Comment by canadaduane
8 hours ago
"Don't look him up, he's not exactly role model material." I don't admire the ethos of putting people in bad boxes.
8 hours ago
"Don't look him up, he's not exactly role model material." I don't admire the ethos of putting people in bad boxes.
On the otherhand, I greatly appreciate that we don't pretend everyone is 100% awesome all the time. We shouldn't hold people up as role models that we don't want to emulate, and whatnot.
If we're not pretending everyone is awesome then why permanently deselect certain people as role models?
One of them is legit a saint and the other almost as much. They absolutely are role models, and the way they are talked about now is exactly a lesson in the problem. If more people emulated them, the world would be a much better place.
If you're talking about Eric S. Raymond here, I'm having trouble not believing that this is just bait. Even in the Linux community, purely on Linux terms he's a problematic and polarizing figure.
I'm annoyed at the arc these discussions invariably take into Raymond's backstory or whatever, because I think CATB fails objectively, on its own merits (or lack thereof) and we don't need to wade into this other stuff. But if we're having the discussion: seems like kind of a wild statement to say he's any reasonable person's role model.
I can't help but disagree with you 100%. Brilliant technicians aren't automatically role models, and both men have plenty of characteristics that shouldn't be emulated.
Their positive influence on open source is real; that doesn't make them, as people, role models.
1 reply →
You believe in the commentary and advocacy he provides for pedophilia? Why should I and others pay more attention to that?
3 replies →
It also instigates people to look at the worst in others. Don't think about pink elephants!
I think enough of us have imperfections that we can appreciate that people who've done wonderful things have also done some very $#!tty things. Someone doesn't need to be a saint to still have a wide, positive influence.
Which wonderful things are you referring to?
I went looking to refresh my memory, and Wikipedia reminded me about the brief window where ESR lent his voice to the Great Slate and helped raise money for progressive campaigns.
I absolutely think we should put people in bad boxes, and would go so far as to suggest if you are worried about this possibility, you may be worried about which box you belong in. ;)
I think the important part is there must always remain a possibility for someone to exit that box. Repentance and forgiveness are key values in themselves, and we must be able to accept people if they can change.
Unrepentant garbage people who still make garbage statements and do garbage things, however, can remain in the dumpster where they belong until such time they warrant climbing out.
> you may be worried about which box you belong in. ;)
There’s also the risk someone very loud decides to put you in a box you don’t belong in. Eventually you are able to demonstrate it, but, in the meantime, you need to deal with the consequences.
Your post may be insinuating that you put ESR and RMS in such boxes, although you did not actually say that. You might want to clarify that point. (And I say that as someone who has neither upvoted or downvoted you.)
I'll also say that there are enough aspects of our personality and behavior that you might use to justify placing someone in the "bad box" that almost everyone would be in one; and if you were to relax the criteria so that you "average badness" along multiple axes, that comes with its own problems.