4 ms·

How about attacking an argument instead of a man?

Kye 3y ago
There's a reason every famous civil rights protest in the last century or so started with someone carefully chosen to stage it. A poor quality advocate can get in the way of change.
- hn_thrwn 3y ago
  [dead]
- modo_mario 3y ago
  I can't think of a lot of em that moderated their views towards a middleground vis a vis the status quo or were not on some fronts called dogmatic so I find this a bit of a lacking comparison. For example: "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
brookst 3y ago
As the top comment notes, the FSF is not about an argument, it is a about a man. In that case it seems fair to hold the debate on the same topic FSF advocates are so passionate about.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >the FSF is not about an argument, it is a about a man we're still talking about the Free Software Foundation, correct? I don't know if I can agree with this angle. It's like saying Linux is about Linus Torvalds. Sure, he was and is a very influential part of the project, but it has grown far, far past him.

Kye 3y ago

There's a reason every famous civil rights protest in the last century or so started with someone carefully chosen to stage it. A poor quality advocate can get in the way of change.

hn_thrwn 3y ago
[dead]
modo_mario 3y ago
I can't think of a lot of em that moderated their views towards a middleground vis a vis the status quo or were not on some fronts called dogmatic so I find this a bit of a lacking comparison. For example: "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

brookst 3y ago

As the top comment notes, the FSF is not about an argument, it is a about a man. In that case it seems fair to hold the debate on the same topic FSF advocates are so passionate about.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>the FSF is not about an argument, it is a about a man we're still talking about the Free Software Foundation, correct? I don't know if I can agree with this angle. It's like saying Linux is about Linus Torvalds. Sure, he was and is a very influential part of the project, but it has grown far, far past him.