3 ms·

He advocates his views loudly, but he's not trying to impose anything to anyone. He's judgmental towards those who don't share them, though. Maybe that's what

by pygy_ 15y ago

He advocates his views loudly, but he's not trying to impose anything to anyone. He's judgmental towards those who don't share them, though. Maybe that's what you mean when you say he's conformist? Technology is not all there is to oppression, for sure, but he's doing his part as a programmer to prevent it. The creation of the GNU movement, and subsequently of the FSF stems from a personal grief: the demise of the MIT AI lab during the Lisp machines wars. You can read more about it here: http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/109 http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/109

lispm 15y ago
the 'demise of the MIT AI Lab'? WTF?
- pygy_ 15y ago
  Yup, demise is too strong. Not a native speaker. I thought it was a suitable synonym for "ruin" (Stallman's term).
  - lispm 15y ago
    This would be something that would make sense: 'the demise of the Hacker culture at the MIT AI Lab.'
b1daly 15y ago
Thanks for the link, it does give more context for where Stallman is coming from. It's a poignant story. It's a tricky question about personal ethics and judgement. Is it possible for someone to have personal ethics that don't implicitly include the concept that everyone should share them? I'm not sure. Anyhow, yes I am referring to the RMS's judgmentalness in my (what I meant to be ironic) reference to "conformist." My understanding of the meaning of "conformism" is that it refers to the use of emotional, social, and behavioral methods that a dominant group use to coerce others who think, act differently than they want them to. RMS's ideas of morality are very much addressed towards the behavior of others and how he thinks people "should" act. The irony is that if many people adopted the ethics of RMS, I am positing that this would create a very conformist society (at least in regards to the proper use of technology). The MIT Labs story is illustrative. The other protagonists in the story did not act how Stallman wanted them to, and hurt him (and others too). If others act in ways that hurt you or others, I can see how you can choose to define their behavior unethical. But you could also say they just behaved in ways that you didn't like, and hurt you. Everyone has their own idea of ethics, and where various lines are drawn about moral/amoral/immoral. It's interesting to see the down votes I am getting. I was starting to feel upset, but I guess it's just part of the method of discussion here? A short of shorthand to disagree? It's true I am a newbie to the Hacker News site, so if I am out of bounds on the discussion I apologize.

by pygy_ 15y ago

lispm 15y ago

the 'demise of the MIT AI Lab'? WTF?

pygy_ 15y ago
Yup, demise is too strong. Not a native speaker. I thought it was a suitable synonym for "ruin" (Stallman's term).
- lispm 15y ago
  This would be something that would make sense: 'the demise of the Hacker culture at the MIT AI Lab.'

b1daly 15y ago

Thanks for the link, it does give more context for where Stallman is coming from. It's a poignant story. It's a tricky question about personal ethics and judgement. Is it possible for someone to have personal ethics that don't implicitly include the concept that everyone should share them? I'm not sure. Anyhow, yes I am referring to the RMS's judgmentalness in my (what I meant to be ironic) reference to "conformist." My understanding of the meaning of "conformism" is that it refers to the use of emotional, social, and behavioral methods that a dominant group use to coerce others who think, act differently than they want them to. RMS's ideas of morality are very much addressed towards the behavior of others and how he thinks people "should" act. The irony is that if many people adopted the ethics of RMS, I am positing that this would create a very conformist society (at least in regards to the proper use of technology). The MIT Labs story is illustrative. The other protagonists in the story did not act how Stallman wanted them to, and hurt him (and others too). If others act in ways that hurt you or others, I can see how you can choose to define their behavior unethical. But you could also say they just behaved in ways that you didn't like, and hurt you. Everyone has their own idea of ethics, and where various lines are drawn about moral/amoral/immoral. It's interesting to see the down votes I am getting. I was starting to feel upset, but I guess it's just part of the method of discussion here? A short of shorthand to disagree? It's true I am a newbie to the Hacker News site, so if I am out of bounds on the discussion I apologize.