There are reams of examples of ESR's crazy beliefs on the internet. Some of these one could pass off as personal eccentricities e.g. the belief you're a god-like superprogrammer or that Iranian agents are out to harm you. The overt racism, sexism and homophobia, less so. He's not just some dude with some slightly zany ideas.
acqq didn't say anything about racism, sexism or homophobia. They mentioned guns.
I feel like you've taken the conversation as: acqq anti-ESR, myself pro-ESR; and now you're jumping in on the anti-ESR side again, in accordance with how these things always happen.
But no, I'm not defending ESR. I'm saying that acqq's attack on ESR was uncool for reasons that have nothing to do with ESR. Launching a totally unrelated attack on ESR is beside the point.
I actually followed the gun link and read the first paragraph or so, and regardless of what acqq was trying to accomplish or infer with that link, I think those first few paragraphs are informative in a way that his specific views on firearm ownership are not.
Specifically, his choice to purposefully refer to himself as a "gun nut" because he thinks people see he's not "crazy" and it thus "discredits the idiots" flies in the face of the many people here saying he does seem a bit eccentric, if not "crazy". I'm left believing he's exceptionally poor at interpreting people's opinions and motivations (which might well explain some of the behavior referenced).
So, regardless for the reason for the inclusion of that link, I did find it somewhat illuminating.
So, because he expresses very little patience for repeated arguments about a public policy debate that's been going on for decades before he was born, your conclusion is that he must have some sort of defect in understanding other people? Like, some sort of autism spectrum disorder?
Perhaps he has no problem interpreting other people's opinions. Maybe he's just tired of dealing with polite sounding condescension from people who don't agree with him. Holding views that other people dismiss out of hand with implied "you'd agree with me if you didn't have aspergers" style ad hominem arguments for years tends to make them bitter.
> So, because he expresses very little patience for repeated arguments
Little patience is not the same thing as leaning into misconceptions.
> Perhaps he has no problem interpreting other people's opinions. Maybe he's just tired of dealing with polite sounding condescension from people who don't agree with him.
That's entirely possible, but it then means his proffered explanation is a post-hoc justification for trying to push people's buttons and creating discord rather than understanding. That's his prerogative, but I have little patience for people that create misunderstandings and chaos on purpose, regardless of whether they feel justified.
No, my point was it's very, very easy to come away with the impression that ESR is a complete nutjob and he's developed a well-deserved reputation for being one. Maybe you think his views on guns are perfectly sane but that's not even a fraction of the tenth of it. The record is extensive so whenever you run across someone who thinks ESR is bananas, I think it's pretty safe to assume they're familiar with it and are simply picking some issue they feel is particularly striking to them. 'I feel this person is an extremist so I wouldn't want to work with them' is not an unreasonable or 'uncool' position.
> Maybe you think his views on guns are perfectly sane
It's not that. I think his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim.
If someone has other objections to ESR, which are relevant, then they're free to bring one or more of them up. If there are a lot of relevant objections, that should be easy to do.
I'm not interested in saying: that particular objection was irrelevant, but there are so many relevant objections that it doesn't matter.
I think his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim.
I'm quite sure they don't. They have some opinion which you apparently don't share. Fair enough. But that's basically it, they don't really owe you a defense of that opinion to some standard you define.
> Is there any place where I claim that "his views on guns" are relevant?
You linked to his page on guns, with no further commentary, and then suggested that people inform themselves. If you thought the relevant thing was something other than his views on guns, then okay: instead of defending a claim you don't believe, you need to make clear what you are claiming.
I claim that you were either communicating poorly, or deliberately hiding behind ambiguity.
> I see all your responses as your own confusion, probably having root in your own worries (and I'm also not surprised that it's hard to admit that).
Obsessed with guns too much and with drawing false conclusions? To the point of the cognitive dissonance? Like, how dare I linking to the page "on guns" (as you name it) without explaining to you that it's not something you should be "insulted" about! The last sentence in the post above, moreover, has certain similarities with one of the first statements on the page that initiated your response ("I am in fact...") Funny. Note how you ascribed to me the motivations I haven't had and now you write: "There's a big difference between analysing the meaning of some text (which is necessary for communication) and guessing at someone's motives." You actually did the later, accusing me as if I wrote "he supports gun rights" which I absolutely never wrote. Also "It's hiding behind some ambiguity and hinting, but I think the broad intent is quite clear." Apparently it wasn't clear to you, that much you were able to admit. But you continue, guns, guns. It's your invention, not my subject. My subject was the personality traits, all the time.
Yes I was previously familiar with ESR. No I don't have strong opinions about gun control, I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed partly because you are just plain wrong about my motivations, and yes I would have replied the same way if it was about free speech.
I try to be charitable, but that doesn't mean leaving myself vulnerable to vague hinting intended to retain plausible deniability, as I interpreted your initial post; and it doesn't mean tolerating bullshit accusations against me as you're now throwing around.
There's a big difference between analysing the meaning of some text (which is necessary for communication) and guessing at someone's motives and emotional reactions (which is usually rude and unnecessary).
