4 ms·

Stallman raises some interesting points, but calling the Kindle a "Swindle" doesn't make for a very rational argument.

by basseq 11y ago

angersock 11y ago
s/Swindle/Kindle/g and you're back. Just because somebody picks abrasive plays-on-words doesn't make their rhetoric any less rational. Unpalatable and annoying, yes, but that's got nothing to do with the argument structure and statements themselves.
- doodpants 11y ago
  When people revert to name-calling it really rubs me the wrong way, and makes me less likely to take their objections seriously. Like when people write "Micro$oft", "Microshaft", "CrApple", etc. If you have rational objections to something, you don't need to resort to such childish tactics. ...Frankly, I'd prefer more rationality from Richard Trollman. ;-)
  - angersock 11y ago
    Oh, I absolutely agree about picking childish names! It's not particularly effective, and it does tend to lose your audience. Made-up names can be done with a wink-and-a-nod when punching up for great effect ("We had particular issues integrating with a vendor who we won't name but are a bit fruity--we'll call them Orange for the sake of comparison"), but usually it's done by people who aren't particularly bright. At the same time, there is kind of an open question as to how much power a name has. If we only ever use the proper trademarks for these folks, are we not always granting them a certain amount of legitimacy and respect?
  - basseq 11y ago
    I think legitimacy and respect go along with making a strong argument. If you resort to name-calling, the rest of your argument must not be strong enough—that's the perception, anyway. Amazon and Kindle are legitimate whether Stallman likes them or not. And I don't think—given the tone of the rest of the article—that anyone would confuse using the proper name of the product in question as respect.
ucaetano 11y ago
"very rational argument" Your expectations of Stallman are far too high...
philtar 11y ago
What he calls it really makes no difference to the actual argument. Only your perception of it.
- baddox 11y ago
  Given that this is very clearly intended as a persuasive article, perceptions are important.
- bdcravens 11y ago
  So if one says, "I see you bought the latest Samesong Fandroid Phony", it brings no noise to the conversation?
picks_at_nits 11y ago
So, are you saying that Stallman makes points 1, 2, 3, ... n, and many are interesting, but point 37 is irrational? Or are you saying that although many of the points are interesting, point 37 is irrational, therefore the entire thing--points 1 though n--is tainted?
- baddox 11y ago
  I'm not basseq, but I'm saying that making childish pun insults is not a prudent way to pose arguments, including valid arguments.
  - basseq 11y ago
    Barring a point-by-point analysis, his interesting points include: - Non-ethical corporate compliance with surveillance activities. - Pay-for-placement allegations. (Especially interesting given recent lawsuit for ratings spam.) - Warehouse worker treatment. - Monopolistic pricing power, particularly against small publishers. (Also ironic, as Amazon has given self-publishers a great platform.) Note that this is just a list of allegations: this isn't a particularly investigative piece. (Though several have been linked and/or published elsewhere.) Less valid arguments/rhetoric include: - Calling the Kindle a Swindle. (Cute, but I can't take your argument as a serious, objective view.) - Broad "freedom" arguments about file formats (PDF, MP3) and rights associated with same not originating with Amazon. - Auto-update as a "back-door". - Hosted content vs. owned content and the pros and cons therein. - Workers "walk all day under the orders of a computer". (Like Uber drivers drive all day under the orders of a computer?) - General competitiveness against bookstores and differences in business models. So I'm saying that Stallman makes N interesting points (albeit without much in the way of reasoning), another N points I find to be logically unsound, and that combination of factors lead to an overall "article" that isn't very impactful. The interesting points are still interesting.
  - picks_at_nits 11y ago
    Interesting that calling the Kindle a “Swindle” is vilified, yet an entire generation of techies called the TRS-80 the “Trash-80.” My conjecture is that if you are inclined to agree with someone’s negative point of view, rhetorical tricks like insulting nicknames will be well-received and will help frame the idea emotionally. But if you already disagree with someone, you’ll be even more annoyed by arguments that aren’t really arguments at all. My guess is that his nicknames won’t pay well to this audience, and also that they do better in some places than others. For example, blog post titles are usually so bad that people have very low expectations. “The Great Kindle Swindle” would probably fly as a post title, while calling the device an Amazon Swindle repeatedly might not.
0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago
Just being Stallman doesn't make for a rational argument. Edit: In much the same way that closed source software denies freedom. What I mean to say, is he has a reputation that might make things like rational argument more difficult.
amyjess 11y ago
Classic RMS: going out of his way to alienate people who might've ended up allies if not for his godawful tone, and then pitching a hissy fit about how the public isn't following him.
_broody 11y ago
It's very childish, which is sadly a recurring occurrence with Stallman at times. All of the tech giants (Apple/Google/MS/Facebook/etc.) are as shady as the Amazon described here on a regular basis even when it's completely unnecessary, unfortunately. Amazon has drawn a lot of bad publicity to itself due to the poor treatment of its blue collar workforce (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3641184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3641184 ), but I can't imagine the rest of the big players being any better... Only difference is that due to the nature of its operation, Amazon is forced to operate its sweatshops in U.S. soil.
ordinary 11y ago
Stallman strongly believes that the language you use in large part frames the debate you have. This belief is supported by a century of marketing research. Stallman's limitation in this regard is that he's not a marketing genius, and lacks the funds to hire one, so he's forced to resort to clunky puns like 'Swindle'.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Stallman strongly believes that the language you use in large part frames the debate you have. And he is correct: for instance, if you replace the names for things that your audience uses with your own hostile epithets that insert the conclusion of your arguments into the names you use for the things they refer to, you will have no debate at all, because the only audience that will bother to pay attention to you is the audience that already agreed with your conclusion when they encountered your argument. > Stallman's limitation in this regard is that he's not a marketing genius, and lacks the funds to hire one, so he's forced to resort to clunky puns like 'Swindle'. If the FSF can't afford to hire someone even modestly capable in the realm of communication and advocacy to advise its public faces, including its President, on their public advocacy efforts, maybe it ought to close up shop as an advocacy organization.
dethstar 11y ago
Stallman JUST loves puns https://stallman.org/puns.html https://stallman.org/puns.html
- chaosfactor 11y ago
  Stallman just LOVES puns https://stallman.org/puns.html https://stallman.org/puns.html
  - anonbanker 11y ago
    Facebook slightly relaxed its policy of requiring accounts to carry people's real names, under pressure from cross-dressers. The company feared they would leave the site, and then it would be unable to do drag net surveillance. doh!
SloopJon 11y ago
I think it's counterproductive, but this page explains his rationale: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html I sometimes make a point of saying "copy prevention" rather than "copy protection," or "digital restrictions management" rather than "digital rights management," but I don't go for stuff like "Swindle" or "Losedows."
- basseq 11y ago
  Awesome link. Difference between subverting a proper noun (Kindle) and subjective word choice. The first is clear cut: it's a proper noun! The second can be a fine line: you don't make a compelling argument about abortion by calling pro-choicers "pro-murder".
alfonsodev 11y ago
Reminds me https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s... SaaSS and SaaS: "... the term “Software as a Service” doesn't explain why the practice is bad. So we coined the term “Service as a Software Substitute”, which defines the bad practice more clearly and says what is bad about it" Bare in mind the FSF is poor, it doesn't have a marketing department behind.

Stallman raises some interesting points, but calling the Kindle a "Swindle" doesn't make for a very rational argument.

by basseq 11y ago

Stallman raises some interesting points, but calling the Kindle a "Swindle" doesn't make for a very rational argument.

s/Swindle/Kindle/g and you're back. Just because somebody picks abrasive plays-on-words doesn't make their rhetoric any less rational. Unpalatable and annoying, yes, but that's got nothing to do with the argument structure and statements themselves.

doodpants 11y ago
When people revert to name-calling it really rubs me the wrong way, and makes me less likely to take their objections seriously. Like when people write "Micro$oft", "Microshaft", "CrApple", etc. If you have rational objections to something, you don't need to resort to such childish tactics. ...Frankly, I'd prefer more rationality from Richard Trollman. ;-)
- angersock 11y ago
  Oh, I absolutely agree about picking childish names! It's not particularly effective, and it does tend to lose your audience. Made-up names can be done with a wink-and-a-nod when punching up for great effect ("We had particular issues integrating with a vendor who we won't name but are a bit fruity--we'll call them Orange for the sake of comparison"), but usually it's done by people who aren't particularly bright. At the same time, there is kind of an open question as to how much power a name has. If we only ever use the proper trademarks for these folks, are we not always granting them a certain amount of legitimacy and respect?
- basseq 11y ago
  I think legitimacy and respect go along with making a strong argument. If you resort to name-calling, the rest of your argument must not be strong enough—that's the perception, anyway. Amazon and Kindle are legitimate whether Stallman likes them or not. And I don't think—given the tone of the rest of the article—that anyone would confuse using the proper name of the product in question as respect.

ucaetano 11y ago

"very rational argument" Your expectations of Stallman are far too high...

philtar 11y ago

What he calls it really makes no difference to the actual argument. Only your perception of it.

baddox 11y ago
Given that this is very clearly intended as a persuasive article, perceptions are important.
bdcravens 11y ago
So if one says, "I see you bought the latest Samesong Fandroid Phony", it brings no noise to the conversation?

picks_at_nits 11y ago

So, are you saying that Stallman makes points 1, 2, 3, ... n, and many are interesting, but point 37 is irrational? Or are you saying that although many of the points are interesting, point 37 is irrational, therefore the entire thing--points 1 though n--is tainted?

baddox 11y ago
I'm not basseq, but I'm saying that making childish pun insults is not a prudent way to pose arguments, including valid arguments.
- basseq 11y ago
  Barring a point-by-point analysis, his interesting points include: - Non-ethical corporate compliance with surveillance activities. - Pay-for-placement allegations. (Especially interesting given recent lawsuit for ratings spam.) - Warehouse worker treatment. - Monopolistic pricing power, particularly against small publishers. (Also ironic, as Amazon has given self-publishers a great platform.) Note that this is just a list of allegations: this isn't a particularly investigative piece. (Though several have been linked and/or published elsewhere.) Less valid arguments/rhetoric include: - Calling the Kindle a Swindle. (Cute, but I can't take your argument as a serious, objective view.) - Broad "freedom" arguments about file formats (PDF, MP3) and rights associated with same not originating with Amazon. - Auto-update as a "back-door". - Hosted content vs. owned content and the pros and cons therein. - Workers "walk all day under the orders of a computer". (Like Uber drivers drive all day under the orders of a computer?) - General competitiveness against bookstores and differences in business models. So I'm saying that Stallman makes N interesting points (albeit without much in the way of reasoning), another N points I find to be logically unsound, and that combination of factors lead to an overall "article" that isn't very impactful. The interesting points are still interesting.
- picks_at_nits 11y ago
  Interesting that calling the Kindle a “Swindle” is vilified, yet an entire generation of techies called the TRS-80 the “Trash-80.” My conjecture is that if you are inclined to agree with someone’s negative point of view, rhetorical tricks like insulting nicknames will be well-received and will help frame the idea emotionally. But if you already disagree with someone, you’ll be even more annoyed by arguments that aren’t really arguments at all. My guess is that his nicknames won’t pay well to this audience, and also that they do better in some places than others. For example, blog post titles are usually so bad that people have very low expectations. “The Great Kindle Swindle” would probably fly as a post title, while calling the device an Amazon Swindle repeatedly might not.

0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago

Just being Stallman doesn't make for a rational argument. Edit: In much the same way that closed source software denies freedom. What I mean to say, is he has a reputation that might make things like rational argument more difficult.

amyjess 11y ago

Classic RMS: going out of his way to alienate people who might've ended up allies if not for his godawful tone, and then pitching a hissy fit about how the public isn't following him.

_broody 11y ago

It's very childish, which is sadly a recurring occurrence with Stallman at times. All of the tech giants (Apple/Google/MS/Facebook/etc.) are as shady as the Amazon described here on a regular basis even when it's completely unnecessary, unfortunately. Amazon has drawn a lot of bad publicity to itself due to the poor treatment of its blue collar workforce (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3641184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3641184 ), but I can't imagine the rest of the big players being any better... Only difference is that due to the nature of its operation, Amazon is forced to operate its sweatshops in U.S. soil.

ordinary 11y ago

Stallman strongly believes that the language you use in large part frames the debate you have. This belief is supported by a century of marketing research. Stallman's limitation in this regard is that he's not a marketing genius, and lacks the funds to hire one, so he's forced to resort to clunky puns like 'Swindle'.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Stallman strongly believes that the language you use in large part frames the debate you have. And he is correct: for instance, if you replace the names for things that your audience uses with your own hostile epithets that insert the conclusion of your arguments into the names you use for the things they refer to, you will have no debate at all, because the only audience that will bother to pay attention to you is the audience that already agreed with your conclusion when they encountered your argument. > Stallman's limitation in this regard is that he's not a marketing genius, and lacks the funds to hire one, so he's forced to resort to clunky puns like 'Swindle'. If the FSF can't afford to hire someone even modestly capable in the realm of communication and advocacy to advise its public faces, including its President, on their public advocacy efforts, maybe it ought to close up shop as an advocacy organization.

dethstar 11y ago

Stallman JUST loves puns https://stallman.org/puns.html https://stallman.org/puns.html

chaosfactor 11y ago
Stallman just LOVES puns https://stallman.org/puns.html https://stallman.org/puns.html
- anonbanker 11y ago
  Facebook slightly relaxed its policy of requiring accounts to carry people's real names, under pressure from cross-dressers. The company feared they would leave the site, and then it would be unable to do drag net surveillance. doh!

SloopJon 11y ago

I think it's counterproductive, but this page explains his rationale: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html I sometimes make a point of saying "copy prevention" rather than "copy protection," or "digital restrictions management" rather than "digital rights management," but I don't go for stuff like "Swindle" or "Losedows."

basseq 11y ago
Awesome link. Difference between subverting a proper noun (Kindle) and subjective word choice. The first is clear cut: it's a proper noun! The second can be a fine line: you don't make a compelling argument about abortion by calling pro-choicers "pro-murder".

alfonsodev 11y ago

Reminds me https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s... SaaSS and SaaS: "... the term “Software as a Service” doesn't explain why the practice is bad. So we coined the term “Service as a Software Substitute”, which defines the bad practice more clearly and says what is bad about it" Bare in mind the FSF is poor, it doesn't have a marketing department behind.