the religiosity around Apple. People read Stallman's statement, saw that it was about Steve Jobs doing bad things, and just shut down their brains. Some nearly accused Stallman of being happy about Job's death. Of course those strong reactions are totally unjustified. And despite what pg seem to suggest above, Stallman is very probably justified in doing his comment: Steve Jobs is being a martyr, and martyrs are nearly always a good thing for the cause they defend (here, the locked-down model of the iPhone and the iPad). The error of Stallman was purely strategic (or tactic). He didn't foresee that people wouldn't read what he wrote as he wrote it. He didn't foresee that they would quote him out of context. He didn't foresee the near-total lack of rationality of Apple fanboys. The problem is, I don't know how I could have avoided those mistakes if I were Stallman.
cgag 15y ago
Yeah I've never understood the controversy here. He viewed Jobs as an enemy to the cause, why should he be pretend to be upset that he's no longer doing harm?

by vvpan 15y ago

pg 15y ago

The key is the difference between thinking it and saying it.

MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
If we can't say what we think, then we don't really have freedom, do we? :c
- YuriNiyazov 15y ago
  I can't figure out if you are serious or not, because that is such a naive statement. But either way, obligatory PG essay link in case you are unfamiliar. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
  - joshes 15y ago
    It would be helpful if you could enumerate the ways in which his/her statement was naive. It seems to be a relatively logical conclusion that being told or influenced not to say something is restrictive of innate freedom of speech, no matter how seemingly innocuous a reasoning established social or cultural norms are (ie. don't criticize the recently deceased, it's tactless).
    - pg 15y ago
      It was naive in not seeming to grasp that there are many senses of "can't" and "freedom," and that the sentence could be either true or false depending on which you mean.
  - MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
    You're right, it is a very naive statement. But it's also a very serious one; the freedom to speak one's mind is the entire topic of this discussion, and I am of the opinion that freedom of speech is so important that it should be a reserved right, inalienable and indelible. That was a good essay. I liked it. What conclusions did you want me to draw from it?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - YuriNiyazov 15y ago
      Much like brlewis said in his response to the GP, no one said that RMS can't say what he thinks: he will not be hauled away to labor camp for saying it. However, the other topic of this discussion is that the rest of the community has the freedom to pass judgment on tactless people like RMS, which is exactly what's happening.
      - MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
        I see. Thank you.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- damoncali 15y ago
  Discretion does not imply constraint.
- brlewis 15y ago
  Freedom is the presence of choices. It is not the absence of people passing judgement on our choices.

loup-vaillant 15y ago

Some idols you just don't criticise right after they died. That is an insult to their memory, and to whatever makes them an idol in the first place. Steve Jobs was such an idol. His media-foo was impressive, even after he passed away. Every soul in the western world old enough to talk knew about his death at most 30 hours after his last breath. Therefore, you just don't criticize Steve jobs until next spring. I know of another way of being a tactless jerk: criticizing a religion. It won't change the fact that there is almost certainly no God, though. Edit: I am being sarcastic here. Let me rephrase: > Some idols you just can't criticise right after they died without causing serious backlash. > I know of another way of being perceived as a tactless jerk. To be clear, Steve Jobs was a champion of Treacherous Computing, and there is no God. I suggest those I have just offended to turn on their brains. (I said "those I have just offended", not "those who disagree with my statement".)

Daishiman 15y ago
Why? I don't own and I don't like Apple products. Most people I know don't own Apple products and they don't have any impact whatsoever. I respect a lot of aspects about Jobs' life, but making a successful software and hardware company is no more important a milestone than any other. If anything, Stallman's legacy will probably be felt for much longer into the future.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  I was being half sarcastic. I wanted to point out the religiosity around Apple. People read Stallman's statement, saw that it was about Steve Jobs doing bad things, and just shut down their brains. Some nearly accused Stallman of being happy about Job's death. Of course those strong reactions are totally unjustified. And despite what pg seem to suggest above, Stallman is very probably justified in doing his comment: Steve Jobs is being a martyr, and martyrs are nearly always a good thing for the cause they defend (here, the locked-down model of the iPhone and the iPad). The error of Stallman was purely strategic (or tactic). He didn't foresee that people wouldn't read what he wrote as he wrote it. He didn't foresee that they would quote him out of context. He didn't foresee the near-total lack of rationality of Apple fanboys. The problem is, I don't know how I could have avoided those mistakes if I were Stallman.

cgag 15y ago

Yeah I've never understood the controversy here. He viewed Jobs as an enemy to the cause, why should he be pretend to be upset that he's no longer doing harm?