5 ms·

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

by 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.

CapitalistCartr 14y ago
In your second paragraph, you have affect in the first sentence, and effect in the last. They should be reversed.
phaus 14y ago
It's not a straw man. MLK realized after the fact, that if he had started with a smaller, more specific political goal in mind, he might have succeeded. That doesn't mean that he abandoned his values. No one should suggest that Stallman should have to change his beliefs. Instead, he should realize that his goal is pretty much impossible to accomplish in the current political climate. Because it is impossible, he should seek to achieve the smaller goal of successfully reforming patent law, because a small win is better than a big loss. It doesn't mean that you have given up, it just means that you realize that you aren't going to win the war in a single day. I think the point that they were trying to make was that accepting reality and compromising ones beliefs are two different things. It's unrealistic to act as if you can enter a conflict with a party that thinks you are 100 percent wrong, and successfully negotiate an agreement that gets you 100 percent of what you wanted. But minds can be changed over time. If we can place limits on software patents, and the changes prove themselves to be conducive to a healthy economy, then we will have an easier time convincing people that the copyright system is causing more harm than good.
- tankbot 14y ago
  > That doesn't mean that he abandoned his values. This was exactly my point. The parent was suggesting that MLK compromised on his stance but presented only evidence of a change in tactics. I agree completely with your other assertions. I think it would help to distinguish that there are really 2 arguments happening here, muddying the waters: Unwavering belief and unwavering actions. I personally think that unwavering belief in something is commendable and this is where my comments have come from. I think this is necessary in order to effect any real change as the process is usually long and arduous. Unwavering commitment to a losing tactic, as danso points out, is stubborn and foolish. A person who is unable to adapt when facing challenges does no favors for their cause.
  - phaus 14y ago
    > There are really 2 arguments...Unwavering belief and unwavering actions. This is what I was trying to get across, but you expressed it much more concisely than I.
- rjbond3rd 14y ago
  > But minds can be changed over time. This would seem to require -some- people to be unwavering.
danso 14y ago
I think we're not going to agree on what constitutes a change in principles by the time this thread leaves the homepage, so I've tried to narrow the scenario, which I guess leaves it open to being seen as a strawman. But consider the gist of MLK's situation: 1) His primary goal was to create equality among whites and minorities. I'll agree that he never wavered from that. In the same way, every major figure on either side of the abortion debate, at every point in the continuum, will argue that they've never wavered for their respect for human life. The problem is getting to that big goal, and that path almost always requires wavering. 2) In support of my point, the idea of desegregation was so big that organizing a campaign against it devolved into a messy unorganized effort (current-day example: Occupy Wall street). When he tried to campaign against ending desegregation in Albany, he had very little success. He underestimated the widespread opposition to such a sea change. 3) In Birmingham, he changed his strategy to attack obvious injustices that moderately conservative whites could back. Yes, changing the bus-seating policy is a form of desegregation, but it was possible to change that policy and still have Jim Crow laws still be the law of the land. So if you were an observer of the civil rights movement at that time, yet outside of King's inner circle, what could you possibly conclude except that from Albany to Birmingham, MLK has moderated his stance against desegregation? Certainly, as the audience that MLK wanted to reach -- the white status quo -- you could get on board with treating blacks more decently, as long as they didn't go to the same schools your kids do. It's only after the successes of these limited campaigns that King himself could be seen as a successful leader of the movement. His strategy to fight small battles as to be more palatable to segregation-supporting whites was critical...and it was politics. Politics is about compromise and choosing battles wisely. The problem with your argument is that you don't see that one man's "choosing battles and running away to fight another day" is another man's "spineless flip-flopping appeasement", which MLK certainly was accused of being. It's only through the passage of time, when all those events are compressed into a convenient explanatory narrative, that you can think of it as MLK Jr. being a constant, unwavering political force.
- tankbot 14y ago
  I think our argument is over 2 separate issues (see below) which is causing confusion. I agree with you that approach and tactics should be malleable. But I maintain that commitment to core beliefs needs to be strong and unwavering. I'm also impressed by your knowledge of the Civil Rights movement. I'm not sure that it sheds a lot of light on the current argument, but your comments are definitely a good read.
bitwize 14y ago
RMS hasn't changed tactics after failure despite being told -- and shown -- that his tactics are ineffective by fellow traveler Eric Raymond. That's where Stallman's stubbornness bites him in the ass.
- koide 14y ago
  Bah, for ten thousand Raymonds you get one Stallman. Both approaches are needed. Diplomacy will get you further short term, but unwavering commitment will be able to change things in a more sustainable way, longer term.

by tankbot 14y ago

CapitalistCartr 14y ago

In your second paragraph, you have affect in the first sentence, and effect in the last. They should be reversed.

phaus 14y ago

It's not a straw man. MLK realized after the fact, that if he had started with a smaller, more specific political goal in mind, he might have succeeded. That doesn't mean that he abandoned his values. No one should suggest that Stallman should have to change his beliefs. Instead, he should realize that his goal is pretty much impossible to accomplish in the current political climate. Because it is impossible, he should seek to achieve the smaller goal of successfully reforming patent law, because a small win is better than a big loss. It doesn't mean that you have given up, it just means that you realize that you aren't going to win the war in a single day. I think the point that they were trying to make was that accepting reality and compromising ones beliefs are two different things. It's unrealistic to act as if you can enter a conflict with a party that thinks you are 100 percent wrong, and successfully negotiate an agreement that gets you 100 percent of what you wanted. But minds can be changed over time. If we can place limits on software patents, and the changes prove themselves to be conducive to a healthy economy, then we will have an easier time convincing people that the copyright system is causing more harm than good.

tankbot 14y ago
> That doesn't mean that he abandoned his values. This was exactly my point. The parent was suggesting that MLK compromised on his stance but presented only evidence of a change in tactics. I agree completely with your other assertions. I think it would help to distinguish that there are really 2 arguments happening here, muddying the waters: Unwavering belief and unwavering actions. I personally think that unwavering belief in something is commendable and this is where my comments have come from. I think this is necessary in order to effect any real change as the process is usually long and arduous. Unwavering commitment to a losing tactic, as danso points out, is stubborn and foolish. A person who is unable to adapt when facing challenges does no favors for their cause.
- phaus 14y ago
  > There are really 2 arguments...Unwavering belief and unwavering actions. This is what I was trying to get across, but you expressed it much more concisely than I.
rjbond3rd 14y ago
> But minds can be changed over time. This would seem to require -some- people to be unwavering.

danso 14y ago

I think we're not going to agree on what constitutes a change in principles by the time this thread leaves the homepage, so I've tried to narrow the scenario, which I guess leaves it open to being seen as a strawman. But consider the gist of MLK's situation: 1) His primary goal was to create equality among whites and minorities. I'll agree that he never wavered from that. In the same way, every major figure on either side of the abortion debate, at every point in the continuum, will argue that they've never wavered for their respect for human life. The problem is getting to that big goal, and that path almost always requires wavering. 2) In support of my point, the idea of desegregation was so big that organizing a campaign against it devolved into a messy unorganized effort (current-day example: Occupy Wall street). When he tried to campaign against ending desegregation in Albany, he had very little success. He underestimated the widespread opposition to such a sea change. 3) In Birmingham, he changed his strategy to attack obvious injustices that moderately conservative whites could back. Yes, changing the bus-seating policy is a form of desegregation, but it was possible to change that policy and still have Jim Crow laws still be the law of the land. So if you were an observer of the civil rights movement at that time, yet outside of King's inner circle, what could you possibly conclude except that from Albany to Birmingham, MLK has moderated his stance against desegregation? Certainly, as the audience that MLK wanted to reach -- the white status quo -- you could get on board with treating blacks more decently, as long as they didn't go to the same schools your kids do. It's only after the successes of these limited campaigns that King himself could be seen as a successful leader of the movement. His strategy to fight small battles as to be more palatable to segregation-supporting whites was critical...and it was politics. Politics is about compromise and choosing battles wisely. The problem with your argument is that you don't see that one man's "choosing battles and running away to fight another day" is another man's "spineless flip-flopping appeasement", which MLK certainly was accused of being. It's only through the passage of time, when all those events are compressed into a convenient explanatory narrative, that you can think of it as MLK Jr. being a constant, unwavering political force.

tankbot 14y ago
I think our argument is over 2 separate issues (see below) which is causing confusion. I agree with you that approach and tactics should be malleable. But I maintain that commitment to core beliefs needs to be strong and unwavering. I'm also impressed by your knowledge of the Civil Rights movement. I'm not sure that it sheds a lot of light on the current argument, but your comments are definitely a good read.

bitwize 14y ago

RMS hasn't changed tactics after failure despite being told -- and shown -- that his tactics are ineffective by fellow traveler Eric Raymond. That's where Stallman's stubbornness bites him in the ass.

koide 14y ago
Bah, for ten thousand Raymonds you get one Stallman. Both approaches are needed. Diplomacy will get you further short term, but unwavering commitment will be able to change things in a more sustainable way, longer term.