1 - Agree completely. But it is still wrong, and against the basic idea of democracy.
2 - Possibly. I couldn't tell if it was a rhetorical provocation or not...
3 - If there was a "blue as a smurf"-person, then human-coloured would include being blue as a smurf:-) But all else being equal, the Hulk-guy gets my vote too!
The example was "christianity", because it is parallel to "democracy" - the institution the texts are the basis for. Democracy means the people rule, and the people are most definitely mentioned in the Constitution - quite early on, I believe...
What you are refering to is the "he would have done worse to me had I not hit him"-argument. I am talking about they "since he is doing it, it is OK for me to do it too".
And we do have authority systems to "run to" in civilized countries - the police and the courts. When they are not timely or practical, you get to stop a crime from happening - but not to exact revenge or break the law.
Have you read any of the letters sent among the political theorists who drafted, wrote, signed and criticized the constitution? They specifically mention the problems of majority rule, which is called a simple democracy (presumably also a pun, on "simple as in stupid"). Here's a few quick quote/lesson:
"A simple democracy is the devil's own government." - Dr. Jedediah Morse
I guess the discussion ends here - your conception of democracy might conceivably have been accepted as valid in ancient Athens (if people had not heard about Plato). Today, and at the time of the framing of the constitution, it is and was ludicrous.
Do you want the email on the professor I read it with? Just so you can notify him personally that the laying out of branches of government, establishing the election process, citizen rights, free speech and all that has nothing to do with democracy. He'll be so surprised.
Pray tell, what makes a country democratic, if not free speech, free elections, oversight of government, balances to prevent accumulation of power, basic rights of all citizens, habeas corpus?
But, clearly, not reprehensible in the United States of America to campaign on a platform of your ethnicity as was evidenced in the last major presidential election?
I have no clue why you are bringing this up. Of course that was problematic. Does that make it OK to be racist for everyone else, or what are you arguing here?
If you are a racist, then you cannot, by definition, be a democrat
...It is clear that Democrats, therefore, are an extremely racist party by any definition.
Sorry if this was unclear - I am not talking about being a party "Democrat" (note caps) but being part of a democracy. My argument is about racism vs democracy.
I am from Denmark, and I find the ways race is used in the US problematic too. Also by Obama and the tendency to "select the right race for the right district" you mention. But that is not my point - my point is that voting as a racist is against the entire idea of voting.
Really? Show me where the word is mentioned. I'm sure it must be in there somewhere.
Are you actually arguing that the constitution is not about democracy? Seriously?
Thw world does not work like that. Not every text is tagged correctly or contains in it the word which best describes it. Try finding "christianity" in the bible. Try finding "bible"...
I see, so we should change what we say and how we express ourselves depending on the racial composition of the group we are in.
Yes. I have a great joke about sudden infant death syndrome, and a friend who los a little sister to it - I do not use that joke when he is around. I have acquaintances in wheelchairs, who know the best jokes about their condition - but I will not presume that is OK to repeat them in front of any wheel-chair-bound person I meet.
Of course you should think about what you are saying, based on who you are with. Comparing Bush to a monkey brings up thoughts of stupidity, comparing Michelle Obama brings up racist analogies. It would be nice if our entire culture was such, that one did not even consider the racist viewpoint. But when you make a picture of a black person as a monkey, you do, in actual fact, bring up that way of thinking. And you even seem to endorse, or at least rely on it for your criticism/humor/message/whatever.
So yes. Until racism is abolished, watch what you say to or about people of races-who-have-been-or-are-routinely-discriminated-against/enslaved. And yes, that does suck and is another stupid side-effect of stupid people's moronic beliefs and actions.
How everyone votes is, by definition, everyones business - without discussion of what is the right thing to vote, it becomes an excercise in futility (free press is more important than the voting booth, and all that). And the constitution is entirely about democracy, and is written based on egalitarian/liberal ideals. And I think I am feeding a troll...
It is morally reprehensible to vote racist. It is also against the basic idea of voting at all - voting would not make sense unless we presume all are equal. If you are a racist, then you cannot, by definition, be a democrat - but you can use the voting booths as a weapon against your skin colour of choice. It would be more honest to burn down voting booths in select areas, though.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
No. This is the "he hit first"-argument, and it doesn't work in kindergarten either. (Actually, it's the "he said some bad things back after I killed his brother and tortured him, so it's ok that I say bad things too"...)
It is not OK to vote racist. No matter who you are. Voting based on skin colour is undermining the entire idea of egalitarianism and democracy - we cannot outlaw it, but we can definitely cry foul. So I find your post informative and interesting, but I do not agree with your conclusion (or was it just a provocation?)
True. One can easily imagine a few genocidal dictators who could legitimately be compared to stupid alpha male gorillas. Sometimes, you can find another comparison that works as well, sometimes you can't. But if your charicature, or whatever, gains strength from racist tropes or assumptions - maybe you'd want to rethink it...
I do, however, absolutely agree that sometimes an entire area of discourse becomes taboo, simply because of the morons who usually inhabit it. For instance, I'd hate to be a historian who found actual, reliable evidence that the number of Jews killed in the holocaust was less than previously assumed...
The people who use a personification metaphor to describe the order of the universe are no different from those who use more abstracted and precise language.
Without believing in at least some kind of order, you would not get anywhere. I am not saying that is invalid - just that you will never have a real conversation with such a person (even if you think you are, that person would not really be having a conversation with you, because there would be no concept of "you" to have a conversation with).
Going on to ascribe further characteristics to this order, or the reasons behind it, is metaphysics. And here you either strap in tight, listen to a few old philosophers and remember you (ie. Occam's) Razor! Or you go off into lala-land and begin making shit up.
I will give you that there is a similarity to "having faith that there is order and a world tomorrow" and "having faith that there is order and a world tomorrow - and calling this order God and being generally Deist about it" . The similarity comes to a full stop when you start putting labels and intentions to said god/order - "I believe the world exists tomorrow" is fundamentally different than "I think we should invade the Middle East again to make them all see the glory of Jehova/Jesus/Democracy".
...and on the other we have a guy spouting out a view of the limits of ANNs without actually putting any effort into providing evidence for their limitations.
I didn't see him railing against ANNs being capable of performing as good as, or beyond, a cat. Or a human. Or even performing in basically the same manner. What the FA said was that no simple ANN can be a simulation of a cats brain, because a cats brain is not a simple ANN.
Why the f... are you assuming you know who he meant by "people"? The previous poster specifically said:
...or whomever else they just don't like.
That does not exclude the oppressed group you seem to feel you belong to - it includes it!
He mentioned the ones who have routinely, systematically, historically and presently, been harrassed most obviously. I presume for clarity. I have no clue why you presume it was to target any specific pair of oppressor-oppressed.
The citizens in 1984 did view the surveillance. Winston himself was part of perpetuating the system he hated and which oppressed him - this was more or les the entire point. Same thing today, the guy manning a CCTV system (or who just one a prize through this scheme) will also be watched on his way home.
There does not have to be an evil group of 12 men in a smoke-filled room on the 13th floor in order for you to be oppressed (this is the erroneous thinking which leads to conspiracy theories). The system can be oppressive, and this one is. Or rather, it is a way to make the invasion of privacy (a clear oppression and one which paves the way for a lot of future oppression) more efficient - or at least that is the idea.
I also think it is more like 1984, exactly because it distributes the oppression-task to the larger citizen-ship, like it was in the novel... When the first participant of this game/scheme is sentenced as an accessory for not calling the cops, this is made even clearer.
Which is it. Hmm, well, since I said it was the first one, and not the second one, I'm guessing it's the first one.
And the first one was a claim that this was the comparison basis: "...eliminate the fundamentals of the civilized society".
Again, you will have to excuse me if I am a bit confused here. Because you did also say that: "I am not pointing to the similarity of "removes existing societal structure"..."
But you are now saying that you did not mean that? Can I ask you to not state things you do not mean - and if you do, not try to be snide about it when I get confused as to your position?
So just to be clear, despite your earlier claim that this is not your claim, your claim is that the comparison works because they are both "removing/eliminating/destroying/whatever certain parts of societal structure"?
One point of similarity is indeed pathetic if and only if the argument is that "A is exactly like B" (see above). If on the other hand you're a normal person evaluating the basis for a caricature, this can work quite well.
Again, noone here is talking about "exactly like". Noone. And noone ever has. The basis for a charicature of a politician is whether the claim being insinuated makes sense. When comparing someone to the Joker, you are insinuating these characteristics: evil, trying to tear down all of society, Nietzsche-inspired metaethics, wants to show people how animalistic they truly are, terrorist, über-sneaky, charismatic, funny, insane, seemingly insane or beyond our concept of sanity.
Now, the only thing you have pointed out as relevant is the bit about tearing down society. One thing! One. Painting X as the joker would normally be taken to mean you are saying all or at least the majority of the above things about him. You are saying (and sometimes saying you are not saying) one thing about him.
Lets look at it: The Joker, in order to show people the animals they are without society, uses terrorist tactics to tear down all societal structure.
Obama is not doing what he is doing to show people their animal/unethical side. He is not using terrorist tactics. He is not tearing down all societal structure. What he is doing, is removing certain structures, and putting others in their place.
Now, I have come to understand that you think he is somehow tearing down the constitution/basis for American society. This, having read American history and much of the philosophical reasoning behind the constitution, I find rather laughable. But lets go ahead and assume that.
In that case, you could claim that he is, indeed, tearing down society's basics, just like the Joker.
Obama is equally similar to a flamingo, because he has two legs. They are different kinds of legs, used for different purposes - just like the "tearing down" you are talking about have different motivations and is done using different means.
You have not once tried to argue why your comparison is any less silly (except to claim I was saying Obama is/is exactly like a flamingo - if you are still labouring under that misapprehension, please read my posts again until you get it).
OK, it seems we are talking about two different things here.
Your argument, for DRM, is based on the right of the content creators, or anyone I suppose, to _try_ to protect their content/control peoples machines. Lets agree for arguments sake that they have that right.
I, on the other hand, am talking about whether society and the end user should accept DRM and make that control real. And noone has presented any argument for why I should help the content industry control my machine. Why should I install an OS which limits myself? Why should society (or MS try to) mandate that I cannot do certain things?
I simply haven't seen any arguments for the latter, sorry. I am not trying to strawman anyone here, though I can see how it might look that way if you take my previous post to be aimed at the right of people to try and create DRM systems.
Interestingly, this dichotomy is also important when talking about copyright law in general: While artist X has a moral right to control whether he wants to publish a given song, copyright law gives him the privilege of putting some of that burden on me too. Like DRM, it tries to enable a "share-a-little-with-some" kind of publishing, which is of course not the way information works at all. (Which is why some people think we need an artifical legal- or computer-code "solution" which changes the way information flows).
In your last post, you claim that your argument is, and always was, that they both "eliminate the fundamentals of the civilized society".
Then you say that your are not saying that the similarity is only "removes existing societal structure".
So which is it? Or do you have any other points of similarity which you forgot telling me about?
Re. _exactly_ the same, and what you think you know about what I "obviously think", then I am merely holding you and your argument up to the standard of similarity. I am not saying motivation, goals and means must be the same to make any comparison ever - but that when it comes to people and their actions and agendas, one single point of congruence, when most other relevant traits are almost directly opposite, is... pathetic
So we should not tell the truth about Microsoft, because the truth is so bad it looks like a smear campaign?
If you want people to switch to your offering, have a proxy do your negative campaigning. Don't get the crap on your own hands. M'kay?
No. I think that would be dishonest.
Also, you are casting this in pure marketing terms, which confuses the issue. And calling it "negative campaigning", which is a half-truth at best. This is about informing people as to the price we are all paying for the MS/Mac monopoly and the idea of imaginary property (proprietary software). Trying to do so without mentioning the bad stuff we are suffering under eg. MS is... stupid.
But each item in the campaign should link directly to an explanation with sources on how eg. MS is trying to destroy free protocols, formats, etc.
...but they'll never be able to communicate their argument in a way that gives it any impact.
People should be able to control their own computer and the stuff that is in it. Corporations or government should not be able to control peoples computer or what is in it.
That is the argument. You can couch it in conservative, liberal, libertarian or whatever kind of dressing you want, but that is it. And noone has given any argument against it, except - "but we would really, really like to control your computer - won't someone think of the children/record executives/artist we're starving/whatever".
Also, there are a lot of other truths about MS, such as their express desire, tactic and actions to destroy open formats and protocols for their own goals. I don't think we should shut about that either, just because it makes MS look exactly as bad as they are...
So we should not tell the truth about Microsoft, because the truth is so bad it looks like a smear campaign?
Wow!
The guys in marketing will stand in awe of that logic.
(I do believe, though, that when the truth looks this bad, one should be very careful with ones sources. So I definitely think the FSF should have been better at having a few simple links to the existing proof of wrong-doing).
And certainly one should promote FS more than bash windows - but most everyone will compare against windows (and Mac), so maybe talking about the limitations and problems with Windows and Mac is not such a bad place to start to talk about Free Software...?
Slashdot Mirror
That's not exactly what republic means, and "republic" says very little about a form of government in itself.
I agree that the US system is an attempt to "get as close to anarchy without having anarchy", or at least it was.
It is also democratic, in that it tries to be a government ruled by the people, protecting the rights of the people, and answerable to the people.
1 - Agree completely. But it is still wrong, and against the basic idea of democracy.
2 - Possibly. I couldn't tell if it was a rhetorical provocation or not...
3 - If there was a "blue as a smurf"-person, then human-coloured would include being blue as a smurf :-) But all else being equal, the Hulk-guy gets my vote too!
It's Act 11-25 (one of three hits on "christian".
The example was "christianity", because it is parallel to "democracy" - the institution the texts are the basis for.
Democracy means the people rule, and the people are most definitely mentioned in the Constitution - quite early on, I believe...
What you are refering to is the "he would have done worse to me had I not hit him"-argument.
I am talking about they "since he is doing it, it is OK for me to do it too".
And we do have authority systems to "run to" in civilized countries - the police and the courts. When they are not timely or practical, you get to stop a crime from happening - but not to exact revenge or break the law.
As I said, I already read it.
Majority rule? Only? Really?
Have you read any of the letters sent among the political theorists who drafted, wrote, signed and criticized the constitution? They specifically mention the problems of majority rule, which is called a simple democracy (presumably also a pun, on "simple as in stupid").
Here's a few quick quote/lesson:
"A simple democracy is the devil's own government."
- Dr. Jedediah Morse
I guess the discussion ends here - your conception of democracy might conceivably have been accepted as valid in ancient Athens (if people had not heard about Plato). Today, and at the time of the framing of the constitution, it is and was ludicrous.
PS: Since we're exchanging links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Do you want the email on the professor I read it with? Just so you can notify him personally that the laying out of branches of government, establishing the election process, citizen rights, free speech and all that has nothing to do with democracy. He'll be so surprised.
Pray tell, what makes a country democratic, if not free speech, free elections, oversight of government, balances to prevent accumulation of power, basic rights of all citizens, habeas corpus?
It is morally reprehensible to vote racist.
But, clearly, not reprehensible in the United States of America to campaign on a platform of your ethnicity as was evidenced in the last major presidential election?
I have no clue why you are bringing this up. Of course that was problematic. Does that make it OK to be racist for everyone else, or what are you arguing here?
If you are a racist, then you cannot, by definition, be a democrat
...It is clear that Democrats, therefore, are an extremely racist party by any definition.
Sorry if this was unclear - I am not talking about being a party "Democrat" (note caps) but being part of a democracy. My argument is about racism vs democracy.
I am from Denmark, and I find the ways race is used in the US problematic too. Also by Obama and the tendency to "select the right race for the right district" you mention. But that is not my point - my point is that voting as a racist is against the entire idea of voting.
Really? Show me where the word is mentioned. I'm sure it must be in there somewhere.
Are you actually arguing that the constitution is not about democracy? Seriously?
Thw world does not work like that. Not every text is tagged correctly or contains in it the word which best describes it.
Try finding "christianity" in the bible. Try finding "bible"...
I see, so we should change what we say and how we express ourselves depending on the racial composition of the group we are in.
Yes. I have a great joke about sudden infant death syndrome, and a friend who los a little sister to it - I do not use that joke when he is around. I have acquaintances in wheelchairs, who know the best jokes about their condition - but I will not presume that is OK to repeat them in front of any wheel-chair-bound person I meet.
Of course you should think about what you are saying, based on who you are with. Comparing Bush to a monkey brings up thoughts of stupidity, comparing Michelle Obama brings up racist analogies.
It would be nice if our entire culture was such, that one did not even consider the racist viewpoint. But when you make a picture of a black person as a monkey, you do, in actual fact, bring up that way of thinking. And you even seem to endorse, or at least rely on it for your criticism/humor/message/whatever.
So yes. Until racism is abolished, watch what you say to or about people of races-who-have-been-or-are-routinely-discriminated-against/enslaved. And yes, that does suck and is another stupid side-effect of stupid people's moronic beliefs and actions.
How everyone votes is, by definition, everyones business - without discussion of what is the right thing to vote, it becomes an excercise in futility (free press is more important than the voting booth, and all that).
And the constitution is entirely about democracy, and is written based on egalitarian/liberal ideals. And I think I am feeding a troll...
It is morally reprehensible to vote racist. It is also against the basic idea of voting at all - voting would not make sense unless we presume all are equal. If you are a racist, then you cannot, by definition, be a democrat - but you can use the voting booths as a weapon against your skin colour of choice. It would be more honest to burn down voting booths in select areas, though.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
No. This is the "he hit first"-argument, and it doesn't work in kindergarten either.
(Actually, it's the "he said some bad things back after I killed his brother and tortured him, so it's ok that I say bad things too"...)
It is not OK to vote racist. No matter who you are. Voting based on skin colour is undermining the entire idea of egalitarianism and democracy - we cannot outlaw it, but we can definitely cry foul. So I find your post informative and interesting, but I do not agree with your conclusion (or was it just a provocation?)
True. One can easily imagine a few genocidal dictators who could legitimately be compared to stupid alpha male gorillas. Sometimes, you can find another comparison that works as well, sometimes you can't.
But if your charicature, or whatever, gains strength from racist tropes or assumptions - maybe you'd want to rethink it...
I do, however, absolutely agree that sometimes an entire area of discourse becomes taboo, simply because of the morons who usually inhabit it. For instance, I'd hate to be a historian who found actual, reliable evidence that the number of Jews killed in the holocaust was less than previously assumed...
What makes you so sure that this comparison is racially charged?
Because likening black people to monkeys is a tried and true tactic of racist morons?
The people who use a personification metaphor to describe the order of the universe are no different from those who use more abstracted and precise language.
Without believing in at least some kind of order, you would not get anywhere. I am not saying that is invalid - just that you will never have a real conversation with such a person (even if you think you are, that person would not really be having a conversation with you, because there would be no concept of "you" to have a conversation with).
Going on to ascribe further characteristics to this order, or the reasons behind it, is metaphysics. And here you either strap in tight, listen to a few old philosophers and remember you (ie. Occam's) Razor! Or you go off into lala-land and begin making shit up.
I will give you that there is a similarity to "having faith that there is order and a world tomorrow" and "having faith that there is order and a world tomorrow - and calling this order God and being generally Deist about it" . The similarity comes to a full stop when you start putting labels and intentions to said god/order - "I believe the world exists tomorrow" is fundamentally different than "I think we should invade the Middle East again to make them all see the glory of Jehova/Jesus/Democracy".
+1 Directly to the fucking point!
...and on the other we have a guy spouting out a view of the limits of ANNs without actually putting any effort into providing evidence for their limitations.
I didn't see him railing against ANNs being capable of performing as good as, or beyond, a cat. Or a human. Or even performing in basically the same manner. What the FA said was that no simple ANN can be a simulation of a cats brain, because a cats brain is not a simple ANN.
By "people," you apparently mean...
Why the f... are you assuming you know who he meant by "people"? The previous poster specifically said:
...or whomever else they just don't like.
That does not exclude the oppressed group you seem to feel you belong to - it includes it!
He mentioned the ones who have routinely, systematically, historically and presently, been harrassed most obviously. I presume for clarity. I have no clue why you presume it was to target any specific pair of oppressor-oppressed.
The citizens in 1984 did view the surveillance. Winston himself was part of perpetuating the system he hated and which oppressed him - this was more or les the entire point.
Same thing today, the guy manning a CCTV system (or who just one a prize through this scheme) will also be watched on his way home.
There does not have to be an evil group of 12 men in a smoke-filled room on the 13th floor in order for you to be oppressed (this is the erroneous thinking which leads to conspiracy theories). The system can be oppressive, and this one is. Or rather, it is a way to make the invasion of privacy (a clear oppression and one which paves the way for a lot of future oppression) more efficient - or at least that is the idea.
I also think it is more like 1984, exactly because it distributes the oppression-task to the larger citizen-ship, like it was in the novel... When the first participant of this game/scheme is sentenced as an accessory for not calling the cops, this is made even clearer.
Which is it. Hmm, well, since I said it was the first one, and not the second one, I'm guessing it's the first one.
And the first one was a claim that this was the comparison basis:
"...eliminate the fundamentals of the civilized society".
Again, you will have to excuse me if I am a bit confused here. Because you did also say that:
"I am not pointing to the similarity of "removes existing societal structure"..."
But you are now saying that you did not mean that? Can I ask you to not state things you do not mean - and if you do, not try to be snide about it when I get confused as to your position?
So just to be clear, despite your earlier claim that this is not your claim, your claim is that the comparison works because they are both "removing/eliminating/destroying/whatever certain parts of societal structure"?
One point of similarity is indeed pathetic if and only if the argument is that "A is exactly like B" (see above). If on the other hand you're a normal person evaluating the basis for a caricature, this can work quite well.
Again, noone here is talking about "exactly like". Noone. And noone ever has. The basis for a charicature of a politician is whether the claim being insinuated makes sense. When comparing someone to the Joker, you are insinuating these characteristics: evil, trying to tear down all of society, Nietzsche-inspired metaethics, wants to show people how animalistic they truly are, terrorist, über-sneaky, charismatic, funny, insane, seemingly insane or beyond our concept of sanity.
Now, the only thing you have pointed out as relevant is the bit about tearing down society. One thing! One. Painting X as the joker would normally be taken to mean you are saying all or at least the majority of the above things about him. You are saying (and sometimes saying you are not saying) one thing about him.
Lets look at it:
The Joker, in order to show people the animals they are without society, uses terrorist tactics to tear down all societal structure.
Obama is not doing what he is doing to show people their animal/unethical side.
He is not using terrorist tactics.
He is not tearing down all societal structure.
What he is doing, is removing certain structures, and putting others in their place.
Now, I have come to understand that you think he is somehow tearing down the constitution/basis for American society. This, having read American history and much of the philosophical reasoning behind the constitution, I find rather laughable.
But lets go ahead and assume that.
In that case, you could claim that he is, indeed, tearing down society's basics, just like the Joker.
Obama is equally similar to a flamingo, because he has two legs. They are different kinds of legs, used for different purposes - just like the "tearing down" you are talking about have different motivations and is done using different means.
You have not once tried to argue why your comparison is any less silly (except to claim I was saying Obama is/is exactly like a flamingo - if you are still labouring under that misapprehension, please read my posts again until you get it).
OK, it seems we are talking about two different things here.
Your argument, for DRM, is based on the right of the content creators, or anyone I suppose, to _try_ to protect their content/control peoples machines. Lets agree for arguments sake that they have that right.
I, on the other hand, am talking about whether society and the end user should accept DRM and make that control real. And noone has presented any argument for why I should help the content industry control my machine. Why should I install an OS which limits myself? Why should society (or MS try to) mandate that I cannot do certain things?
I simply haven't seen any arguments for the latter, sorry. I am not trying to strawman anyone here, though I can see how it might look that way if you take my previous post to be aimed at the right of people to try and create DRM systems.
Interestingly, this dichotomy is also important when talking about copyright law in general:
While artist X has a moral right to control whether he wants to publish a given song, copyright law gives him the privilege of putting some of that burden on me too. Like DRM, it tries to enable a "share-a-little-with-some" kind of publishing, which is of course not the way information works at all. (Which is why some people think we need an artifical legal- or computer-code "solution" which changes the way information flows).
In your last post, you claim that your argument is, and always was, that they both "eliminate the fundamentals of the civilized society".
Then you say that your are not saying that the similarity is only "removes existing societal structure".
So which is it?
Or do you have any other points of similarity which you forgot telling me about?
Re. _exactly_ the same, and what you think you know about what I "obviously think", then I am merely holding you and your argument up to the standard of similarity. I am not saying motivation, goals and means must be the same to make any comparison ever - but that when it comes to people and their actions and agendas, one single point of congruence, when most other relevant traits are almost directly opposite, is... pathetic
If you want people to switch to your offering, have a proxy do your negative campaigning. Don't get the crap on your own hands. M'kay?
No. I think that would be dishonest.
Also, you are casting this in pure marketing terms, which confuses the issue. And calling it "negative campaigning", which is a half-truth at best.
This is about informing people as to the price we are all paying for the MS/Mac monopoly and the idea of imaginary property (proprietary software). Trying to do so without mentioning the bad stuff we are suffering under eg. MS is... stupid.
But each item in the campaign should link directly to an explanation with sources on how eg. MS is trying to destroy free protocols, formats, etc.
...but they'll never be able to communicate their argument in a way that gives it any impact.
People should be able to control their own computer and the stuff that is in it. Corporations or government should not be able to control peoples computer or what is in it.
That is the argument. You can couch it in conservative, liberal, libertarian or whatever kind of dressing you want, but that is it. And noone has given any argument against it, except - "but we would really, really like to control your computer - won't someone think of the children/record executives/artist we're starving/whatever".
Also, there are a lot of other truths about MS, such as their express desire, tactic and actions to destroy open formats and protocols for their own goals.
I don't think we should shut about that either, just because it makes MS look exactly as bad as they are...
So we should not tell the truth about Microsoft, because the truth is so bad it looks like a smear campaign?
Wow!
The guys in marketing will stand in awe of that logic.
(I do believe, though, that when the truth looks this bad, one should be very careful with ones sources. So I definitely think the FSF should have been better at having a few simple links to the existing proof of wrong-doing).
I am not sure it is FUD if it is true...
And certainly one should promote FS more than bash windows - but most everyone will compare against windows (and Mac), so maybe talking about the limitations and problems with Windows and Mac is not such a bad place to start to talk about Free Software...?