Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Politics

Torvalds Uses Profanity To Lambaste Romney Remarks 1223

Posted by samzenpus
from the can't-we-all-just-get-along? dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Torvalds Uses Profanity To Lambaste Romney Remarks

Comments Filter:
  • Reflects poorly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linear a (584575) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:49PM (#41471289)
    eom
    • by PhrostyMcByte (589271) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:00PM (#41471457) Homepage

      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?

      • by niftydude (1745144) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:25PM (#41471693)

        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

        Exactly. On top of this - every actor, actress, musician on the planet is allowed to voice their opinion on politics, religion, etc - but if a technical guy such as Linus does, it is unprofessional?

        And just for the record - Mormonism is batshit crazy. It takes an unprecedented level of double-think to believe Joseph Smith's story about the golden plates that no-one ever saw, and his excuses for why he couldn't translate the same transcript the same way twice.

        Linus shouldn't need to apologise for a statement that is objectively and obviously correct.

        • by Seeteufel (1736784) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:42PM (#41471925) Homepage
          The other aspect is his European origin. Politicians like Romney would not be capable of giving satisfaction over here. They are simply too far off. The reason for this is that Republicans are not conservatives in the European sense. Mormonism is quite crazy as a religious belief though their believers seem to be very nice personalities.
        • by Frankie70 (803801) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:17PM (#41473339)

          It takes an unprecedented level of double-think to believe Joseph Smith's story about the golden plates that no-one ever saw, and his excuses for why he couldn't translate the same transcript the same way twice.

          Does it take more double think than that required for someone dying on Friday and coming back on Sunday?

        • by portforward (313061) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:13PM (#41473853)

          my religion isn't. I am a Mormon. I guess I should be offended by what Torvalds said, but if I go around getting offended by every time somebody says something unthinking or inaccurate, then I won't live my life. Perhaps if all I knew about my faith came from people ranting on the internet I guess that I would be scared too. But here is the thing. When I find someone who makes a pretty easy factual mistake about something, I can ignore the rest of what they say pretty easily. For example. Lets say that you read a history textbook that says that Theodore Roosevelt ended World War II by dropping an H-bomb on Tokyo in 1946. Would you pay any attention at all to any analysis that that book made? If you know anything about history, you could quite easily detect the subtle yet easily identifiable mistakes that someone not quite in the know would make. If you didn't know any better, you could conceivably believe the person. But you would be wrong.

          OK, so how does that apply here? You said, "golden plates that no-one ever saw". Now, if you knew even a smidgen of Mormon history you would know about the three Witnesses and the eight Witnesses. In fact, their testimony is printed in every Book of Mormon. Each of those eleven men to their dying day never denied seeing the plates. Some people after interviewing them tried to explain away, or spin what was said so Martin Harris and David Whitmer countered newspaper accounts with their own newspaper advertisements. Even fifty years after the fact, after Joseph Smith was long dead and the LDS church was in Utah, Whitmer 1000 miles away safely in Missouri could have easily denied his testimony but expressed the truth of what he saw and said on his deathbed. He even had it engraved on his tombstone. To state that "no-one ever saw" the plates (or claimed to have seen the plates) is a serious misrepresentation of historical record. So, any further analysis that you might bring is "objectively and obviously" incorrect.

          Most of the stuff deemed "bat XXXX crazy" really comes from people and books who falsify and misrepresent our church and its beliefs. It is very disappointing that people who consider themselves intelligent and open minded really aren't. I guess it is ok to make fun of us, just realize that you are being a bigot while you do it.

          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.

          • by niftydude (1745144) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @12:33AM (#41474369)

            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.

      • by unimacs (597299) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:58PM (#41472139)
        Words matter. It's entirely possible to be honest without being crass. Tactful expression of one's opinions is far more effective.

        Does it reflect poorly on the linux community? Don't know about that one. Anybody that's even aware that a linux community exists is probably far more interested in technology than Linus's opinions of various politicians. On the other hand I can't think of a single way it could reflect well on the community.
    • Re:Reflects poorly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by farble1670 (803356) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:08PM (#41471541)

      so ... you're incapable of seeing two sides of the same person? if you disagree with them in one arena, you can't respect them in another? that seems a little simplistic.

  • by rolfwind (528248) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:51PM (#41471313)

    I had no clue in Romney's tone or anything else he was joking.

  • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:51PM (#41471315)

    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.

  • by TheInternetGuy (2006682) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:52PM (#41471327)
    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.
  • by mtrachtenberg (67780) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:53PM (#41471339) Homepage

    "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?

  • freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Narcocide (102829) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:53PM (#41471343) Homepage

    Bask in it, motherfuckers.

    • by Intropy (2009018) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:01PM (#41471463)

      You can celebrate the freedom without celebrating each usage of that freedom.

      • by tftp (111690) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:51PM (#41472047) Homepage

        You can celebrate the freedom without celebrating each usage of that freedom.

        By simple reasoning you then start celebrating a freedom that has no usage whatsoever. For example, you can say again and again that the USA is the most free country in the world, or that it has the lowest taxes and the best business climate. It's very convenient when people learn a dogma without any proof of its validity today. That's why a freedom must be exercised, and only those exercises should be celebrated - and failures to exercise a freedom must be noted and counter-celebrated. Otherwise you will end up with First Amendment Zones, and the only allowed freedom of speech will be the freedom to wholeheartedly agree with the powerful of this world - and only when it's convenient for them.

  • Ehh. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tetrahedrassface (675645) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:55PM (#41471359) Journal

    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.

  • by Silas is back (765580) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:57PM (#41471387) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by Xandrax (2451618) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:57PM (#41471391)

    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.”

  • by WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:59PM (#41471435)

    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/ [salamandersociety.com]

    So I guess the answer is no.

  • Some points (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grouchomarxist (127479) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:03PM (#41471479)

    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.

  • by BMOC (2478408) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:04PM (#41471493)
    It is not unusual for emergency exit doors over wings to have windows in them. It is not unusual for normal boarding doors to have windows in them. There is nothing in engineering or science that precludes the idea of an airliner with pressure-rated window-doors that have an arm-able open for passengers. The only thing preventing aircraft designers from doing this is expense and weight. There's no reason it couldn't be done, just like there's no reason airbags couldn't be installed to prevent passenger injuries in crashes. At some point you make engineering tradeoffs. Romney isn't crazy for suggesting this. But an airplane manufacturer might be crazy to build one.
  • by Anonymous Psychopath (18031) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:15PM (#41471617) Homepage

    And then apologizes the next day because the idiot on MSNBC got it wrong.

    And we wonder why politicians never speak their minds about anything under any circumstances.

  • Mormons (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KermodeBear (738243) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:25PM (#41471695) Homepage

    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...

    • Re:Mormons (Score:4, Informative)

      by xs650 (741277) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:43PM (#41471937)
      Yes, I have known many Mormans that are good honorable people. Their religion is still based on a scam though.
    • Re:Mormons (Score:5, Informative)

      by whoever57 (658626) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:55PM (#41472105) Journal

      And no, not those fringe cults that bonk 12 year old girls say they're Mormon - because they're not.

      Some Scotsmen might have something to say about that [wikipedia.org]

    • Re:Mormons (Score:5, Interesting)

      by greggman (102198) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @09:35PM (#41472959) Homepage

      Agreed, Mormons are no more bat shit insane than any religion. in fact they are arguably better than most.

      Mormons have no paid clergy. No one in the Mormon church is making a living of it's members unlike most other religions

      Mormons don't believe in a vengeful God

      Mormons have their own welfare system and prefer members that need it take from the church not from the government

      Mormons believe God exists in this dimension, not some alternate unseeable dimension like most religions

      Mormons believe we are literally Gods children as in if we do well we'll grow up to be gods. From the pov of most religions that might seem strange but from another pov it adds a kind if logic the others lack. You don't have to try to be good to avoid hell (Mormons don't really believe in hell like other religions) .. You need to try to be good because you can't be a god if you can't be trusted with that kind of power

      Note: the Mormon religion is just as stupid as other religion on the general sense but it's certainly not more insane.

  • by CuteSteveJobs (1343851) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:29PM (#41471745)
    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.
  • Linus' follow up... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hobart (32767) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:37PM (#41471847) Homepage Journal

    https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/TTeQKFPrCQU?hl=en [google.com]

    Linus Torvalds - 3:19 PM - Public

    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.

    ...Move along. Can we get back to hating on proprietary blobs now?

  • Technically speaking (Score:5, Informative)

    by thomst (1640045) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:59PM (#41472149) Homepage

    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.

  • by Marble68 (746305) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:08PM (#41473263) Homepage

    Boeing 737 and Airbus 320 for example.

    If he wasn't joking: For venting smoke, the airbus manual says (or used to say) you have to reduce speed to below 200 knots. You should be at low altitude, of course.

    Despite studies showing these it not much good in venting this way, crews still desire to do it.

    I looked and Romney didn't say anything about " passengers rolling down the windows at 30,000 feet and at 500 knots."

    That's just wild ass charicature circle jerking. What he said was that they (FAA? Manufacturer? Leasor?) should allow it. He might have been reflecting the crew's sentiments.

    Venting air via an open window could be done using air rams to maintain pressure. The FAA doesn't like the planes slowing down and dropping altitude to do it for delayed landing, reduced cummonication, and analysis of In effectiveness.

    Wide body jets are particularly bad aerodynamically to allow venting based on studies.

    planes in the US May have their windows bolted shut, I don't know about that.

    But I do know that even today there are planes evenin commercial service that have windows that can be opened in flight and older flight manuals gave instructions on how to do it in the event of smoke or fire. (btw, fire can be bad because the vacuum can pull it into other areas of the plane).

    Anyway, I don't get Linus' reaction as I when I read the quote in the la times I immediately thought I understood what he was saying.

    The planes are made with opening windows, but I don't know

Sigmund Freud is alleged to have said that in the last analysis the entire field of psychology may reduce to biological electrochemistry.

Working...