posted on September 30, 2019 01:14 PM by
u/DELETED
16
u/Hailanathema20 pointsat 1569871052.000000
Here are two things that can be true simultaneously.
1. Richard Stallman did a lot of good to advance the cause of free
software. Building the GNU ecosystem, developing the GPL, and founding
the Free Software Foundation were important contributions to the
ecosystem of free software people can enjoy today.
2. Stallman’s interpersonal behaviors turned off many people who
might otherwise have been interested in free software. Part of the
reason the free software movement is as marginal as it is today us
because of its association with him.
There seems to be a general pattern with, for lack of a better term,
“Nerd Heroes” and recognition that these heroes have done bad things.
Things for which we, perhaps, ought not valorize and name awards after
them. Arthur Campbell edited a bunch of great stories and also was super
racist. Linus Torvalds wrote Linux and Git and was (is?) also a huge
asshole. There’s this weird perspective where once you’ve accomplished
something Great you’re absolved of all the bad things you’ve done or
could ever do. Its like nerd sainthood. What Really Matters is all the
good they’ve done, the harm to others (especially historically
marginalized groups) is irrelevant.
also i think it's kinda weird how people tend to think a higher status person being punished by being moved to mid status is a worse injustice than someone in extreme low status staying there because of that higher status person's actions, or just from the indifference of the universe.
that sounds like super abstract rationalist heuristic mumbo jumbo, so as a sorta example, not directly relevant to stallman:
homeless person stays homeless: i sleep
real estate billionaire says something stupid on twitter and now has to find a new company to fill in a high position for or, god forbid, labor for a living: real shit
i know in this post they speculated that stallman is homeless cause no one can reach him, but that seems like a bit of a jump to me?
I don't think it's weird? Or at least nothing that requires some deep analysis.
High status = they are admired = it is implicitly assumed that they deserve their position
Low status, well, obvious.
Though I think there can be such a thing as a low status billionaire.
Here are two things that can be true simultaneously.
1. Richard Stallman did a lot of good to advance the cause of free software. Building the GNU ecosystem, developing the GPL, and founding the Free Software Foundation were important contributions to the ecosystem of free software people can enjoy today.
2. Stallman’s interpersonal behaviors turned off many people who might otherwise have been interested in free software. Part of the reason the free software movement is as marginal as it is today us because of its association with him.
There seems to be a general pattern with, for lack of a better term, “Nerd Heroes” and recognition that these heroes have done bad things. Things for which we, perhaps, ought not valorize and name awards after them. Arthur Campbell edited a bunch of great stories and also was super racist. Linus Torvalds wrote Linux and Git and was (is?) also a huge asshole. There’s this weird perspective where once you’ve accomplished something Great you’re absolved of all the bad things you’ve done or could ever do. Its like nerd sainthood. What Really Matters is all the good they’ve done, the harm to others (especially historically marginalized groups) is irrelevant.