zlacker

The problem is: you never get to have your goals or arguments listened to when you fail to represent yourself as a basic human. That means not putting weird stuff in your mouth on camera, not looking too unkempt, not being too belligerent before you get to your points – and never, never, never discussing the fine differences between ephebophilia and pedophilia on a mailing list.

His point of view and his goals are completely besides the point that he is unfit as a spokesperson for them.

Sadly. Because I agree with him quite a lot, and he does have good arguments.

>>cedill+(OP)
No, that isn't the problem. The problem is that you are comparing a human in one corner (mortal, fallible, made of meat, imperfect, objectively poor) with a very large conglomerate of corporations on the other side (immortal, disembodied, transnational, legal staff on retainer, very, very wealthy, made of paper, hard to criticize in the same way that you could criticize a person). No corporation is even going to put weird stuff in their mouth on camera or look unkempt. They'll make their arguments, reasonably, legally watertight and accompanied with bags of money through their lobbyists.

>>cedill+(OP)
> you fail to represent yourself as a basic human

You sound exactly like the people who condemned Socrates to death 24 centuries ago.

>>cedill+(OP)
Squints, head moves back then slowly swivels to look at news channel with POTUS speaking....

>>cedill+(OP)
Those are only issues because you decided to make them the topic. It's all a distraction. Just focus on his message, which far more important than anything you're talking about.

>>enriqu+W4
No, they sound like Socrates' friends begging him to properly argue for himself in court, in order to not be condemned and killed.

I don't think Stallman is abrasive out of a sense of respect and duty to the system of public debate.

>>jacque+K2
Yes, he's a human. But what you are failing to mention is that those corporations are made up of humans. And don't just imagine the C-suite when I say that. I'm talking about the developers and other highly-technical positions who may care very little about what's good for the corporation they work for over the long term. Those people also have instincts around and standards for what they consider decent behavior. Many of them (just like most people from most walks of life) will just stop listening if the person making the argument seems actively antagonistic upfront even if they would agree with the main argument that person is making.

Diplomacy does matter whether you like it or not. Especially before the person or people you're trying to persuade have heard your argument.

>>jacque+K2
No, the problem is that you’re thinking of this like Spock - purely logical. Humans aren’t logical. We absolutely trust/distrust each another based on appearances and mannerisms. This is not limited to RMS.

People are prejudiced, plain and simple.

>>cedill+(OP)
One issue is your automated dehumanization of someone who doesn't match cultural norms as not being "basic human".

You continuing with culture that fundamentally dismisses/devalues humans is the main issue here. Culture change starts from within. He works as a spokesperson for me becahse I'm much more inclined to someone showing basic humanity, like eating off a foot, than someone showing basic inhumanity, like catering to preferences born inside a country (like the US) that was founded on genocide & enslavement.