“I better not see anyone here doing XYZ or else I’ll ABC” is the complete construction of the phrase you use. In parenting, this phrase typically replaces ABC with “punish you”, “hit you”, “spank you”. Your construction buries the implied violence of that phrase by leaving off the “or else”, but that does not resolve the inappropriateness of threatening “or else” on this forum.
I dunno. I read it as ABC is "call you a hypocrite". I mean it's strong phrasing, but ... your concern seems more of a personal hot-button.
Whether violent ABC or nonviolent ABC, “I’d better not see XYZ or else ABC” is equally inappropriate here regardless.
Here[0] is a post by someone else who (by his own account) "worked for RMS longer than any other programmer." While he obviously has had a long relationship with Stallman, one of his key takeaways was: "RMS’s loss of MIT privileges and leadership of the FSF are the appropriate responses to a pattern of decades of poor behavior. It does not matter if they are appropriate responses to a single email thread, because the…
I must admit I didn't know who Mr. Bushnell was, so I looked him up. Finding out about his dismissal from GNU Hurd back in 2003 was quite ironic to me: > RMS has now "dismissed" me as Hurd maintainer because I have publicly spoken against the GFDL, saying that a GNU maintainer must support and speak in favor of GNU policies. If this is really RMS's reason, then it means that he demands the right to control the speech…
So it is safe to say that at least some of the people eager to see Stallman burn have a grudge with him. In other words, they are not being objective.
If you read the article she notes that the infamous "hot ladies" photo was the result of someone else writing and then snapping that shot of his office door. People only see what they want to see. I see a bunch of people beating up on and attacking an awkward "nerd". It reminds me of high school.
But on Twitter all you see is this; https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1172283772428906496?s=21
That thread definitely has a lot of interesting information. Some things seem kind of off though... but in general it seems mostly fair.
Imagine the world if Stallman had been excommunicated from tech after the first awkward/offensive interaction he had with someone. I sure wouldn’t. Tangentially: I better not see anyone here lionize Steve Jobs ever again, because he inflicted actual physical trauma on people. He didn’t just piss them off with his failure to recognize social cues.
Imagine the world where that person that didn't do the thing in tech because of an "awkward/offensive interaction" with Stallman did that thing. Imagine that multiplied by all the someones that didn't do any of the things that had an awkward/offensive interaction with Stallman did those things. These behaviours, ESPECIALLY by someone in such a influential position in our industry, have a chilling effect on every pers…
He’s autistic. Suddenly the people who were annoyingly vocal about being “inclusive” are forgetting Stallman’s disability. He says “creepy” things because he doesn’t understand social cues or casual communication at a certain level. Everyone in this thread demonizing RMS should be ashamed of themselves. This is the same reason why he can’t hold a relationship, or why he sleeps in his office. He’s just far out there -…
Is he actually autistic? Or is it a convenient diagnosis people give him to excuse his behavior? (I can't find any actual reference to him being autistic on the web. Please enlighten me.)
Easily the most autistic person I know. No contest.
“I better not see anyone here doing XYZ or else I’ll ABC” is the complete construction of the phrase you use. In parenting, this phrase typically replaces ABC with “punish you”, “hit you”, “spank you”. Your construction buries the implied violence of that phrase by leaving off the “or else”, but that does not resolve the inappropriateness of threatening “or else” on this forum.
I’m glad to see you enjoy policing language as much as Stallman’s detractors. Most would consider it “rude” to invent something out of thin air that was not actually said and ascribe “violence” of intent to it - but, again, seems right in line with this thread .
Please complete your construction; it’s missing the “or else” phrase that is required for it to be interpreted without guessing.
Your phrase was:
> I better not see anyone here lionize Steve Jobs ever again.
Without an “or else” construction, this phrase is not parseable English. Why is “better” present if it is not a command-tone declaration upon others? What reason exists to say this if it is not intended to imply “or else you’ll regret it”, either nonviolently or violently? What precise regret do you imply that anyone who “lionizes” will suffer?
The blackface discussion isn't taboo, it's just been discussed to death and there's only one reasonable position. Google minstrel shows. The history of blackface is one of mocking black people. There is no way to "logically" argue that it isn't offensive because there are no facts to back up that claim.
Yeah, and often it comes from a place of skepticism, not from a place of trying to understand. And also from a place of laziness, where the skeptic expects the marginalized person to explain why the behavior or speech is harmful, and explain it in a way that is acceptable to the skeptic. All the while the understanding is a short Google search away.
The problem is it's selectively applied. I can just as easily argue that rap music as "harmful" and what they said were "terrible" things, and yet there is no public outrage over that. In western society, it seems, thugs are exempt from all the politically correct standards that the rest of us are expected to abide by.
there's a large contingent of people on hn (in tech, in the world) that fetishize "logic" and believe it always trumps "feelings". i put both in quotes because to this contingent both of those concepts have absolutely zero relation to their actual form. i too used to be quite fond of making completely dispassionate arguments about controversial things (race, gender, class, etc.) because i believed that the entire con…
The whole point of rational dispassionate discussion is exactly because everyone has their own subjective feelings and experiences and biases. You have to put them aside to have a useful discussion. Prioritizing personal experience and saying “you cant know what its like if youre not X” is a bad bad social meme. I mean lets pretend its true. So what? It doesn’t advance the discussion at all, its only purpose is to en…
There's actually a well-developed practice at holding discussions where people's feelings are deliberately included--marital or group counseling, integrative negotation, conflict resolution strategies, etc. Recognizing that people's feeling are always somewhat involved, we have the dialectical tools to work with them, because the purely dispassionate approach you believe is the sole path to truth is something that most learn, sooner or later, rarely works and rarely satisfies.
there's a large contingent of people on hn (in tech, in the world) that fetishize "logic" and believe it always trumps "feelings". i put both in quotes because to this contingent both of those concepts have absolutely zero relation to their actual form. i too used to be quite fond of making completely dispassionate arguments about controversial things (race, gender, class, etc.) because i believed that the entire con…
I'm amused that this very wise very true comment is downvoted on HN. 20 year old me would have downvoted it. 40 year old me recognizes it as obvious and has a divorce to show for it. There's no way 20 year old me would have believed 40 year old me, though.
This was very much my take on the comment. I also think that, if you're over 30 and don't look back on a lot of what you thought at 20 and cringe a bit, you're probably missing something. Same goes for being over 40 and looking back at 30, etc., etc.