What an unmitigated asshole...seriously RMS, go fuck yourself. (I had something more pithy to write but I think this captures the essence better)
Seriously... You are just too weak to hear some honest opinions.
Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts
191–200 of 266 posts
Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts
#192I've noticed this tack a lot recently (three arguments like this in 24 hours), and I'm concerned by it. There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. A fertilizer plant has a chance of harming someone in an ac…
You are talking about judging intent, he (and Bruce Schneier) is talking about measuring a reaction. Those are two different things. The reason why you think that they are sociopaths is because you are conflating both of them. Their point is precisely that they shouldn't be conflated. Your point seems to be that not conflating them is what characterises them as sociopaths.
I specifically did not address measurement of the reaction and took active measures not to conflate the two, because I'm quite aware that they are easy to conflate. That's what the bottom of my comment is specifically targeting.
I have some thoughts on the response level, both in the media and law enforcement, but I cannot draw a salient conclusion just yet. The media is an easier target than law enforcement in that regard. I think it's better if I leave that discussion to others like Schneier. My issue is the subtext and, on more than one instance, direct suggestion in Stallman's writing, comparing the two incidents in any way.
Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts
#193As unfeeling as his statement might sound, he's entirely correct. I told a family member today that the saddest thing about this whole Boston incident isn't the (still very sad and senseless) loss of life and limb, but that it's undoubtedly going to be used as an excuse to further degrade civil rights nationwide in the coming years, to continue to justify state-sponsored human suffering like Guantanamo, and to furthe…
You're wrong. The saddest thing is the loss of life and limb.
People die every day. About 150,000 of them. That's nothing special. What is really going to matter in the long run is how we treat the people who are going to keep living into the future.
I'm much more concerned for the living than I am for the dead.
Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your example is situational, and also doesn't come close to his argument. The super-parent argument is that the loss of life in the immediate is shallow compared to the inevitable loss of life from the loss of liberty and rise of tyrrany in the name of security. If people are on the train, condemning many to die for one is never the right decision. If the train is unmanned (assumed if there is no conductor to manage…
Yes my example was poor; I don't think I got it right, perhaps I forgot the correct form. I guess I just am not sure how this inevitable tyranny manifests in deaths, but I can appreciate the point.
As a side note, these guys might not have even been caught if we were not living in 'the panopticon'.
Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm also a little surprised at the "WE GOT HIM" and the "its the suspect". Pretty obviously everyone behave with this as 'hes guilty', so he's not a suspect anymore. While he very well may be, everyone is supposed to be innocent til proved otherwise by trial and judgement . That goes for everyone. Murderers, thieves, rapists, politicians and rich dudes alike. Oh, and you and I. Hopefully.
You're confusing law for the court of public opinion. They are two entirely separate (and mostly unrelated) things.
There's also another aspect. The security services has now effectively publicly declared that the chance for a repeat has gone down significantly, at least in the short term. Of course that's a good thing.
Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts
#196"Please don't promote fear of shadows."
Well shit guys we should have got big balls Stallman out there to apprehend the suspect who was known to be homicidal, heavily armed, and possibly wearing an explosive device.
100 people die in cars everyday. That's such an irrelevant statement I still don't fully understand the point. 100 people die in cars everyday so unless a murderer's body count breaches national aggregate auto fatality statistics we shouldn't worry about it? Stallman appears to be confusing "the appropriate resource allocation to the threat of terrorism in general" with "the appropriate resource allocation to an actual active known terrorist".
Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big picture being that Bostoners should just ignore the marathon bombers so they can convene an emergency city council meeting to discuss the threat chemical plants? I thought I was pretty jaded, but it turns out I have a long way to go still. After the events of this week I was worried about the hundreds of maimed victims, "Uncle Ruslan", the families of those 4 persons killed and the possible backdrop on geopol…
I know what you're saying, but if you're not concerned about what DHS or d-bags like Lindsay Graham or Obama or police might do to erode rights, you're falling right into their trap. Shock doctrine works. I'm not suggesting that this was set up, but never let a good disaster go to waste.
Sure. But maybe, just maybe, it might be possible to have an event like this happen and note a flaw in the government's requirement to "promote the general welfare" which can be corrected without unduly infringing on civil rights.
Because no offense, but Dr. Stallman sounds exactly like that dipshit in charge of the NRA who says that you can't change one single little thing about gun control because that would invite a slippery slope to the government disarming all law-abiding citizens.
Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's worth sacrificing our freedoms in exchange for (only theoretically improved) safety (from causes of death that we are already extremely safe from - statistically speaking).
You and your neighbors packing assault weapons does not make you "free". It makes you "the Taliban".
I don't own or currently have plans to purchase an assault weapon. I do, however observe that a state in which only the established power may have such things is certainly not free (neither liberated nor without cost).
Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree with your first paragraph. I definitely think we should devote effort to reducing incidence of death, no matter the cause. Couldn't agree less with the remainder, because you are comparing car accidents and terrorism, which I specifically said is impossible to do; there is no comparison remotely possible between automotive accidents and terrorism.
How they cannot be compared? The metric here is the rate of death and the probability of incidents. The goal is to reduce suffering in the most impactful way as possible.
Be careful, applying your engineering mindset to real life. We cannot quantify the human experience. Let's take one tiny minutiae of both incidents with the strong and clear prior warning that there are countless examples of these points: in general, a parent would expect her child to be safer watching the Boston Marathon than standing several feet from a fertilizer plant. That's an expectation that, while your data might consider it irrational, is part of the human experience and why numbers cannot quantify what we feel.
You just can't apply numbers to being human. It doesn't work, it will never work, it's really disappointing to see people try, and I notice engineers try to do it more than most people I spend time with.
Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts
#200This is what Stallman wrote right after the suspect was caught. My personal response is: There will always be a situation that is worse or where more people died, but that doesn't mean this isn't a very emotional and trying time for many, where the police and people of Boston were desperate to catch a person throwing explosives and shooting magazines of bullets in their city. Telling people to stay home for a few hou…
>but that doesn't mean this isn't a very emotional and trying time for many
Right, because we should totally let the emotionality of a situation determine whether or not we completely overreact to the situation.
>and save your opinions for a more appropriate time.
RMS (and anyone else) is perfectly within his rights to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. There is no "more appropriate time."