Talking about personal freedom without considering collective freedom doesn’t make sense when billions of people live on the same planet.
So by giving a definition that is a superset of your definition, explicitly stating my support for the collective freedom part that you advocate for, and praising you for mentioning it instead of focusing strictly on individual freedom wasn’t enough for you because I didn’t hyperfocus like you?
Responding to the remainder of your points individually is a waste of time. You completely ignored the context of the quotes you responded to and still have yet to understand that I’ve been trying to tell you (since my initial reply) that I agree that the methods which the FSF uses to try to advocate for freedom are often counterproductive. I only argue that this problem is not caused by an incorrect definition of freedom, just a hyperfixation on the value of free software (while ignoring other values).
This mirrors your approach. You hyperfixate on using no “violence” (I only quote to emphasize to readers that this word as used here is a technical term which includes things the average reader would not consider violence) and the necessity of all humanity agreeing on a single absolute moral framework for any change to occur. This prevents your cooperation with many people who agree with what you are fighting for in practice but don’t want to have you be the heavy-handed dictator of their entire moral framework.
I was trying to defend your point of view about the harms of the FSF’s approach and importance of collective freedom, and your response was a frankly ranty and sanctimonious lecture on how your moral framework is the right one and that humanity is doomed unless they adopt your ideology in it’s entirety as passed down to you through your special lineage of uniquely “scientifically” based, superior morality. Just as the FSF, you are incidentally driving away those who might otherwise support you in your obsession with purity of an ideal.
Another irony is that your own responses are replete with violent/coercive language and claims of the supposedly experimentally verified moral inferiority of “100%” of “people on the streets”.
unless I kidnap you and put you in a cell.
Roughly 15 years of constant 24/7 hammering into your ears if you are not receptive.
Violence can escalate very quickly in urgent situations, so self defense should be able to escalate very quickly to lethal levels in urgent situations
Finally, you have said multiple times that you will “point [people] in the right direction only if [they] send you a private message”. Perhaps you should consider that if your message about the moral code that all people should follow cannot be said in public (in a relatively safe place), then maybe you should rethink it (or at least how you present it).