2 ms·

> 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 wh

> 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.

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.