4 ms·

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

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?
        ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
        > No. The purpose of FSF is not to be demagogues and bend at every whim of the mob. By him discussing it publicly he did exactly that. Everybody likes to think their opinion stems from pure reason and logic while everybody else is just an angry mob driven by pure hysteria, but he was just as full of shit as any other random person talking about it. However, he was a public figure speaking about it publicly. If he had just shut his mouth, he would have been doing what you insisted he actually did. Giving a shit doesn't mean you have to be an activist. Sometimes you just need to recognize that you don't know any better than anyone else, and especially if you're a public figure, keep your mouth shut. > Public opinion is driven by gossip and yellow press Public opinion being based on yellow journalism and gossip means it's bullshit, but it absolutely doesn't mean it's inconsequential. > 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? I explicitly answered these questions. As a public figure-- someone whose words are read and commented on by many people-- I think it's pretty obvious that his public statements affect public opinion. You still didn't provide any real answer to whether you think that a) public opinion isn't consequential (as opposed to truthful or trustworthy,) or b) whether public figures don't influence public opinion with public statements. So? If you do think public opinion is consequential but don't understand how a public figure publicly questioning the account of an alleged a rape victim constitutes stepping on someone, I'm not sure what to say.

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?
      - ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
        > No. The purpose of FSF is not to be demagogues and bend at every whim of the mob. By him discussing it publicly he did exactly that. Everybody likes to think their opinion stems from pure reason and logic while everybody else is just an angry mob driven by pure hysteria, but he was just as full of shit as any other random person talking about it. However, he was a public figure speaking about it publicly. If he had just shut his mouth, he would have been doing what you insisted he actually did. Giving a shit doesn't mean you have to be an activist. Sometimes you just need to recognize that you don't know any better than anyone else, and especially if you're a public figure, keep your mouth shut. > Public opinion is driven by gossip and yellow press Public opinion being based on yellow journalism and gossip means it's bullshit, but it absolutely doesn't mean it's inconsequential. > 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? I explicitly answered these questions. As a public figure-- someone whose words are read and commented on by many people-- I think it's pretty obvious that his public statements affect public opinion. You still didn't provide any real answer to whether you think that a) public opinion isn't consequential (as opposed to truthful or trustworthy,) or b) whether public figures don't influence public opinion with public statements. So? If you do think public opinion is consequential but don't understand how a public figure publicly questioning the account of an alleged a rape victim constitutes stepping on someone, I'm not sure what to say.