|
|
|
|
|
|
by tunesmith
2473 days ago
|
|
|
More generally, if your leadership position depends on making and defending an argument that is based off of strong premises, and you seek to amass a lot of support for that argument, it seems the most effective pathway is to be very visible when making that argument, and rather private otherwise. This is just because if you are trying to maximize support among those that agree with your argument, you are going to attract people that disagree on other arguments. It requires focus. As soon as you, a leader, weigh in on another divisive argument that has nothing to do with your charter, it acts as a filter that can jeopardize large swaths of support. I'm also a little fascinated, just generally, by the tendency for very smart people to make "good points for bad reasons" - strenuously quibbling with some premise that would make no relevant impact to the lemmas and conclusions constructed atop them. It's like an inability to grasp larger points. |
|
|
Little picture: Stallman is basically reasonable in his email thread, all the headlines are outright lies which wholly discredit their newspapers/sites
Big picture: he is still a huge creep and should have been gone from leadership positions decades ago
To me it's when I see something wrong being said/done, I want to correct or resist it, even if overall it doesn't matter. Like people who lie about things Trump has said -- which is ridiculous, why not just take one of the many dumb things Trump did say -- I'll have the urge to spring to the his defense and point out how some criticism is irrational or misconstrued. Even though it's Trump. I also found myself correcting misinformation about Louis C K during his shit the other year, though I didn't die on any hills or anything.