5 ms·

> people who are known for x, e.g., their opinions on FOSS, should stay in their lane Sorry, but no. You don’t get to put people in lanes. They real issue is

by sshine 4y ago

> people who are known for x, e.g., their opinions on FOSS, should stay in their lane Sorry, but no. You don’t get to put people in lanes. They real issue is, once you grow a following, whatever you say will be magnified. It doesn’t matter what you mean when you broadcast; you have gradually less control of what is understood. So you need to think about how things are received. Eccentrics have it hard.

hammyhavoc 4y ago
I'm not putting anyone in their lane, I'm saying they should stay in it if they want to continue doing what they're doing otherwise at some point it's going to inevitably turn to shit for them. Do I want to hear what x thinks about y if y isn't x's area of expertise? No, I'd rather hear from someone whose area of expertise is actually y, otherwise why am I being presented that information like it's somehow meaningful having come from x because they have a following? It's a logical fallacy. Cults of personality are damaging to the causes they purport to support through their activism.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > Do I want to hear what x thinks about y if y isn't x's area of expertise? No, I'd rather hear from someone whose area of expertise is actually y, otherwise why am I being presented that information like it's somehow meaningful having come from x because they have a following? So don't listen to him?
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    Who says I do? You seem to miss the point of my comment entirely. If talking heads want to continue doing what they're doing, they should stick to what they know about and keep their opinions on sex between adults and minors to themselves. Given his age and eloquence, there was absolutely zero excusing what's been said. OK, he "learned" from it after being effectively cancelled and pushed out of doing what he does, but so what? Somebody who purports to be a source of moral righteousness who judges others and tells others how to live in terms of software and what services and hardware they use had an appalling take on something very important, ergo maybe they aren't someone to listen to anymore if they couldn't reign themselves in over something so basic.
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago
      > You seem to miss the point of my comment entirely. You are correct. In fact, I've still missed your point. If you don't want to hear what x thinks about y if y isn't x's area of expertise, then the simple solution is just not to listen to x. If you're not listening to Stallman (as you seem to imply here), I don't see how there is a problem here at all.
      - hammyhavoc 4y ago
        The problem is that his uninformed bad takes outside of his area of expertise damages his activism within software and diminishes any of his contributions to software. A second problem is placing value upon what he has to say because there's a cult of personality surrounding him as an intellectual, but the reality is that his area of expertise and rationality is in fact niche and specific rather than general, as evidenced by his comments.
        CogitoCogito 4y ago
        > The problem is that his uninformed bad takes outside of his area of expertise damages his activism within software and diminishes any of his contributions to software. I don't see how his comments diminished his contributions to software. They were entirely irrelevant to his contributions to software. > A second problem is placing value upon what he has to say because there's a cult of personality surrounding him as an intellectual, but the reality is that his area of expertise and rationality is in fact niche and specific rather than general, as evidenced by his comments. I'm still not really understanding your point here. I agree his expertise does not extend to the subjects on which he famously opined. For that reason, I mostly ignored what he had to say on this subject.

by sshine 4y ago

hammyhavoc 4y ago

I'm not putting anyone in their lane, I'm saying they should stay in it if they want to continue doing what they're doing otherwise at some point it's going to inevitably turn to shit for them. Do I want to hear what x thinks about y if y isn't x's area of expertise? No, I'd rather hear from someone whose area of expertise is actually y, otherwise why am I being presented that information like it's somehow meaningful having come from x because they have a following? It's a logical fallacy. Cults of personality are damaging to the causes they purport to support through their activism.

CogitoCogito 4y ago
> Do I want to hear what x thinks about y if y isn't x's area of expertise? No, I'd rather hear from someone whose area of expertise is actually y, otherwise why am I being presented that information like it's somehow meaningful having come from x because they have a following? So don't listen to him?
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Who says I do? You seem to miss the point of my comment entirely. If talking heads want to continue doing what they're doing, they should stick to what they know about and keep their opinions on sex between adults and minors to themselves. Given his age and eloquence, there was absolutely zero excusing what's been said. OK, he "learned" from it after being effectively cancelled and pushed out of doing what he does, but so what? Somebody who purports to be a source of moral righteousness who judges others and tells others how to live in terms of software and what services and hardware they use had an appalling take on something very important, ergo maybe they aren't someone to listen to anymore if they couldn't reign themselves in over something so basic.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    > You seem to miss the point of my comment entirely. You are correct. In fact, I've still missed your point. If you don't want to hear what x thinks about y if y isn't x's area of expertise, then the simple solution is just not to listen to x. If you're not listening to Stallman (as you seem to imply here), I don't see how there is a problem here at all.
    - hammyhavoc 4y ago
      The problem is that his uninformed bad takes outside of his area of expertise damages his activism within software and diminishes any of his contributions to software. A second problem is placing value upon what he has to say because there's a cult of personality surrounding him as an intellectual, but the reality is that his area of expertise and rationality is in fact niche and specific rather than general, as evidenced by his comments.
      - CogitoCogito 4y ago
        > The problem is that his uninformed bad takes outside of his area of expertise damages his activism within software and diminishes any of his contributions to software. I don't see how his comments diminished his contributions to software. They were entirely irrelevant to his contributions to software. > A second problem is placing value upon what he has to say because there's a cult of personality surrounding him as an intellectual, but the reality is that his area of expertise and rationality is in fact niche and specific rather than general, as evidenced by his comments. I'm still not really understanding your point here. I agree his expertise does not extend to the subjects on which he famously opined. For that reason, I mostly ignored what he had to say on this subject.