News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook by drdaeman on Sunday June 26, 2016 @03:02PM (#11982109)
You have a point, but I believe warping the language from the norms can be different.

I can't know what Stallman meant exactly and what are his intentions, but from reading the text I believe what he tries to do is to either create a neologism (cf. "enforce a meme"), or avoid a word misuse that may lead to some invalid connotations or suggestions (cf. calling a photocopier "xerox"). Probably both, but the latter case is important.

There are a lot of cases where saying an established term for something (with term invented and enforced by marketing/politics) serves in favor of some an agenda, and one may deliberately decide to change the language to combat this. Consider that Stallman's also known to ask to avoid calling copyright infringement as "theft" or "piracy".

Avoiding agendas, almost certainly not the case with "democra[tp]s", as it's just name-calling. Most likely it's the case with "piracy", as using this term mixes in some incorrect allusions. And, while personally I think "useds" instead of "users" isn't a good idea, it's probably somewhere in the gray area in the middle that may have some reasonable justification besides just Stallman trying to pull a strawmen.

Re:Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook by ppopoff on Sunday June 26, 2016 @10:33PM (#11983877)
Except that Stallman uses what you identify as name-calling all the time (cf. Amazon Swindle).

Also, the oft-repeated notion that "piracy" is a contemporary slur invented to associate copyright infringers with violence on the high seas is simply wrong. It's documented since 1603 (The Wonderfull yeare, T. Dekker), and is the term used by the 1883 Berne Convention. That's covers most of the history of the word in English usage.

Fine if you want to change the dialogue on IP, especially based on changing technology, but that doesn't justify rewriting history.

Re:Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook by drdaeman on Monday June 27, 2016 @04:43AM (#11984892)
1. Yes, and no props to him on that. Name-calling's just inappropriate for a public rhetoric. But as for this particular article - it's a different case.

2. It's not about history rewriting. When one uses different term and disagrees with the commonly used one, they don't (well... normally) deny the facts that there is such use. The usual attitude is "they say 'piracy' but I believe it's wrong to use this term in such context"