5 ms·

There's an argument to be made that they shouldn't actively make other things worse in the process of pursuing their own cause. It's the difference between "we

by blep_ 4y ago

There's an argument to be made that they shouldn't actively make other things worse in the process of pursuing their own cause. It's the difference between "we're not actively campaigning for improvements around climate change because that's not our thing" (morally neutral, probably) and "unlimited free intercontinental supersonic jet flights around the world for people who license their work under the GPL" (may encourage GPL usage but at a high cost in pollution). (Controversial thread disclaimer: this is a counterargument solely to your comment, and not an expression of any particular opinion outside of what I explicitly wrote here.)

bheadmaster 4y ago
> There's an argument to be made that they shouldn't actively make other things worse in the process of pursuing their own cause. To make such an argument, you first have to demonstrate how exactly is FSF making other things worse. Of course, "not doing anything to help X" is not the same as "actively making X worse".
- ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
  You don't have to be an activist just because you give a damn. Being a good citizen in the world means caring enough about other people to not trample them. Not caring simply means not bothering to check if you're stepping on people and not changing course once you found out that you have. For example, having a spokesperson who some people actually listen to publicly question whether a very young woman coerced by Jeffrey Epstein into having sex with his friend can justifiably say she was "assaulted." If he actually cared as much about his social impact as his friend's justifiably ruined reputation, he'd have just shut his mouth at the very least. If you think that's an unreasonable expectation then that's just sad.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    How exactly does RMS voicing his thoughts and opinions make anything worse? You mention the phrase "stepping on people". What exactly do you mean by that - both in general, and in the specific case you've mentioned? Do you mean that people don't like his words, and he's figuratively "stepping on them" by expressing his thoughts? Because it seems to me that the only argument against him is that "some people don't like his words". If there is anything more to it, I'd really like to know.
    - ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
      Do you think the court of public opinion is consequential? If not, why did he make those public statements in support of his friend? The accusation is almost certainly true, and a public figure publicly casting doubt upon and minimizing the woman's claims is consequential. If he was talking privately among friends or some random person whose words had no more influence than the next person, then who gives a shit. That's not the case.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        So it's just the case of "some people don't like his words"?
        ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
        So this is just a case of "I'm glibly dismissing the question."
        bheadmaster 4y ago
        > Do you think the court of public opinion is consequential? No. The purpose of FSF is not to be demagogues and bend at every whim of the mob. Public opinion is driven by gossip and yellow press, not by facts and original sources - which was clearly demonstrated when the yellow press accused RMS of saying the girl who approached Minsky was "entirely willing", when all he said is that many scenarios are possible, but he believed that it was plausible that she was directed by Epstein to "present herself as entirely willing" - which was not nearly the same, but was taken out of context by the yellow press in order to destroy his reputation. Now please apply the same principle to yourself and stop avoiding the questions that I have asked: > How exactly does RMS voicing his thoughts and opinions make anything worse? > You mention the phrase "stepping on people". What exactly do you mean by that - both in general, and in the specific case you've mentioned? Do you mean that people don't like his words, and he's figuratively "stepping on them" by expressing his thoughts?

by blep_ 4y ago

bheadmaster 4y ago

> There's an argument to be made that they shouldn't actively make other things worse in the process of pursuing their own cause. To make such an argument, you first have to demonstrate how exactly is FSF making other things worse. Of course, "not doing anything to help X" is not the same as "actively making X worse".

ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
You don't have to be an activist just because you give a damn. Being a good citizen in the world means caring enough about other people to not trample them. Not caring simply means not bothering to check if you're stepping on people and not changing course once you found out that you have. For example, having a spokesperson who some people actually listen to publicly question whether a very young woman coerced by Jeffrey Epstein into having sex with his friend can justifiably say she was "assaulted." If he actually cared as much about his social impact as his friend's justifiably ruined reputation, he'd have just shut his mouth at the very least. If you think that's an unreasonable expectation then that's just sad.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  How exactly does RMS voicing his thoughts and opinions make anything worse? You mention the phrase "stepping on people". What exactly do you mean by that - both in general, and in the specific case you've mentioned? Do you mean that people don't like his words, and he's figuratively "stepping on them" by expressing his thoughts? Because it seems to me that the only argument against him is that "some people don't like his words". If there is anything more to it, I'd really like to know.
  - ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
    Do you think the court of public opinion is consequential? If not, why did he make those public statements in support of his friend? The accusation is almost certainly true, and a public figure publicly casting doubt upon and minimizing the woman's claims is consequential. If he was talking privately among friends or some random person whose words had no more influence than the next person, then who gives a shit. That's not the case.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      So it's just the case of "some people don't like his words"?
      - ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
        So this is just a case of "I'm glibly dismissing the question."
        bheadmaster 4y ago
        > Do you think the court of public opinion is consequential? No. The purpose of FSF is not to be demagogues and bend at every whim of the mob. Public opinion is driven by gossip and yellow press, not by facts and original sources - which was clearly demonstrated when the yellow press accused RMS of saying the girl who approached Minsky was "entirely willing", when all he said is that many scenarios are possible, but he believed that it was plausible that she was directed by Epstein to "present herself as entirely willing" - which was not nearly the same, but was taken out of context by the yellow press in order to destroy his reputation. Now please apply the same principle to yourself and stop avoiding the questions that I have asked: > How exactly does RMS voicing his thoughts and opinions make anything worse? > You mention the phrase "stepping on people". What exactly do you mean by that - both in general, and in the specific case you've mentioned? Do you mean that people don't like his words, and he's figuratively "stepping on them" by expressing his thoughts?