Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds Uses Profanity To Lambaste Romney Remarks
netbuzz writes "Last night Linux creator Linus Torvalds took to his Google+ page and called Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney 'a f***ing moron.' Torvalds' stated reason? Romney's much-ridiculed suggestion that air passengers would be safer in emergencies if aircraft windows could be opened (a suggestion which some, including Snopes.com, have taken as a joke). Torvalds also recently called Mormonism, Romney's religion, 'bats**t crazy.' Is this just Linus being Linus? Or does such outspokenness on non-technical matters reflect poorly on the Linux community that Torvalds leads?"
eom
I had no clue in Romney's tone or anything else he was joking.
For those having issues understanding the summary, here's the plain text:
'a f***ing moron' = ' a fucking moron'
'bats**t crazy' = 'batshit crazy'
Hope this helps.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Would be nice if the summary mentioned that Linus actually apologized the next day. But I think Linus' original assessment was correct, never mind whether Romney was joking or not.
If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
"does such outspokenness on non-technical matters reflect poorly on the Linux community that Torvalds leads?"
Every member of the Linux community checks to see what Linus is wearing before getting dressed in the morning, right? No? Then why are you asking such an apparently stupid question?
Bask in it, motherfuckers.
Linus is entitled to his opinions no matter how correct they are. However, I would go further and say that the two party system is largely staffed by fucking corrupt morons, and that if you think they are different you are batshit crazy. The two parties are just two arms of the *same machine*. Thank you.
success in one field (for Linus and Mitt) doesn't translate into viability with another.
I admire Linus for daring to speak his mind, in the language he does speak his mind, as a person of public interest (or how you call it). More people should do that, it's honest and you quickly learn where you stand, not only after interpreting the words this or that way and weighing the options.
this sig is useless
The problem is that the reporter that originally covered this (New York Times's Ashley Parker) has stated that Romney said it in the form of a joke and was not being serious. Seems like not being a moron is a fine line even for Linux creators.
Ashley’s response to the question:
The Los Angeles Times story that relayed Romney’s airplane remark to the world was based off a pool report written by the New York Times‘s Ashley Parker. When we asked Parker this morning whether it seemed as if Romney made the mark in jest, she left no doubt. “Romney was joking,” she e-mailed. Parker told us that while the pool report didn’t explicitly indicate that Romney was joking, it was self-evident that he was. ”The pool report provided the full transcript of his comments on Ann’s plane scare,” she said, “and it was clear from the context that he was not being serious.”
You don't need "expertise" in religion (whatever that means) to know that religions are `the stupid virus`, and that Mormonism in particular is really fucking stupid.
Seriously, if I started a religion today and said that you have to hit your hand with a hammer every morning, does it make hitting your hand with a hammer not stupid? If not, what test have these other, stupid, religions passed which makes them not-stupid but my one stupid?
What a loaded question. "Does it reflect badly and cause of loss of reputation", what... that someone calls a batshit crazy religion batshit crazy? Didn't hurt Mark Twain's reputation much.
http://www.salamandersociety.com/marktwain/
So I guess the answer is no.
I had no clue in Romney's tone or anything else he was joking.
It was obvious from his tone in the video (and from body language, and from his laughing while saying it) he was joking. The reporter who was actually there said he was joking. No rational person on earth thinks airplane windows should roll down.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I do agree with him in this sense: you shouldn't need to censor your personal thoughts just for political correctness. Or even "professionalism", as TFA asks for. Even if you're someone of popularity. It shouldn't reflect at all on the Linux community, in the same way Reiser FS didn't become complete shit after Hans' better judgement slipped away from him.
Could he have used more mature words? Sure. But does anyone really care?
Some points:
1. All religion is bats**t crazy. Mormonism is just bats**t crazy with nuts on top.
2. Linus is probably one of the most important figures in the technology industry during the last 20 years or so. Because of that he is a public figure, so like Romney his offhand statements are bound to be criticized, analyzed, etc. He's much less of a public figure than most politicians so he probably isn't used to this as much, but I guess he'll have to. However, he's not a politician, he's a technical leader, so I think people *should* lay off analyzing such comments.
3. Linus is known for speaking his mind and being somewhat harsh. I don't think Linux would have happened otherwise. However, compared to RMS, Linus is a real gentleman.
Allowing aircraft windows to be opened is recipe for disaster, pressure and whatnot.
I've opened the window on a plane. I've even opened the door on a plane. If you are at a low enough altitude, it doesn't matter. Of course, I was on a plane that probably wouldn't make it to an altitude that is unsafe, but it was an aircraft and opening them was not a recipe for disaster. The damn thing had air vents!
I don't ask Romney to fix kernel bugs just as I don't look to Linux for political advice. Both should stick to what they know.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This is the Official Statement of the Open Source Community: The Open Source community is amorphous, and follows no leader. Thus, nobody is capable of making an Official Statement for the Open Source Community. This has been an Official Statement of the Open Source Comunity.
Bruce Perens.
Since Linus is speaking honestly, he makes the entire community look good.
or that Obama has time for Letterman, The View, Beyonce and JayZ
It's campaign season. Get over it. Every sitting president has campaigned whether it's town hall meetings, stump speeches or TV shows.
Mr. Romney himself has said: "It's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for its values." Thus, no doubt he would condemn Mr. Torvalds apology as "appeasing our enemies".
Bruce Perens.
In my experience, people who criticize Mormonism and call it "batshit insane" don't know anything about it other than "Magic Underwear! Har har har!" and the other tripe they've seen on TV. Nor do they actually know any Mormons. They don't know a thing about the history, the reasons why they do, or don't do, certain things.
It's pretty obnoxious. Mormons are good people - they have different values and traditions than a lot of others, and some of them are certainly weird from an outsider's perspective, but they're good people. You don't see Mormons blowing up buildings. They're more likely to be seen helping needy people - and not making a big deal out of it.
I'd rather live next to a dozen Mormon families than be surrounded by "trollololol spageti monster har har arent i funy" types.
And no, not those fringe cults that bonk 12 year old girls say they're Mormon - because they're not.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for daring to defend a Mormon though, because this is Slashdot and FSM forbid I actually, you know, say anything GOOD about religious people...
Love sees no species.
Some of this is BS like the amount of time Obama has spent with this national security team.
What's Romney's policy on Libya? What is Romney's policy on terrorism? Other than "not apologizing" he seems to mostly agree with Obama. So his policy is what, do what Obama wants just be more of a jackass while doing it?
Romney has repeatedly refused to answer any questions on the budget. Obama's budget's conversely have been rather good blocking Republican spending cuts and continuing the 2009 budget more or less indefinitely.
As for more people being on food stamps or jobs. Obama (or more accurately Pelosi) would love to pass something like the WPA and get them off food stamps and into government jobs. Dire poverty has far more to do with Republicans failing to provide needed stimulus.
The Snopes article says Romney was perhaps joking though it isn't definitive.
The irony is palpable. Romney's camp is accusing his opponents of misquoting him, but the centerpiece of Romney's campaign against Obama is a misquote of Obama saying "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" where they cut out the first part so it says "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" - something very different.
Romney's camp can't have it both ways: If they want to run on the Obama misquote then how about they accept Romney doesn't understand why aircraft windows don't open.
And as usual, the real issues remain pushed to the sideline as too hard for an electorate who don't have an attention span that lasts long than a soundbite.
or that Obama has time for Letterman, The View, Beyonce and JayZ
You realize that he's campaigning, right? These public appearances are part of his campaign. It might be nice if a sitting president didn't have to spend much of his 4th year in a reelection campaign, but I'm not sure how to do that. Maybe longer terms with a single-term limit?
he and his wife flew out to NY on the taxpayer dime for dinner and a Broadway show
People make this complaint about every president - the president really has no choice in the matter, he can't book a ticket on a commercial flight and slip away to NYC for a private weekend with his wife. All of his trips, regardless of reason come with immense security that most individuals cannot afford to pay, so every trip is on the taxpayer's dime. This is the tradeoff we make between protecting our top leaders and saving money. Is there any candidate that will promise to never go on vacation? Would you want such a candidate in office?
the fact that he's spending more time of the golf course than with his financial advisors and his national security team combined
In nearly 3-1/2 years (1200 days), he's played 100 rounds of golf. Once every 12 days. At 6 hours each, that's 600 hours. or 30 minutes/day. Sounds like a reasonable recreational activity. Many people think that recreation outside of work helps them stay more focused on their job, and I'd imagine that's true even for presidents. And much of his golf is played on military courses, which reduces the security expenses paid by taxpayers.
fact that a budget has not been passed since Obama has been in office
Congress has done a lot of things poorly since Obama has been in office, but that doesn't mean Obama is solely to blame.
or the fact that more people are on food stamps, are in poverty and/or can't find a job....
Maybe it takes more than 4 years to completely turn around a huge economic downturn that the entire world is still suffering from.
https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/TTeQKFPrCQU?hl=en
o/~ Join us now and share the software
You should work as a PR spokesperson for some politician or something :)
May Peace Prevail On Earth
... We're considering him for a president. I'd rather debate on his policy, record, etc. And I'm not claiming to agree with all of it or think highly of him on these merits, but this is the domain we need to be in, not the "batshit crazy." ...
Romney is the candidate for everyone. No matter what your position is on anything, he has held that position at one time or another..
Or fucking [a] mor[m]on, i.e. just pointing out that Romney has a healthy sexual relationships with his wife, who is also a mormon. SImple mistake.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Bollocks. Everybody should speak about politics if they feel like it, democracy works better that way.
Maybe the motherf***cker is just telling it like it is? I mean, yes, most religions are batsh*t crazy and in America, anything except Catholic, Protestant, or a direct, Jesus-wrote that sh*t his-self, fer sure, is just not going to fly.
Everyone can plainly see that everyone else's religion is just a bunch of hooey.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/windows.asp
Per Snopes, although it is true that Romney made that remark, it was clearly told as a joke meant to lighten the mood. It was not a serious comment.
Oh, I can certainly point out some odious Democrats.
During the SOPA hearings, I became particularly incensed at Maxine Waters. What a waste of everybody's time she is. She and a most on both sides of the aisle didn't particularly "get" why SOPA was a bad idea. Watt was similarly a waste of oxygen and body heat in that chamber. Only a handful like Polis (D), Lofgren(D), Lungren(R), and Issa (R) and got it. Hell, Polis even understood what the hell Bitcoin, TOR, and Silk Road are. The response on /g/ was "oh god, he knows!"
--
BMO
I hate to have to retract my statement after it has already gone +5 Informative. But it was technically incorrect. He didn't actually apologize. What he said was:
Ok, since I publicly called the guy a f*cking moron, I guess I should also publicly follow up: it does seem Romney was joking. Whew.
Which my brain, fluent in Torvaldish, automatically translated into the English
I am ever so sorry, it seems I have wronged you my good sir. My deepest apologies etc. etc.
If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
Technically speaking, the poster is incorrect in referring to Linus Torvalds's comments as "profanity". They are, instead, vulgarity (common or coarse language), rather than profanity (language which demeans the sacred).
Hey ... I'm a writer. I can't help myself.
Check out my novel.
It's only hate speech if it's not true.
Seems like it's most likely to be branded "hate speech" when it is true.
"Hate speech" is just like the false accusations of "racism" and so on. It's a way to try to shut down the discussion at the point where it'd be appropriate to acknowledge that a valid point has been made. It's a cowardly escape route. It's for childish people who think that disagreeing with somoene makes them THE ENEMY and so admitting when THE ENEMY has made a good point and dealing with it like a mature adult (which, oh my god, might involve changing your own point of view) would mean aiding and abetting THE ENEMY. So clearly that can't be done.
Some kind of character attack must be made instead, of course with no corresponding burden of proof. I mean "racist" is a pretty damned serious accusation. It's like calling someone a thief -- you better have evidence. But the goal is not to fulfill a burden of proof. It is to shut down the conversation.
I don't know how it happened but a lot of two-year-olds somehow ended up in adult bodies. Perhaps our scientists should look into this.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
People make this complaint about every president - the president really has no choice in the matter, he can't book a ticket on a commercial flight and slip away to NYC for a private weekend with his wife. All of his trips, regardless of reason come with immense security that most individuals cannot afford to pay, so every trip is on the taxpayer's dime. This is the tradeoff we make between protecting our top leaders and saving money. Is there any candidate that will promise to never go on vacation? Would you want such a candidate in office?
But if something did happen, can't you just elect a new president?
Sure, and there is a succession plan 18 people deep to decide who would take over in the interim and it would take up to a year for the special election to take place. In the meantime the VP is next in line to become president, and there are few vice presidents (or speaker of the house, or secretary of education, or any other people in the succession plan) from either party that I'd want to be acting as president. Especially in a crisis like the death of a sitting president.
The costs from the financial turmoil from even an unsuccessful assassination attempt would be far greater than the cost of providing years of first class security to the president.
It does not follow that if you are speaking honestly, that makes your community look good.
Example: If Linus feels that all women should be raped, that would not make anybody look good.
All that said. I personally don't give a fuck.
...when you say "cult," are you referring to Mormonism or Linux?
He has a record of taking things that are failing and turning them around.
What 'record' did you read? He runs an economic chop shop, runs up huge debts and then sells off the pieces and fires the workers. He's second hand 'Reaganomics'.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Tsk, talking about confirmation bias.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/09/26/obama_jumps_in_gallup_tracker.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
Oh... Gallup suddenly is not that credible anymore, is it?
Romney does come from one of the most liberal states in the country. So much so that he's not likely to even win his own state in the election. He's closer to, say, a Texas Democrat or Oregon Republican (read: fairly moderate) than the asshat fundamentalist that he's been trying to portray himself as in order to get the nomination. So of course nothing much makes sense. He's not being himself in any of this and refuses to say anything lest he be branded as a liberal by most of the extreme right in his party. After all, his positions ARE pretty similar to Obama's.
The problem is that he was a moderately conservative (his being a complete jerk aside) governor in an extremely liberal state who was pushed into the feeding frenzy that is Washington politics. So of course he got blind-sided. What he considered normal conservative practices and ideology wasn't even on the same planet as what the embittered fanatics in the RNC were espousing on a national level. Note how even Ron Paul also got pushed so hard to the right that he wasn't even able to say much of anything about his core Libertarian beliefs in the primaries.
As for Torvalds, he's as much of a spokesperson for Linux and its various distros and forks as Bill Gates is for Microsoft at this point. He has some connection to the product that he created, but essentially doesn't actually do anything meaningful at this point.
Here's the video:
http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2012/09/romney-airplane-windows-not-opening-a-real-problem.html
Judge for yourself. My only comment is that IF he was joking, he really needs to work on his delivery.
I don't hear Bill Nye being a pussy and apologizing for calling it like it is. He called a sitting US Congressman a "fucking idiot" for his pseudo-scientific beliefs and followers of creationism "fucking retarded".
Nope. It's a great story, but it didn't happen.
Mormons are here to make scientology look credible. You want to see bat-shit crazy, just research some Mormon stuff. From baptizing dead jews to getting their own planets, they have some crazy stuff going on in there.
Mormonism vs Christianity http://mormoninfo.org/
The best gag was from a comic when Bush was still in office. The comic was asked what he thought about a Mormon president. After a pause, he shrugged meh, what's one letter?
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
You have to be bats**t crazy to think that the opinions of one person, be he the leader of the Free World, the Wanna-Be-Leader of the Free World, or the leader of the truly Free and Open Linux Kernel reflects on every person in the respective community. And who's F**king Moronic idea was it, that this is even /. newsworthy?
Clearly you don't understand the financial markets. The overwhelming majority of things that impact stock values and market prices are not present/actual happenings, but concerns over potential happenings. US President dies? VP might start a war over it, or change economic policies. Leader of middle eastern country gets the flu? Oil supplies might get disrupted by his successor.
A lot of basic policies didn't change between Obama and Bush (sadly), but the president represents the public face and voice of the country moreso than anyone else can. Obama is way more eloquent, patient, and understanding than Bush was, so the overall view of the US has improved from then--it's no longer quite so dangerous for a US citizen to travel to Europe or Asia and admit to being an American. Would Biden do as well as Obama has with this? Probably not. So it does affect more than just the people in his immediate family.
who's F**king Moronic idea was it, that this is even /. newsworthy?
In the run up to the US election, any excuse to publish political story will be taken. It guarantees hundreds of posts ignoring the supposed topic, just rehashing the usual political talking points.
And why is this dumb story sourced to "networkworld.com"? These assholes are just playing the same game, getting pagehits. Link to what Linus actually wrote: https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/2Z4pgYDFeEm?hl=en
Linus is allowed to have personal opinions. He's not putting "Fuck Romney" in the Linux kernel, just writing a personal blog.
So, the next time you have something glib to say about Mormons, just run it by a real Mormon first. We'll tell you the truth.
If I ask a Catholic about Catholicism, they'll tell me the truth, if I ask a Muslim about Islam, they'll tell me the truth, if I ask a Hindu about Hindi, they'll tell me the truth, etc.
When I add all those truths together, I'll realise that none of them can be correct without falsifying the others, and so it is unlikely that any of their statements can objectively be considered truth. Especially when there is no existing external evidence to support any of these truths.
I know about the three and the eight witnesses, and other people in this thread have debunked them adequately- including the reasons why they didn't recant. You may be a nice person, and I'm sorry that you base your morals and ethics on a foundation that has no basis in fact. For the record, my statement was about the Mormon religion, not the Mormon people. I don't blame people for holding beliefs that they were indoctrinated with from an early age. However, I believe that people can have sound morals and ethics without appealing to a supernatural authority.
A bigot is someone who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief or opinion. As a strong atheist, I am a bigot about religion in much the same way I am a bigot about my mathematical belief that 1+1=2, that is, there is no question about the facts.
I don't believe that religions should get a pass when being analysed under the spot light of critical thinking, and I certainly don't think that they should get tax-exempt status. It is a pity that so much of the world labours under the misconceptions of their religious belief. I can only hope that one day, with enough education, religions will become as rare as they deserve.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Seems like it's most likely to be branded "hate speech" when it is true.
Are you feeling sore or something? There is nothing mysterious about the term "Hate speech" - if the purpose of your speech is to inflame hatred in your audience, then it is hate speech. Of course, it is sometimes a matter of interpretation what the purpose of anybody's words is, but since the purpose of hate speech is to whip up feelings, it will usually be rather short on objectivity while things like accusations and generalisations come thick and fast.
It is perfectly possible to discuss even serious and difficult problems without inciting hate - one good way would be to start out by seeking out any common ground and looking for reasonable solutions.
There is an disturbing irony in the fact that the extremists on both sides of any conflict are so often helping each other by polarising the situation - the anti-muslim extremists are very much carrying fuel to the muslim extremists' bonfire, and are in that sense betraying their own people. To an objective person, the real conflict is not between "The Muslims" and "The Christians", but between those in the middle and the extremists on both sides.
Hmm, I see I have gone OT, sorry about that - but I think what I say is valid in general, and who knows, it may even apply to the subject at hand.
Celebrities go around spouting politics all the time. They even tell us about the science of vaccines, etc.
A smart person voices a political opinion and it's a scandal? We should be backing him up, not trying to silence him.
No sig today...
"Of course, it is sometimes a matter of interpretation what the purpose of anybody's words is..."
This is the entire problem with the any description of "Hate Speech." It is left to the eye of the beholder - which is the very definition of subjective.
How can you have free speech when another persons interpretation can turn it into a crime?
Look - there is nothing in the Constitution about being guaranteed a right to not be uncomfortable with what someone else says, but rather the guarantee is to the person causing the discomfort! If someone chooses to make an extreme comment - then judge them as you will, but it shouldn't be a crime unless someone is harmed physically, or property is destroyed by the person doing the speaking!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
There are hundreds of other candidates, none of which are will likely even have a remote shot of actually winning the election.
One person that is likely going to at least appear on a number of ballots throughout America is Gary Johnson, the current Libertarian Party candidate. If you really can't stomach either Romney nor Obama, that is at least one person to cast that kind of dissenting vote against both political parties. There are currently a total of five presidential candidates that in theory could win the presidency by virtue of the fact that they are officially on enough ballots in enough states with enough electoral votes that something really drastic happening between now and November could open a way for one of those other candidates to actually win. Outside of those five candidates, everybody else really is a fringe candidate and doesn't even have a theoretical chance of winning.
I'm still undecided in terms of who I will vote for this November, and Gary Johnson is looking pretty nice right now. I'm under no illusion that he even has a remote shot of winning, but it at least gives me somebody to look at other than those other two major party candidates.