In other words the character of a person affects the weight of their arguments. That’s pretty fundamental to society but not acknowledged a lot in the tech world, especially when eccentricities are involved. We like to pretend that life is a meritocracy where we’re all judged solely on our contributions but that’s emphatically not how life works. We can’t change the human nature and the nature of social signaling no matter how hard we close our eyes and wish.

Yeah precisely.

drb91's feigned confusion at how people are not ignoring an arrogant approach at argumentation may simply be an attempt at focusing on the "meat" of the argument rather than the wrapping. Noble, but ultimately incorrect. The argument isn't made to only one person, it's meant to be spread to the general population, and almost nothing from Stallman can really be shared with the general population because his ideas are wrapped really, really badly.

I just want to make it clear: acknowledging the reality of this doesn't mean you endorse it.

One of the most magical things on the internet is the meritocratic aspect of it. It just doesn't translate to real life. I know a lot of my guildmates from the very early WoW days would have been baffled to learn their raids were led by a 14 year old child. I also know I've seen similar experiences reflected on this forum (people recounting being treated as equal peers by others, despite their very young age, different genders, different religions etc). All this is possible because those differences don't come up in a limited context where you, for example, don't see each other face to face. I love that, and I wish it were like that everywhere. But it's not, and if you want your message to be heard, you can't eat your footstuff in public.

I agree. this paradox would seem to be exemplified with the current trend of "Codes of Conduct" in OSS whereby we seek to have a Open and Predujice free workspace -- yet ostricize segments of the IT workforce simply because by setting conduct boundaries, we create "inclusive doctrines" that by definition _cannot_ be unanimously agreed upon by all parties. And at that point the odd man out is stranded alone with their eccentric opinion waving in the wind.

I get your perspective, but just because someone has a red hair, it doesn't render their claims incorrect, or doesn't invalidate anything they say.

I have seen many people being dismissed by others merely because of their voice, which I find funny because they were supposed to focus on the content. It's the content that matters. If the presentation is not to your liking, that doesn't mean that person is wrong. On top of that, you don't need to be factually correct if you are convincing enough; sophistry anyone? Apparently people don't seek for the truth, it's enough if you put a pretty face on stage who has some charisma and you are all falling for it. Be skeptical. Focus on the actual content and ignore the irrelevant things, because they are, well, irrelevant. If you are easily distracted by the speaker's fly being open, that's on you, and yes, the outcome might be detrimental from the perspective of the speaker given the majority of the audience is easily distracted and ignores the actual argument because of the speaker's fly being open, or because he used the word "Micro$oft".

For the same reason we wouldn't need defamation laws if people had better critical thinking skills, as they wouldn't have mindlessly believed the defamation, and the person's life would not have been ruined.

Ultimately, it is your choice. Personally, I am not going to care about the irrelevancies because I focus on what is being said, and not how it is being said. I'm not going to dismiss you because I find your tone offensive, in fact, somehow I manage to not get offended nor care about the tone.

I respect Linus and Theo for their contributions, and I'm not going to judge their quality of code based on their actions unrelated to the code. Surely you, too, care about the quality of code and you won't disregard it when you find out it's been written by a transgender person, right?

If you genuinely care about the argument, you won't disregard it merely because of its irrelevancies, e.g. appearance or behavior you find obnoxious. If you do, then you certainly need to improve your ability to ignore those irrelevant things and focus on the argument.

P.S. I don't deny that presentation matters, but only because there are too many people who are way too keen on dismissing someone's argument because, for example, they find their hair funny. It sounds ridiculous to me, but that's just my opinion I guess.

Just to elaborate on my earlier point:

As I said elsewhere in the thread, I don't particularly condone the requirement of modern society to care about superficial things. I find Stallman gross, and it's distracting, but I'll still listen.

However, what I care about more than Stallman is the causes he supposedly stands for. And Stallman hurts those causes because we're not in this fantasy world where almost nobody cares about appearances and those that don't "don't matter". 99+% of people care about form and appearances. Stallman hurts the cause with the current vibes he gives off, and the tone he takes.

I want to stress this point: There's always a lot of people in these threads who pop up, feeling superior that they "don't care" about Stallman's vibes. Good for you. But your inability to understand why it matters across people who aren't you is a failure, not a success.

You'll note I didn't talk about the substance of Stallman's arguments. I am not saying he is wrong or right. I am saying he is probably not a net positive though and that is because of form, not content. His arguments may not be invalidated, they're still not useful if nobody except a few cultish followers listen to them.

I don’t think RMS is trying to cater towards your needs, though. You’re perfectly capable of understanding him; it’s an (understandable) choice that you don’t put the effort into getting through the distractions. I don’t see anything wrong with expressing yourself in a preferred way, damn if it actually persuaded anyone.

I mean, it’s the same deal with an open fly. You get out of that experience what you look for. Most people can’t see past the fly, and that’s fine.

It’s so silly talking about this Facebook essay like an argument or a persuasive essay when it’s so much more similar to art or entertainment. Either you get it or your grandkids do, and it doesn’t mean you have to marry them or even agree with them to appreciate the cultural expression.

Nothing has to mean anything ever. You can read my comment as a comment meant to open a conversation with you and persuade you of a particular opinion, or you can read it as a piece of art, in which, whenever a disagreement arises, I can choose the easy way out by telling you "Yes but you see, you're meant to see past the things you don't like or disagree with".

My comment was meant as the former, and so were Stallman's. He has always tried to spread his word out and he seems to genuinely not understand why it doesn't take. Claiming his pieces are more art than work is revisionist at best.

I think most readers assume these essays are meant to persuade. I have seen them advanced as "arguments", and RMS seems to act like he expects people to be persuaded by them. What makes you think these are closer to performance art?