> Writing an essay to persuade someone means talking to them on their terms. If you start off with the "Micro$oft"s and the "Windoze"s you're going to lose the people you want to reach, especially when it reeks of childish namecalling.
I can't say I'm mourning the loss of people who think it's childish, or that it's a bad thing--at most it's a silly distraction. If you care, why don't you rewrite his stuff to be more friendly? I'm gonna go ahead and guess he licenses his content liberally.
I gotta say, his essays don't come across as intending to be generally persuasive, and I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion. His audience is fundamentally one that self-selects to think for themselves, and his diction is one way of achieving that.
What you are suggesting is making a non-compromising person into a compromising person, which we have far too many of already.
> I gotta say, his essays don't come across as intending to be generally persuasive
That's a weird argument to make. Why write them at all, then? RMS has a long history of trying to persuade people of the benefits and virtues of Free Software; his writing on related topics is obviously meant to persuade, at least how I see it.
I agree with the parents' point: if the intention is to persuade, then the words used matter. It might seem dumb to you that some word choices will turn people off, but that's irrelevant. What's important is the actual outcome of "did you persuade someone or didn't you?" That's literally the only question that matters.
And if a writer doesn't believe that, then, frankly, they're a poor steward of the advancement of their cause.
> His audience is fundamentally one that self-selects to think for themselves, and his... diction is one way of achieving that.
It sounds like you're equating "being a 100% emotionless robot" with "people who think for themselves". I'm getting a bit tired of people who think it's possible to remove all emotion from every argument. Sure, some people can do that, but the vast majority of people cannot. And I don't really assign a value judgment to either kind of person... but I can certainly tell you which kind I think are more fun to be around.
> That's a weird argument to make. Why write them at all, then?
To fire up people who already generally agree (or simply need to know which problem their cult leader wants to direct them against and don't need convincing), not to convince people who have a different pre-existing opinion.
I have different opinions than RMS; that should hardly come as a surprise. As a former Linux and GNOME developer, I don't believe the FSF, the GNU project and RMS have chosen effective ways to communicate their talking points.
The final straw came when me and a colleague were discussion the implementation details of Linux kernel features on a mailing list that happened to include RMS, and he came in to correct me about how it's called the "GNU/Linux Operating System", and wouldn't listen to us when we told him that, no, we are very specifically talking about Linux in this case.
Nobody is arguing against his right to publish whatever sensationalist, childish, ad-hominem riddled nonsense he wants to.
We're just arguing that for such a great FOSS leader, he sure publishes some sensationalist, childish, ad-hominem riddled nonsense.
His writing style is absolutely awful, and reeks of selfrighteousness. He's within his rights to keep writing that way, and I'm within my rights to call him out for being ineffective and narcissistic writer.
I can't say I'm mourning the loss of people who think it's childish, or that it's a bad thing--at most it's a silly distraction. If you care, why don't you rewrite his stuff to be more friendly? I'm gonna go ahead and guess he licenses his content liberally.
I gotta say, his essays don't come across as intending to be generally persuasive, and I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion. His audience is fundamentally one that self-selects to think for themselves, and his diction is one way of achieving that.
What you are suggesting is making a non-compromising person into a compromising person, which we have far too many of already.