9 ms·

How about this, stated more simply: this defense of rms ignores his achievements and points out his shortcomings, and so fails to defend him effectively. By dis

How about this, stated more simply: this defense of rms ignores his achievements and points out his shortcomings, and so fails to defend him effectively. By discussing his social awkwardness instead of the free software ideas, organizations and artifacts that he worked for, we respect him as an individual in only a superficial way. This may be a defense against an ad hominem attack, but it's still an argument about the qualities of the man himself.

rictic 15y ago
There are plenty of people debating free software and championing various positions. It is fashionable to insult Stallman, that's unacceptable, and it's worth standing up against it.
dkarl 15y ago
I have two responses, one speaking to the social logic of the situation (which I think is essential to what's going on) and one speaking to his merits as a human being (which I think are a red herring.) I don't know how to relate them to each other, so I'll just lay them each out. First, the social logic. No amount of achievement makes you less of a dork. Bill Gates is an incredibly rich dork, but he's still a dork. Most of the country can revel in their superior social appeal, their superior ability to add life to a party and make every kind of social situation more easy and enjoyable than Bill Gates would. Oprah is rich and accomplished, but every skinny woman in America can read about Oprah's weight problems and think, "I may have my own problems, but at least I'm not Oprah." These things aren't amenable to reason. They go right back to childhood pecking orders and insecurities. It's just raw, ugly aggression, plain and simple. Second, though I think it's irrelevant to this childish mockery, the merits of the man. To make a case for Richard Stallman is to accept that his dorkiness is something that needs to be apologized and compensated for. Is it? By most accounts, he has worked hard to be a good ambassador for his ideas and has only tried to retain the aspie qualities that he felt were helpful for his life and his goals. Like any other person with a weakness, he can only be blamed to the extent that he indulges his weakness in a lax or perverse way. I've read enough about RMS to guess that he gets his fair share of legitimate criticism in that vein, but (as you would guess) the stuff that is noised about in public is always just mean and nasty, meant to ridicule and discredit him, not to push him to be better. Legitimate criticism deserves a legitimate answer. Bullying only deserves disdain. Bullying depends on the perception that it elevates the bully over the target, and we should make it clear that we don't see it that way, that it degrades the bullies and doesn't have the slightest pertinence to Richard Stallman himself.

rictic 15y ago

There are plenty of people debating free software and championing various positions. It is fashionable to insult Stallman, that's unacceptable, and it's worth standing up against it.

dkarl 15y ago

I have two responses, one speaking to the social logic of the situation (which I think is essential to what's going on) and one speaking to his merits as a human being (which I think are a red herring.) I don't know how to relate them to each other, so I'll just lay them each out. First, the social logic. No amount of achievement makes you less of a dork. Bill Gates is an incredibly rich dork, but he's still a dork. Most of the country can revel in their superior social appeal, their superior ability to add life to a party and make every kind of social situation more easy and enjoyable than Bill Gates would. Oprah is rich and accomplished, but every skinny woman in America can read about Oprah's weight problems and think, "I may have my own problems, but at least I'm not Oprah." These things aren't amenable to reason. They go right back to childhood pecking orders and insecurities. It's just raw, ugly aggression, plain and simple. Second, though I think it's irrelevant to this childish mockery, the merits of the man. To make a case for Richard Stallman is to accept that his dorkiness is something that needs to be apologized and compensated for. Is it? By most accounts, he has worked hard to be a good ambassador for his ideas and has only tried to retain the aspie qualities that he felt were helpful for his life and his goals. Like any other person with a weakness, he can only be blamed to the extent that he indulges his weakness in a lax or perverse way. I've read enough about RMS to guess that he gets his fair share of legitimate criticism in that vein, but (as you would guess) the stuff that is noised about in public is always just mean and nasty, meant to ridicule and discredit him, not to push him to be better. Legitimate criticism deserves a legitimate answer. Bullying only deserves disdain. Bullying depends on the perception that it elevates the bully over the target, and we should make it clear that we don't see it that way, that it degrades the bullies and doesn't have the slightest pertinence to Richard Stallman himself.