How do you deal with the fact that Richard Stallman has the political views of a shrieking pink-haired SJW?

How do you deal with the fact that Richard Stallman has the political views of a shrieking pink-haired SJW?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187
people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
people-press.org/2005/05/10/part-3-demographics-lifestyle-and-news-consumption/
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611421206
philpapers.org/go.pl?id=ARVBNF&u=https://philpapers.org/archive/ARVBNF.pdf
academia.edu/1038226/Bad_News_for_Conservatives_Moral_Judgments_and_the_Dark_TriadPersonality_Traits_A_Correlational_Study
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1944267_code1507681.pdf?abstractid=1903914&mirid=2
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1903914
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-011-9140-6
philpapers.org/archive/ARVALM.pdf
academia.edu/1610757/A_Lot_More_Bad_News_for_Conservatives_and_a_Little_Bit_of_Bad_News_for_Liberals_Moral_Judgments_and_the_Dark_Triad_Personality_Traits_A_Follow-up_Study
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-012-9155-7?no-access=true
youtu.be/y3qkf3bajd4
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because he hasn't contributed to any software for decades and never tried to force SJW bullshit onto others through his code.

He has the views of a social democratic with some apprehension towards idpol. I'm fine with it, I think with some work he could eventually be turned into a proper socialist.

I'll gas him last

Because that's not a fact.
To the contrary of SJWs he doesn't divide the world into black and white.
If you read his posts yes he shares some ridiculous article from time to time about SJW theory bullshit.
But he also post about freedom/privacy importance and that's something that SJWs do not want, reminder that SJWs are power thirsty people who (if they could) use and impose stalin's dream just so that their agenda can be pushed.

Get used to it. Statistically, people with high intelligence, like hard scientists (physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, etc), are overwhelmingly left-leaning. An interesting long term study showed that dumber kids gravitate toward the right-wing, and smarter kids gravitate towards the left-wing when they become adults.

Source?

Did he ever fuck over someone elses code due to their political opinion? no? he's fine then.

proofs?

nothing to do with the fact that the fathers of progressive leftism infest the schools at a level un-precedented, socially they are drawn to their likeness however literally they are required to swallow progleft coolaid in order to exist in the liberal uni systems.

Stallman was always right.
Stallman is always right.
It's our turn to prove him wrong.

lmfao what is the GPL

I don't. Why would that be something I have to "deal with" at all? Stallman is irrelevant, and he has been for a long time. He's like the dotty older relative you humor at holidays and can safely forget about the rest of the time.

"Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact"
m.pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187

There are very few Republican scientists in America:
people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

"Liberals have the highest education level of any typology group. 49% are college graduates and 26% have some postgraduate education."
people-press.org/2005/05/10/part-3-demographics-lifestyle-and-news-consumption/

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611421206

Not quite the case really, although he does drift into cringe territory occasionally.
Either way, it wouldn't matter to me because I'm not a little teenage-like fanboy. I don't admire people's ideas to leech them and build my social media identity around them. I admire people who have useful ideas, and it's perfectly common for those to coexist in the same person's mind with other, shitty ones. Hell, we're all idiots from time to time.
It's the intellectual equivalent to bumping your toe against a table. If you do it all the time, you're a useless idiot, but no one's exempt from doing it occasionally.

Very smart guy said 'philosophy is like a ladder' - if it works for its purpose we use it, when it doesn't, we throw it away.


No, that's not the cause. It is true that is happening, but not the cause. If you're smart, you'll break free from conditioning no matter how steep. If you don't, it's because you're sheep and wouldn't have good ideas anyway.


That's bogus. Not saying the numbers are necessarily unreal, but the conclusion is obviously biased. There was no left wing for millennia of human existence, and there were plenty of smart people around. You may say
But that is just an opinion. There are no possible grounds to judge such an amount of knowledge and beliefs of an entire civilization or time-period. Scientific facts have to be empirical, to say there's been progress in such a broad scope of ideas would be metaphysical and unscientific.

What does happen is that left-wing ideas have incentives and are much more commonly widespread, so they're much much better developed at an intellectual level (not talking about propaganda here). So yes, they are better full grown ideas than right wing ones at this moment in history. Doesn't mean their principles are better or more correct, or coming from a more intelligent point of view.
There are plenty of quality right wing writers nowadays, with as much depth and scientific rigor as those on the left, but they're way more obscure so a lot of people trying to learn things will see the leftist ones first, and stay there. Then they will think Fox News or things like Ann Coulter are the only ones to the other side, and assume theirs is o so intelligent.

That's why we need to scratch our asses and start producing more real quality ideas, and explore new territories, instead of just cry about how our enemy is winning, expecting that if we complain enough they'll somehow stop out of pity.

actually lol'd

stemlord stop posting anytime pls. just because you live in your postmodern bubble and have the possibility to spout your uneducated ahistoric opinions online doesn't mean you should do do.

the left/right dichotomy is a fairly recent concept, but that doesn't mean there were no historical movements that can't be described as proto-leftist in a sense that they shared the ideological goals that in modernity were labelled as "leftist".

google: "bagaudae", "levellers", "spartacus", "jesuit reduction". or just read a book you pleb.

In the real world hes about as relevant as Eric Raymond these days, who fucking cares.


1 - [Citation Needed]
2 - being in the hard sciences doesn't automatically mean you have a high IQ
3 - even if do provide evidence to support your claim, the types of professions you listed are often funded by governments, that would be like providing evidence that welfare recipients are overwhelmingly left-leaning
4 - funny how you didn't mention engineers :^)
5 - Triple Nine (99.9th percentile, Mensa is only 98th) did a internal servery a number of years ago and found most members to be strongly right-libertarian
6 - have you actually spent time out in the real world talking to successful people?


Oh yes, I can tell just from the abstract that this is going to be an objective and unbiased research paper which leaves no stone unturned in its examination of the potential connection between intellectual ability and leftist political leanings :^)


The joke is there actually was, there have been plenty of what we would call 'socialist' nations throughout history. They aren't around any more because they either collapsed or are now 2nd or 3rd world shitholes which means 'not real socialism'.

There is a reason why Spain was still basically a pre-industrialised society even after WW1 and how to this day its still by far the poorest country in western Europe.

everybody knows that social conservatism is the essence of leftism. and of course authoritarian figures like pinochet were true reds.
you really btfo the authors of the study here. they will never recover.

Nice bait. Weak people make good leftists, and weak people are well distributed in every IQ class; including the >130 ones. That's what we call intellectuals, not intelligent people.
Add to this that scientists do what they do because they like it or for money, not because of a higher purpose, and you should understand that intelligence alone is nothing.

Jokes aside Communist China and the USSR were extremely socially conservative in terms of its attitude towards drugs and homosexuality (punishment = gulag or death), revolutionary Catalonia had edicts severely limiting alcohol and cigarettes, etc.

Secondly, I was pointing out how the authors of that paper from the outset are limiting their definition of 'right wing' to a subset of the umbrella of ideologies which are widely considered 'right wing' in order for their 'research' to reach a conclusion which matches their preconceived biases. Either they did it as a composition/division logical fallacy to imply that all ideologies which can be considered 'right wing' are therefore only adopted by low IQ racists because they showed that its true for a subset of those ideologies. Or they did it as a black-or-white logical fallacy to imply that everything that isn't social conservatism and/or right-wing authoritarianism is therefore leftist. My pick is the former.


Yep, work ethic is far more important, IQ is just potential.

Wtf I hate libre software now

Sage for shit politibait thread

this is some next level intellectual dishonesty. you should be ashamed of yourself. but i understand that shame is no category in the egomanical ideological bubble.

...

I'm happy that my earlier links generated such lively discussion. Conservatism is also linked with psychopathy and Machiavellianism:

Bad News for Conservatives? Moral Judgments and the Dark Triad Personality Traits: A Correlational Study

philpapers.org/go.pl?id=ARVBNF&u=https://philpapers.org/archive/ARVBNF.pdf

academia.edu/1038226/Bad_News_for_Conservatives_Moral_Judgments_and_the_Dark_TriadPersonality_Traits_A_Correlational_Study

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1944267_code1507681.pdf?abstractid=1903914&mirid=2

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1903914

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-011-9140-6
Arvan, M. Neuroethics (2013) 6: 307. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9140-6

Abstract
This study examined correlations between moral value judgments on a 17-item Moral Intuition Survey (MIS), and participant scores on the Short-D3 “Dark Triad” Personality Inventory—a measure of three related “dark and socially destructive” personality traits: Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy. Five hundred sixty-seven participants (302 male, 257 female, 2 transgendered; median age 28) were recruited online through Amazon Mechanical Turk and Yale Experiment Month web advertisements. Different responses to MIS items were initially hypothesized to be “conservative” or “liberal” in line with traditional public divides. Our demographic data confirmed all of these hypothesized categorizations. We then tested two broad, exploratory hypotheses: (H1) the hypothesis that there would be “many” significant correlations between conservative MIS judgments and the Dark Triad, and (H2) the hypothesis that there would be no significant correlations between liberal MIS judgments and Machiavellianism or Psychopathy, but “some” significant correlations between liberal MIS judgments and Narcissism. Because our hypotheses were exploratory and we ran a large number of statistical tests (62 total), we utilized a Bonferroni Correction to set a very high threshold for significance (p = .0008). Our results broadly supported our two hypotheses. We found eleven significant correlations between conservative MIS judgments and the Dark Triad—all at significance level of p 

Firstly, correlation does not imply causation. Secondly, and? were you trying to make a point or something?

You really don't seem to understand how the world works.

muh human nature. guise i know it all. i understand the world lol capitalism rox gommies suck xd

My point is that the scientific evidence indicates a clear connection beteen right-wing, conservative, racist ideology and low cognitive ability, psycopathy and Maciavellianism, as confirmed by this followup study:

A Lot More Bad News for Conservatives, and a Little Bit of Bad News for Liberals? Moral Judgments and the Dark Triad Personality Traits: A Follow-up Study

philpapers.org/archive/ARVALM.pdf

academia.edu/1610757/A_Lot_More_Bad_News_for_Conservatives_and_a_Little_Bit_of_Bad_News_for_Liberals_Moral_Judgments_and_the_Dark_Triad_Personality_Traits_A_Follow-up_Study

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-012-9155-7?no-access=true

Cite this article as:Arvan, M. Neuroethics (2013) 6: 51. doi:10.1007/s12152-012-9155-7

Abstract
In a recent study appearing inNeuroethics, I reported observing 11 significant correlations between the “Dark Triad” personality traits – Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy – and “conservative” judgments on a 17-item Moral Intuition Survey. Surprisingly, I observed no significant correlations between the Dark Triad and “liberal” judgments. In order to determine whether these results were an artifact of the particular issues I selected, I ran a follow-up study testing the Dark Triad against conservative and liberal judgments on 15 additional moral issues. The new issues examined include illegal immigration, abortion, the teaching of “intelligent design” in public schools, the use of waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” in the war on terrorism, laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and environmentalism. 1154 participants (680 male, 472 female; median age 29), recruited online through Amazon Mechanical Turk, completed three surveys: a 15-item Moral Intuition Survey (MIS), the 28-item Short Dark Triad personality inventory, and a five-item demographic survey. The results strongly reinforce my earlier findings. Twenty-two significant correlations were observed between “conservative” judgments and the Dark Triad (all of which were significant past a Bonferonni-corrected significance threshold of p = .0008), compared to seven significant correlations between Dark Triad and “liberal” judgments (only one of which was significant past p = .0008). This article concludes by developing a novel research proposal for determining whether the results of my two studies are “bad news” for conservatives or liberals.

Republicans freed the slaves. Democrats created the ku klux klan. Democrats are advocates for gentile mutilation. You don't need a commie professor to evaluate these facts.

That's because these were communist countries already. When you want to subvert a nation you push for drugs, sex, faggots, all that degeneracy to demoralize nation. All leftist, no matter how close or far away they are from communism are useful idiots used to achieve the communist regime. Once the process is done, you get rid off the useful idiots, take away the drugs and faggots. It's time to exploit the country. And who's doing it.. the juden.
youtu.be/y3qkf3bajd4

Freudian slip

Almost every single influential person can be characterised to have psychopathic and Machiavellian tendencies, from innovators and entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk and Steve Jobs to socialist heroes like Stalin and Hitler. The great people throughout history who don't have those tendencies are the minor exception to the rule.

How much of the world have you experienced first hand? have you actually been to eastern Europe and seen the soul crushing despair communism has left those countries with? have you experienced the 'joys' of having to suffer socialised medicine? and most importantly, would you be willing to actually adhere to the ideology you believe in? simply by having a computer and being able to post on this site you are already in the top ~10% of the world, which means you are automatically on the giving end of any wealth redistribution.


Yet another paper which suffers from the same issues as the ones I outlined in , can you at least try?

The smartest people in Germany in 1936 were Nazis. If you want to go against the herd, you have to be very brave or very stupid. Also, people don't really "choose" their beliefs; they go with the one or two views that are socially acceptable. This does not make it right. Individual smart people can believe some pretty stupid shit in groups.

Wrong. Being a reactionary in 2017 is like being an atheist in 1517.

Correction: conservativism is linked with masculinity.

Nazis are leftwing. Way to prove his point.

I thought that smart people are just egoistical and they choose the politics that grant them freedom.

Shut up, Dnesh D'Souza, no one asked your opinion. Go poop in a beach.

He doesn't. He's okay with pedophilia and bestiality.

His entire career revolves around forcing SJW bullshit (freedom) on to other people. He's a fucking kike. Get him out of the sticky and put up Terry, already.

amerifat history classes everyone. nazism was capitalist. i despise stalin, so at least here we have a little bit of common ground. he actively collaborated with american corporations to build the soviet union's industrial base btw. as usual capitalists had no ethical standards and supported him. i will not go as far as calling stalin a capitalist though because of that because i'm not intellectually dishonest unlike you.

i'm probably old enough to be your daddy, kid
yes. czech republic, slovakia, romania, poland, russia, ukraine, slovenia, croatia, serbia, bosnia. many young people despise neoliberal capitalism just as much as soviet oppression. many old people are in poverty now thanks to capitalism.

i live in an european country with a very good public health care system, it's cheaper and more efficient then the third world tier private shit amerifats have forces down your throats by mega corporations and their henchmen in politics.
yes
shut up i'm a prole and proud of it. this doesn't affect my willingness to share with those who have less than me instead of building my fortune by sucking the blood of other humans.

hitler pandered to capitalists and his rule was more or less capitalist.
nazi ideas were more or less social democratic, which is still capitalist but moderated enough that ancaps will screech that its literally communism. As pathetically un-radical as any leftist or progressive social democracy, yeah, but not ancap or full neoliberalism, which is what retards mean when they say something is 'socialist'

On topic, Stallman is more or less a generic late-20th century american 'leftist.' the later stage of the transition between the old union movements and modern proggie dumbshits. Outside software freedom, he cares about a lot of things that are actually relevant and has decent views on them, but its all fairly reigned in and often unable to see beyond the current state of things. Then theres also the creeping influence of ""social issues"", that later devoured everything else as the sole important focus, any mention of real economic or political issues being edgy fashion to dress up the culture war crap.
Hes alright but pretty dull, with the exception of software freedom and such.

Hitler let the capitalists keep their capital, but told them what to do with it. The Nazi state had de facto ownership over the means of production, even if the capitalists had de jure ownership.


Some of this is true. When you look at leftist beliefs, one of the conclusions of their beliefs is that a totalitarian cabal of leftists would be better suited at running humanity. You have to be a party member to be a party leader, so it is self serving to join the party that wants to take over.

Just make him full on commie and get rid of his idpol. We need him as a cult of personality once the revolt comes.

wew

There's been a political compass shift in the parties in the last century. If you truly knew anything about history you'd know that Abraham Lincoln called "anti-immigration" the "know-nothing-party."

"When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.""- Lincoln.

Scientists are trained to use the results of others. That is a foundational part of research: seeing what others have to say on an issue and building from there. Science research doesn't put a lot of weight into validating that previous results were true (and they note it and acknowledge that its a problem and keep doing it anyway). In addition, science is very social. Research is about recognizing the works of others and incorporating it into new work that advances human knowledge. Science is very susceptible to group think (another problem that they have noted, acknowledged, and keep doing anyway). So, scientists read a "scholarly article" from social scientists who are "experts in their field" and run with it: and everyone piles in because no one wants to be that bearer of bad news (frequently, many scientists who look at sketchy work in another field have no clout in that field to lodge a complaint; they can either not use it, and be left behind, or keep good citations to pass the buck). In this way, things that are completely made up can swirl around for decades in scientific literature and practice.

Now let's talk about Feminism. Feminism is a philosophical framework for interpreting facts. No more, no less. It is a way of understanding the events in the world. The problem is that feminism is passed off as truth. It's conclusions are passed off as real conclusions about the world and not an interpretation about things that are subject to interpretation. It crept into academia with the post-modern belief that there are no privileged philosophies. It then decreed itself a privileged philosophy on the grounds that: A) there are no privileged philosophies, B) therefore it is a valid philosophy, and C) valid philosophies should be privileged. That this line of reasoning makes no sense and bounces back and forth between progressive and conservative values is how it has maintained itself in academia.

Finally, engineers. Engineers, like scientists, have to use the results of others. However, engineers are mostly concerned with getting things done and actually fucking making things. They focus on the research in science that promotes actually getting things done. This gives them the luxury of sitting back and saying: these feminist social scientists are full of bullocks; their conclusions are derived from unfalsifiable propositions about the nature of society; if I just made up axioms like them, I could prove some damning things about them.

Simple. I don't obsess over other people's politics constantly like a mentally ill person (you).

RMS is an avowed socialist, openly advocating for the USA to become a socialist nation.

A Berniebro who voted for Jill Stein, Stallman views the goals of the political Right as solely beneficial to the wealthy in society and irrevocably harmful to the common man.

He viscerally despises Trump and derides him constantly. He keeps his own private nicknames for politicians: Trump is called "the bully", "the cheater", "the infant", and most notably "the troll". Tony Blair is "Tony B'Liar", and Rodrigo Duterte is "president Do-Dirty".

RMS basically views Republican politicians as inhuman monsters hellbent on destroying everything. His disdain for 'establishment' Democrats aligns him firmly within the Bernie camp. He constantly rails against anti-socialist and anti-environmental policies.

RMS believes that global warming is basically one of the worst things ever to happen, and that millions of people will suffer and die as a result of its effects (remember, he is a physicist by education.) His 'childhood sweetheart' (look up the article on his site) was a dedicated animal rights activist. Although strictly not an anti-natalist, Stallman wishes for the total human population to decrease in order to stop ecological degradation and lessen overall human suffering.

Today, RMS 'reblogs' (through Emacs) political articles, cardinally from left-wing sources, on a daily basis. They often deal with supporting socialized medicine, environmental causes, and privacy rights; opposing privatization, "plutocratists", capitalism, and so on. Many of these reblogs are calls for activism, including phone numbers for activists to reach their elected representatives and such.

Source: I have followed his daily blogging for quite a long while now, and my views do not dramatically differ from his. Pls no bully.

Yet the left seems to have no qualms bullying others when they accuse someone of committing ungoodthink in cy+2. All while crying out that they are the victim in all this, somehow.

...

That's true too. I didn't mean to say that "Democrats" were actually good and "Republicans" bad. That's ultimately just political party shitflinding.
tbh I think the only thing sane people can agree on is basic tenents of classical liberalism, while also acknowledging that people are not completely rational actors and thus some regulations are needed.
Meanwhile, authoritarian fuckheads get elected because of irrational people and do nothing but serve their own interests. Which, of course, is completely rational from the perspective of the politician.

Why the fuck is this on Holla Forums anyways. Why is everything natural Holla Forums territory. Fucking faggots.

Authoritarianism can succeed or fail. Any ideology not accounting for the obvious inegality between races, sexes and individuals is doomed to fail.
Lolbertarians are to lazy faggots what pacifists are to cowards. The same thing.

He's a leftist, but he's not an SJW. That's good enough

...