@derek Thank you, Thank you Thank you.
Not really. Free software wouldn't exist if Stallman completely gave up on "improving the world" and instead decided that he needs to "focus on himself".
So by using free software and getting angry at people who want to "change the world", your ideology is built upon hypocrisy.
How about this:
"Focus on yourself", give up on free software and only try to improve your life. Free software is a waste of time (by this "personal responsibility" logic).
@brittlebrowse123 You've completely missed the points in the video.
"5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups"
If your idea of free or open source software includes "discrimination against persons or groups" you're missing the point of free and open source software - call it "ethical" call it whatever you want, Orwell downplayed the double-talk.
@derek thanks, Derek Taylor.
@derek History aught to have taught us that the most dangerous humans have been, and are, those who proclaim to be beholders of correct ethics and politics, and wanting to impose their ethics and politics onto other people.
So you should hate Richard Stallman then? He thinks that an ideal society is where every single software is libre.
Isn't that effectively "imposing his ethics and politics onto other people"?
In fact that is the exact response I recieve when I tell people about free software.
"Don'*t fprce your morality on others. Devs should be able to make money".
@derek I really enjoy these philosophical rants for when I want to hear something. It's like a mini podcast.
I think the argument here is fundamentally flawed, and there are two points I'd like to address.
First, you absolutely can change other's minds through conversation and education. I believe that, on a few occasions, I've had that effect on others, but moreover I know for a fact others have had that effect on me. In fact, you've had that effect on me.
Second, I reject the notion that those who are out there trying to change the world are lazy, incompetent, or are somehow personally flawed simply for trying to do so. Two things can be true simultaneously: An individual can have room for growth as a person, and the world can be made better. You're not required to pick working on one or the other exclusively, you can work on both. I'm not sure we should condemn people for working on the latter.
Certainly I don't think it's appropriate to apply this logic to those who took part in the Arab Spring, or the students who protested in Hong Kong, or the people currently standing up to Putin.
I had never heard about the ethical software movement until I watched your video, so I don't know much about it, but from what I gathered my views probably align with yours on it. That being said, I don't think the argument that people's minds are inflexible and the characterization of people who try to change the world as flawed individuals is a particularly strong argument against the ethical software movement.
Hopefully this kind of thing is okay here. If not, please let me know and I will refrain in the future.
@flvc @av06 @derek
Saying "left-wing commies" are like this, is a Faulty Generalization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization .
Also you can find stupid peoples in every movements, and using any number of examples to try to discredit a movement is nothing but Anecdotal fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal.
Not that I'm trying to defend communism here, just that if your trying to argument something here, it's not very... well it was plain sophism.
"First, you absolutely can change other's minds through conversation and education."
That isn't what DT is saying though, as I understood the argument.
He's saying you "cannot force people to change their minds"
I read that not as 'it's impossible to change someone's mind' , but as 'it's wrong to attempt to change someone's mind through force' .
The force part is important there. You are talking about convincing people without force.
That's a fair critique. But he also says stuff like
"people may have encouraged you to make those changes, but that really had no bearing on you making those fundamental changes"
"The people telling you to change had nothing to do with it."
So that's what I was responding to.
@derek The free software defintion could use an update though to include thoughts on spyware.
It is a common metaphor for lisp programmers to consider data and code as the same thing. Causing a person to give up data without asking, for reasons undisclosed, is like forcing a user into a joint agreement that generates proprietary code.
Spot on. It's not out there, it's here.
There is so much hypocrisy in this video that my irony meter exploded.
Why are you trying to promote free software? You should work on yourself instead of trying to improve the world with free software.
Why do you support Stallman/FSF? Stallman decided to change the world by moving to free software, instead of reducing his own weight. (∴ FSF = "Massive character flaw")
Ironically, the very free software you use ONLY EXISTS because stallman didn't follow this bullshit attitude.
Another part I thought was a bit ironic was where he tells his listeners to call out Linux journalists and youtubers who promote "Ethical software."
Free software is dead because idiots like stallman, derek and luke smith are at the forefront of this "movement".
@derek this makes me think of all the religious leaders I've see on TV...
@derek Time to throw SystemD under that same bus - https://unixsheikh.com/articles/the-real-motivation-behind-systemd.html
@derek I fully agree. The entire concept of open source software is that the knowledge is accessible to everyone and it is not restricted by any means and the concept of so called "ethical software" is contrary to the concept of open source software.
@derek thanks. That video went in a totally unexpected direction and I loved it.
@derek You hit the nail on the head with this one, DT. Dennis Prager posted a video recently and I wish I could remember which one it was so I can link to it here. In the video, he compared the left and right ideologies and explained this very same thing. Leftists are normally the ones trying to change the behavior of everyone around them, while people on the right are more concerned with their own behavior.
@sotolf @derek Look friend, I'm simply sharing some thoughts about the opinions Derek shared in his recent video and comparing them to a Dennis Prager video. I mentioned I can't recall which video it was so I can't give a proper citation to the video in question. I invite you to go to the PragerU Youtube channel if you're interested. Otherwise, I'm not blaming one side over another side. I'm just sharing my own perspective. 🙂
(disclaimer: I'm center-left-leaning i guess)
"DO THE WORK!!" 🤣
@duckhp @rob @derek I have things in common with libertarians, they basically wants a similar goal as me, we only disagree how to reach that goal, the right is just restricting freedoms and short sighted selfishness basically, at least that's all I see of it, and I've seen few good arguments for it, libertarians at least have a good goal ;)
I'm a bit curious, so please don't mind me asking. Would you mind eleaborate a bit on who you're talking about in regards to when saying "Compare I think gays are icky do they shouldn't exist with people shouldn't force their fucking religion down my throat" ?
I'm just curious. (as a former, fairly 'fundamentalist' Christian)
A mastodon instance created by Derek Taylor, creator of the DistroTube channels on YouTube and LBRY. Derek is an advocate for free and open source software.