"Yeah but the problem here is that the FSF has this annoying track record of being proven correct, over and over again"
It's not that FSF is proven correct, it's that the FSF disapproves of 99.9% of software, it's easy for them to look back when there's a scandal and say "see? we told you so.". Too many false positives.
too many false positives means you should reconsider what you call a false positive
That doesn't actually mean that they're not correct.
Yeah I don't know that this premise is true. For a lot of examples you might
give WRT war or security, I feel like some will take the approach that "if
you can't do it transparently then you probably shouldn't be doing it at
all".
You could perhaps say "Well then you shouldn't get in a war". But that isn't really under your control. If someone else decides they are in a war with you. You are in a war. It doesn't really matter whether you wanted to be in one or not.
I'm not at war with anybody though.
Good for you, but that has nothing to do with whether secrecy is necessary in a security context.
it does, however, point out that there's not been a valid security context listed where secrecy would be necessary.
Pull your head out of the sand my friend. There's murders, kidnappings, wars occurring around us every day.
Does it still count as a cult if they're right? Do they still count as extremists if they're empirically correct? Maybe it's a good thing to have that type of extremist out there, fighting for everybody.