And this here is the fundamental issue in this entire conversation. This is barely about RMS to some, and more about screwing over a section of the population that is disliked.
RMS cannot hold the position effectively without drastically reducing the FSF ability to complete their stated mission. Full stop. This has been demonstrated by the very fact that these conversations are happening, as loudly and as presently as they are. And the choice to keep him in place is either horribly shortsighted, or an in
This is barely about RMS to some, and more about screwing over a section of the population that is disliked
Exactly. And the failure for FSF, RMS, or anyone involved on that side to actually address this is why a lot of groups are putting a bit of distance between them and the FSF.
RMS cannot hold the position effectively without drastically reducing the FSF ability to complete their stated mission
The FSF is an advocacy group. If there are people who aren't listening, then you are absolutely fucking right that they will fail at their mission of outreach. You do not have outreach if you do not have groups of people listening to you.
an intentional statement of "fuck the snowflakes" rather than anything about the ability for the FSF to be effective
And as HanzoSpam has demonstrated, this is absolutely the case. I've heard time and time again p
Shows that people like this guy [slashdot.org] are unable to adapt and want to change the conversation from "what's best for the FSF" to "fuck a bunch of snowflakes".
This is a debate between people who are high on the agreeableness scale, and people who are low.
Low agreeable people are the creatives (also high openness), who go against the grain. They are individuals who generally don't care what other people think, and go off and have new and interesting ideas. They are the artists who move into a run-down part of a city and make art, they are the entrepreneurs, songwriters, and playrights.
High agreeable people are group-ists: you value is only to the group, your value as an individual is zero, and you can be sacrificed for the good of the group. Marxists, and all the ideologies derived from it, are generally group-ists. If you're not a part of the group, if you don't have the same opinions, then you're a poisonous snake that must be attacked using any means necessary.
And that, that whole point is why everyone is distancing themselves from FSF, which in the long run will run their ability to advocate into the ground. RMS did a lot of shit, nothing but applause for that.
[Emphasis mine] Agreeableness is normally distributed, half the nerd population supports RMS and about half want to get rid of him (per community polling, don't have the reference at hand).
Realize that the other side doesn't hold your opinion not because they're stupid or because they don't understand your point, it's because they're different people. They have different values, they think different things are important, what's obvious to them is the opposite of what's obvious to you.
But guy is incapable of running a team now a days and this admission now shows that he has no plans to adapt to today's groups.
The fundamental basis for civilization is that people have rights, have transcendent worth independent of their group affiliation. This basic idea of individual rights lets us set up laws that are unbiased against the agreeableness score.
That's right. The fundamental basis of civilization is that the agreeableness score doesn't matter in day-to-day operations.
Without this central idea, that people have transcendent value, you have blood feuds, honor killings, witch hunts, and all the bad parts of communism. Anyone not deemed "part of the group" is a nazi/sex offender/racist, and it's OK to punch them.
Bollux.
Ignore his behaviour. RMS is *highly* creative(*), he's run FSF for decades and built it up to a high level, and he's done nothing wrong.
Get back into civilized behaviour. Allow others to have their own opinions.
(*) I should mention that there's a test for measuring creative ability (you can find it online and take it), and the median score is zero. Seventy percent of the population scores zero on the creative achievement test, and of the remaining 30 percent 21 percent only score 1 point. True creativity is exceedingly rare, and we shouldn't be casually attacking the highly creative types for no reason.
He's fine to have opinions. I mean Christ, I've got nothing wrong with him "having opinions". The thing is, he wants to be in a position to "spread his opinions" and so, the acceptability of his opinions is pretty much the fucking point.
Realize that the other side doesn't hold your opinion not because they're stupid or because they don't understand your point, it's because they're different people.
I'm NOT saying that anyone is stupid. Being different is fine. But being a leader requires a bit of buy in on your thinking, that's kind of how leadership works. The people listening need to believe what's coming out of your mouth hole in order for that leadership thingy to work. So just so you understand, my issue is NOT "I dislike what RMS thinks ergo he shouldn't be a leader". My issue is "RMS' opinions are not exactly widely accepted ergo he's not exactly the most ideal person for the position of leadership." And more specifically, "RMS' thinking on some subjects have been denounced by a lot of FOSS projects ergo those FOSS projects will be a lot less trusting of RMS in their group which doesn't seem like that's a good thing for the FSF."
RMS being in the right or wrong. Those FOSS projects being in the right or wrong. NONE OF THAT WITHSTANDING. You have the FSF and a lot of FOSS projects and they are two groups that need to work together and right now one is saying they won't work with the other because of some things. That's not exactly what I would call awesome leadership, but I mean fuck I'm cool to be wrong there. But it does seem that when two groups won't work together going forward, it's fair game to say that perhaps someone in leadership wasn't a good match.
Whatever their thinking or not being right or wrong, IDGF. One crew has changed, the other hasn't and clearly the lack of change in one or the change in the other has lead us to this. That doesn't require anyone to pass a right or wrong verdict to point out that, that is highly likely not a good thing for it to be where it is right now. If people are not listening to you, more than likely you aren't a very good leader. The right or wrong, the different or homogeneous thinking, or whatever other thing you want to try and turn this into doesn't matter. If people are not listening to you, you are not a good leader. You could have gold for ideas, but if no one listens to them, then your ideas go nowhere.
True creativity is exceedingly rare, and we shouldn't be casually attacking the highly creative types for no reason
The guy literally admitted to being unable to act normal around a category that makes up roughly 50% of the people on this planet. If he's like that at his home, cool. He could write a book or something! If he wants to lead people however, and he's got an issue with 50% of this planet. Going to be awfully hard to lead that 50%. No attack, just that's highly questionable as to how effective he's going to be as a leader when 50% of this planet knows that he's got issues not coming off as a male pig to them and he doesn't think it's his responsibility to adapt his behavior. I'm not passing judgement on if he should or shouldn't adapt, I'm just saying going to make that role of leader harder to do.
But DON'T curtail his ability to interact with others.
There is a difference between just interacting and being a leader. I interact with people all the live long day, but at no point do I assume a position of leadership over those people I interact with.
If all he wants is to just mingle with people, fine by me. But being a leader is way different than just hanging out sharing your ideas casually.
It's not your place to judge
Yes, it's my place and your place and everyone else's place to judge. RMS is taking a public stance. That's what public stance means. To be judge by the public.
Then go listen to him then, no one is fucking stopping you. GNOME, KDE, X.org and so on don't have to listen to him and they have every fucking right to not listen to him just as much as you want to listen to him. So you go do you, but you can go fuck off with this bullshit of telling other people that they just need to fuck off with their first amendment right to say what they want to say about RMS. Clearly you've got "good enough for me, but kiss my ass for everyone else" and in reality that's just an
Again, he isn't there to lead anyone, his role is advisory. Seems to me that all the reasons people claim to want to get rid of him are actually baseless. He doesn't lead the FSF, he didn't harm anyone, didn't say pedophilia is good, all he did was offend someone who wanted to misuse the English language to justify their emotions by correcting them. Something a good advisor should do, ergo, he's doing a good job.
He's fine to have opinions. I mean Christ, I've got nothing wrong with him "having opinions".
I must say, that's very broad-minded of you. I'm sure some of your best friends are people with opinions too!
The thing is, he wants to be in a position to "spread his opinions" and so, the acceptability of his opinions is pretty much the fucking point.
Yes, this kind of thing shouldn't be tolerated. I mean, we're upstanding, civilized people - we can't have this kind of degeneracy among us. Those people can have whatever opinions they want, as long as they don't air them about and push them in our faces. What, are we going to have "opinion pride" parades next? There really should be some kind of law against this kind of thing - we could call it "don't ask, don't tell".
Jokes aside - is it only me who sees how the whole progressive movement becomes more and more like a real life illustration of "Animal Farm"?
Well, good thing he is just a member of the board, and not it's President. That's Geoffrey Knauth - the actual leader of the FSF. RMS is on the board because his experience and expertise is unrivaled, not because they want him to run the whole show. That was never part of his job.
And if you had chosen sources that weren't intentionally using biased language for political ends, you might have found one that used terms like "ambitious", "focused", "self-starter", "successful", "leader", "unshakable", "determined", "undaunted", "strong-willed", or yes, "competitive". And for the other side, "weak", "mealy-mouthed", "easily fooled", "easily led", "sheep", "weak-willed", "cowards", "doormats", "most susceptible to peer pressure", "subservient", "Milgram-experiment switch flippers", or "
he's run FSF for decades and built it up to a high level
Founding a movement and shepherding it through the lean early years and running it effectively in a world where there is broad acceptance are massively different skillsets.
The RMS "apology" sounds more like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for him. Let the snowflakes go fuck themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And this here is the fundamental issue in this entire conversation. This is barely about RMS to some, and more about screwing over a section of the population that is disliked.
RMS cannot hold the position effectively without drastically reducing the FSF ability to complete their stated mission. Full stop. This has been demonstrated by the very fact that these conversations are happening, as loudly and as presently as they are. And the choice to keep him in place is either horribly shortsighted, or an in
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
This is barely about RMS to some, and more about screwing over a section of the population that is disliked
Exactly. And the failure for FSF, RMS, or anyone involved on that side to actually address this is why a lot of groups are putting a bit of distance between them and the FSF.
RMS cannot hold the position effectively without drastically reducing the FSF ability to complete their stated mission
The FSF is an advocacy group. If there are people who aren't listening, then you are absolutely fucking right that they will fail at their mission of outreach. You do not have outreach if you do not have groups of people listening to you.
an intentional statement of "fuck the snowflakes" rather than anything about the ability for the FSF to be effective
And as HanzoSpam has demonstrated, this is absolutely the case. I've heard time and time again p
Trait agreableness, from Big 5 personality (Score:5, Interesting)
Shows that people like this guy [slashdot.org] are unable to adapt and want to change the conversation from "what's best for the FSF" to "fuck a bunch of snowflakes".
This is a debate between people who are high on the agreeableness scale, and people who are low.
Low agreeable people are the creatives (also high openness), who go against the grain. They are individuals who generally don't care what other people think, and go off and have new and interesting ideas. They are the artists who move into a run-down part of a city and make art, they are the entrepreneurs, songwriters, and playrights.
High agreeable people are group-ists: you value is only to the group, your value as an individual is zero, and you can be sacrificed for the good of the group. Marxists, and all the ideologies derived from it, are generally group-ists. If you're not a part of the group, if you don't have the same opinions, then you're a poisonous snake that must be attacked using any means necessary.
And that, that whole point is why everyone is distancing themselves from FSF, which in the long run will run their ability to advocate into the ground. RMS did a lot of shit, nothing but applause for that.
[Emphasis mine] Agreeableness is normally distributed, half the nerd population supports RMS and about half want to get rid of him (per community polling, don't have the reference at hand).
Realize that the other side doesn't hold your opinion not because they're stupid or because they don't understand your point, it's because they're different people. They have different values, they think different things are important, what's obvious to them is the opposite of what's obvious to you.
But guy is incapable of running a team now a days and this admission now shows that he has no plans to adapt to today's groups.
The fundamental basis for civilization is that people have rights, have transcendent worth independent of their group affiliation. This basic idea of individual rights lets us set up laws that are unbiased against the agreeableness score.
That's right. The fundamental basis of civilization is that the agreeableness score doesn't matter in day-to-day operations.
Without this central idea, that people have transcendent value, you have blood feuds, honor killings, witch hunts, and all the bad parts of communism. Anyone not deemed "part of the group" is a nazi/sex offender/racist, and it's OK to punch them.
Bollux.
Ignore his behaviour. RMS is *highly* creative(*), he's run FSF for decades and built it up to a high level, and he's done nothing wrong.
Get back into civilized behaviour. Allow others to have their own opinions.
(*) I should mention that there's a test for measuring creative ability (you can find it online and take it), and the median score is zero. Seventy percent of the population scores zero on the creative achievement test, and of the remaining 30 percent 21 percent only score 1 point. True creativity is exceedingly rare, and we shouldn't be casually attacking the highly creative types for no reason.
Re:Trait agreableness, from Big 5 personality (Score:4, Interesting)
Allow others to have their own opinions.
He's fine to have opinions. I mean Christ, I've got nothing wrong with him "having opinions". The thing is, he wants to be in a position to "spread his opinions" and so, the acceptability of his opinions is pretty much the fucking point.
Realize that the other side doesn't hold your opinion not because they're stupid or because they don't understand your point, it's because they're different people.
I'm NOT saying that anyone is stupid. Being different is fine. But being a leader requires a bit of buy in on your thinking, that's kind of how leadership works. The people listening need to believe what's coming out of your mouth hole in order for that leadership thingy to work. So just so you understand, my issue is NOT "I dislike what RMS thinks ergo he shouldn't be a leader". My issue is "RMS' opinions are not exactly widely accepted ergo he's not exactly the most ideal person for the position of leadership." And more specifically, "RMS' thinking on some subjects have been denounced by a lot of FOSS projects ergo those FOSS projects will be a lot less trusting of RMS in their group which doesn't seem like that's a good thing for the FSF."
RMS being in the right or wrong. Those FOSS projects being in the right or wrong. NONE OF THAT WITHSTANDING. You have the FSF and a lot of FOSS projects and they are two groups that need to work together and right now one is saying they won't work with the other because of some things. That's not exactly what I would call awesome leadership, but I mean fuck I'm cool to be wrong there. But it does seem that when two groups won't work together going forward, it's fair game to say that perhaps someone in leadership wasn't a good match.
Whatever their thinking or not being right or wrong, IDGF. One crew has changed, the other hasn't and clearly the lack of change in one or the change in the other has lead us to this. That doesn't require anyone to pass a right or wrong verdict to point out that, that is highly likely not a good thing for it to be where it is right now. If people are not listening to you, more than likely you aren't a very good leader. The right or wrong, the different or homogeneous thinking, or whatever other thing you want to try and turn this into doesn't matter. If people are not listening to you, you are not a good leader. You could have gold for ideas, but if no one listens to them, then your ideas go nowhere.
True creativity is exceedingly rare, and we shouldn't be casually attacking the highly creative types for no reason
The guy literally admitted to being unable to act normal around a category that makes up roughly 50% of the people on this planet. If he's like that at his home, cool. He could write a book or something! If he wants to lead people however, and he's got an issue with 50% of this planet. Going to be awfully hard to lead that 50%. No attack, just that's highly questionable as to how effective he's going to be as a leader when 50% of this planet knows that he's got issues not coming off as a male pig to them and he doesn't think it's his responsibility to adapt his behavior. I'm not passing judgement on if he should or shouldn't adapt, I'm just saying going to make that role of leader harder to do.
Simply wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Allow others to have their own opinions.
The thing is, he wants to be in a position to "spread his opinions" and so...
Yes, exactly.
Do not, do NOT prevent others from speaking. That's what you're tying to do, and it's wrong.
You don't like him, that's fine. You disagree with him, that's fine also. You don't want to interact with him? That's fine as well.
But DON'T curtail his ability to interact with others.
It's not your place to judge.
Cancel culture is simply wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But DON'T curtail his ability to interact with others.
There is a difference between just interacting and being a leader. I interact with people all the live long day, but at no point do I assume a position of leadership over those people I interact with.
If all he wants is to just mingle with people, fine by me. But being a leader is way different than just hanging out sharing your ideas casually.
It's not your place to judge
Yes, it's my place and your place and everyone else's place to judge. RMS is taking a public stance. That's what public stance means. To be judge by the public.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to listen to him
Then go listen to him then, no one is fucking stopping you. GNOME, KDE, X.org and so on don't have to listen to him and they have every fucking right to not listen to him just as much as you want to listen to him. So you go do you, but you can go fuck off with this bullshit of telling other people that they just need to fuck off with their first amendment right to say what they want to say about RMS. Clearly you've got "good enough for me, but kiss my ass for everyone else" and in reality that's just an
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trait agreableness, from Big 5 personality (Score:4, Interesting)
He's fine to have opinions. I mean Christ, I've got nothing wrong with him "having opinions".
I must say, that's very broad-minded of you. I'm sure some of your best friends are people with opinions too!
The thing is, he wants to be in a position to "spread his opinions" and so, the acceptability of his opinions is pretty much the fucking point.
Yes, this kind of thing shouldn't be tolerated. I mean, we're upstanding, civilized people - we can't have this kind of degeneracy among us. Those people can have whatever opinions they want, as long as they don't air them about and push them in our faces. What, are we going to have "opinion pride" parades next? There really should be some kind of law against this kind of thing - we could call it "don't ask, don't tell".
Jokes aside - is it only me who sees how the whole progressive movement becomes more and more like a real life illustration of "Animal Farm"?
Advice != Leading (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fundamental basis of civilization is that the agreeableness score doesn't matter in day-to-day operations.
Bollocks. ...people who score low in agreeableness tend to be more hostile, antagonistic, and competitive. They also tend to have more difficult relationships that are riddled with disagreements and breakups. [verywellmind.com]
People with low levels of the agreeableness have been found to exhibit higher levels of ‘dark triad’ traits, a series of characteristics with negative associations, including M [psychologistworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you'd care to post some links?
Re: (Score:2)
he's run FSF for decades and built it up to a high level
Founding a movement and shepherding it through the lean early years and running it effectively in a world where there is broad acceptance are massively different skillsets.
Re: (Score:2)
(*) I should mention that there's a test for measuring creative ability (you can find it online and take it)
http://www.testmycreativity.co... [testmycreativity.com]
Is one that I found. I scored
Your creativity score is 45.68
Are your numbers accurate for that test? I do not feel particularly creative.