7 ms·

> Only in the movies. You mean the movies made about people who were unwavering in real life? Gandhi, MLK, Lincoln are a few high-profile figures that spring

by tankbot 14y ago

> Only in the movies. You mean the movies made about people who were unwavering in real life? Gandhi, MLK, Lincoln are a few high-profile figures that spring to mind, but there are countless throughout history who have made a difference by standing up for what they believe in. I understand your point, that romanticized notions rarely have a place in reality. But I think Stallman, even with all of his eccentricities, is the perfect figurehead for these ideologies. He is a believer, and that gives others permission to believe themselves. It's a very powerful thing.

jfb 14y ago
The idea that Lincoln was some kind of ideological purist is utter nonsense.
- tankbot 14y ago
  True. I almost didn't include Lincoln because of this. But even if Lincoln hated black people outright (highly unlikely), history remembers him (somewhat incorrectly) as a believer in human rights. In reality he was probably just trying to hold the U.S. together and prevent the South's succession. But if this is the case, then it was his belief in his country that motivated him and that qualifies Lincoln as a believer. In my mind that was enough to not delete his name after typing it. :)
  - luser001 14y ago
    I used to think this until I read book The Long Pursuit. It's highly likely that Lincoln thought slavery was intrinsically bad. It's a thin-ish book and I highly recommend it. http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-Pursuit-Lincolns-Thirty-Year/dp/B001PO6AZY http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-Pursuit-Lincolns-Thirty-Year/...
gnufied 14y ago
I think we Indians will spend a lifetime correcting "Ghandi" as "Gandhi". :-) EDIT: To add to the discussion - not many people are aware but MK Gandhi was indeed very thorough in his use of Non-Violence and other means of protest. On few occasions when a protest became violent he was the first to call off the protest. When most of India & Pakistan were celebrating their independence he was busy caring to people affected by Hindi/Muslim riots. Having unwavering attitude is not just stuff of movies.
- tankbot 14y ago
  Haha, I knew it as soon as I hit reply. My apologies, corrected. :)
- Ntrails 14y ago
  If you take "Gandhi" I'll take "they're, there, and their"
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    I'll take "it's" and "its".
    - quorn3000 14y ago
      You have those the wrong way around.
- danso 14y ago
  From Gandhi himself: > There is no such thing as "Gandhism," and I do not want to leave any sect after me. I do not claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply tried in my own way to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems... >> The opinions I have formed and the conclusions I have arrived at are not final. I may change them tomorrow. << I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and non-violence are as old as the hills.[120] (emphasis mine) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Principles.2C_practices_and_beliefs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Prin...
danso 14y ago
I think we can safely remove Lincoln from this discussion...in any case, all of the above made compromises in their stances and approaches. Not because they were weak-willed, but because they were wrong and were wise enough to change tack. MLK Jr's early campaign to desegregate the city of Albany, Ga., for example, is usually considered to have been a failure (in terms of return on investment) because the political dream of desegregating the entire city was seen as too big to effectively organize a campaign for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_movement > “The mistake I made there was to protest against segregation generally rather than against a single and distinct facet of it. Our protest was so vague that we got nothing, and the people were left very depressed and in despair” (“Martin Luther King: A Candid Conversation”). http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_albany_movement/ http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclo... What followed, of course, were the Birmingham bus boycotts and other campaigns with a much more limited scope. To me, this represents a "waver." In retrospect, we can say that MLK was just changing tactics and he never wavered in his belief against segregation...but is that something you would've guessed if you were one of his contemporaries? Or would you have thought, like many of his anti-segregationist rivals, that MLK was being an "Uncle Tom" and deliberately aiming for small-victories as to not upset the white status quo? It's easy to say "Well, MLK was unwavering all along" 50 years later...but had his smaller campaigns not gone so well (and he was most definitely not the only person making inroads in the civil rights movement) and resulted in only localized successes, then we would be viewing MLK as a man of compromise today. The larger point is that effective revolutions encompass a large degree of compromises. Sometimes a leader will give on something to reduce the number of opponents he/she has to face. So to the original commenter's point, it is not admirable in politics (art and martyrdom is a different thing) to be unwavering, at least by those who practice it and want a real degree of success.
- tankbot 14y ago
  Well articulated, but super thin. MLK changing tactics after failure is not evidence of wavering resolve or belief, only a recognition that those tactics were not effective. This is a straw man. And with respect to "art and martyrdom" - These figures, all of them, had a very real degree of success affecting political change. The fact that they are martyrs is secondary and the argument could be made that they were martyred because of their political success. In fact, these 3 sprang instantly to mind when I wrote my original comment specifically because I think it's possible (not necessarily probable) that RMS could join them in both regards. Successfully banning patents on software could potentially effect a lot of people's wallets and history has shown this to be a good motivator for creating martyrs.
tveita 14y ago
> You mean the movies made about people who were unwavering in real life? Gandhi, MLK, Lincoln are a few high-profile figures that spring to mind, [...] Gandhi actually has some interesting quotes on this topic, e.g. http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap07.htm http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap07.htm Some picks: "I have sacrificed no principle to gain a political advantage." "All my life through, the very insistence on truth has taught me to appreciate the beauty of compromise. I saw in later life that this spirit was an essential part of satyagraha. It has often meant endangering my life and incurring the displeasure of friends. But truth is hard as adamant and tender as a blossom." "Human life is a series of compromises, and it is not always easy to achieve in practice what one has found to be true in theory." "My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statements on a given question, but to be consistent with truth as it may present itself to me at a given moment. The result has been that I have grown from truth to truth." I read him as saying that you can be uncompromising on your core principles while still being neither uncompromising nor adamant in your opinion. In particular, I think that "On basically all political issues, unwavering is a good attribute" is a common and dangerous perception, in that it denies you the opportunity of admitting that you were wrong. If you change your stance after learning more, or even after the underlying situation has changed, you will be accused of flip-flopping and inconsistency.
Androsynth 14y ago
> You mean the movies made about people who were unwavering in real life? .. Lincoln I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know how he is being portrayed in current pop-culture, but the only thing Lincoln was unwavering in his support of was keeping the Union intact. That is generally not the issue that he was considered 'unwavering' on, but it is. Anyway, kind of OT.

by tankbot 14y ago

jfb 14y ago

The idea that Lincoln was some kind of ideological purist is utter nonsense.

tankbot 14y ago
True. I almost didn't include Lincoln because of this. But even if Lincoln hated black people outright (highly unlikely), history remembers him (somewhat incorrectly) as a believer in human rights. In reality he was probably just trying to hold the U.S. together and prevent the South's succession. But if this is the case, then it was his belief in his country that motivated him and that qualifies Lincoln as a believer. In my mind that was enough to not delete his name after typing it. :)
- luser001 14y ago
  I used to think this until I read book The Long Pursuit. It's highly likely that Lincoln thought slavery was intrinsically bad. It's a thin-ish book and I highly recommend it. http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-Pursuit-Lincolns-Thirty-Year/dp/B001PO6AZY http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-Pursuit-Lincolns-Thirty-Year/...

gnufied 14y ago

I think we Indians will spend a lifetime correcting "Ghandi" as "Gandhi". :-) EDIT: To add to the discussion - not many people are aware but MK Gandhi was indeed very thorough in his use of Non-Violence and other means of protest. On few occasions when a protest became violent he was the first to call off the protest. When most of India & Pakistan were celebrating their independence he was busy caring to people affected by Hindi/Muslim riots. Having unwavering attitude is not just stuff of movies.

tankbot 14y ago
Haha, I knew it as soon as I hit reply. My apologies, corrected. :)
Ntrails 14y ago
If you take "Gandhi" I'll take "they're, there, and their"
- StavrosK 14y ago
  I'll take "it's" and "its".
  - quorn3000 14y ago
    You have those the wrong way around.
danso 14y ago
From Gandhi himself: > There is no such thing as "Gandhism," and I do not want to leave any sect after me. I do not claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply tried in my own way to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems... >> The opinions I have formed and the conclusions I have arrived at are not final. I may change them tomorrow. << I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and non-violence are as old as the hills.[120] (emphasis mine) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Principles.2C_practices_and_beliefs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Prin...

danso 14y ago

I think we can safely remove Lincoln from this discussion...in any case, all of the above made compromises in their stances and approaches. Not because they were weak-willed, but because they were wrong and were wise enough to change tack. MLK Jr's early campaign to desegregate the city of Albany, Ga., for example, is usually considered to have been a failure (in terms of return on investment) because the political dream of desegregating the entire city was seen as too big to effectively organize a campaign for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_movement > “The mistake I made there was to protest against segregation generally rather than against a single and distinct facet of it. Our protest was so vague that we got nothing, and the people were left very depressed and in despair” (“Martin Luther King: A Candid Conversation”). http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_albany_movement/ http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclo... What followed, of course, were the Birmingham bus boycotts and other campaigns with a much more limited scope. To me, this represents a "waver." In retrospect, we can say that MLK was just changing tactics and he never wavered in his belief against segregation...but is that something you would've guessed if you were one of his contemporaries? Or would you have thought, like many of his anti-segregationist rivals, that MLK was being an "Uncle Tom" and deliberately aiming for small-victories as to not upset the white status quo? It's easy to say "Well, MLK was unwavering all along" 50 years later...but had his smaller campaigns not gone so well (and he was most definitely not the only person making inroads in the civil rights movement) and resulted in only localized successes, then we would be viewing MLK as a man of compromise today. The larger point is that effective revolutions encompass a large degree of compromises. Sometimes a leader will give on something to reduce the number of opponents he/she has to face. So to the original commenter's point, it is not admirable in politics (art and martyrdom is a different thing) to be unwavering, at least by those who practice it and want a real degree of success.

tankbot 14y ago
Well articulated, but super thin. MLK changing tactics after failure is not evidence of wavering resolve or belief, only a recognition that those tactics were not effective. This is a straw man. And with respect to "art and martyrdom" - These figures, all of them, had a very real degree of success affecting political change. The fact that they are martyrs is secondary and the argument could be made that they were martyred because of their political success. In fact, these 3 sprang instantly to mind when I wrote my original comment specifically because I think it's possible (not necessarily probable) that RMS could join them in both regards. Successfully banning patents on software could potentially effect a lot of people's wallets and history has shown this to be a good motivator for creating martyrs.

tveita 14y ago

> You mean the movies made about people who were unwavering in real life? Gandhi, MLK, Lincoln are a few high-profile figures that spring to mind, [...] Gandhi actually has some interesting quotes on this topic, e.g. http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap07.htm http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap07.htm Some picks: "I have sacrificed no principle to gain a political advantage." "All my life through, the very insistence on truth has taught me to appreciate the beauty of compromise. I saw in later life that this spirit was an essential part of satyagraha. It has often meant endangering my life and incurring the displeasure of friends. But truth is hard as adamant and tender as a blossom." "Human life is a series of compromises, and it is not always easy to achieve in practice what one has found to be true in theory." "My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statements on a given question, but to be consistent with truth as it may present itself to me at a given moment. The result has been that I have grown from truth to truth." I read him as saying that you can be uncompromising on your core principles while still being neither uncompromising nor adamant in your opinion. In particular, I think that "On basically all political issues, unwavering is a good attribute" is a common and dangerous perception, in that it denies you the opportunity of admitting that you were wrong. If you change your stance after learning more, or even after the underlying situation has changed, you will be accused of flip-flopping and inconsistency.

Androsynth 14y ago

> You mean the movies made about people who were unwavering in real life? .. Lincoln I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know how he is being portrayed in current pop-culture, but the only thing Lincoln was unwavering in his support of was keeping the Union intact. That is generally not the issue that he was considered 'unwavering' on, but it is. Anyway, kind of OT.