That's the difference between ideologues and people who actually care about the values they promote rather than people who aggrandize themselves.
That's the difference between ideologues and people who actually care about the values they promote rather than people who aggrandize themselves.
In other words, when someone comes along and says what amounts to "for ethical reasons, I behave differently than you", people interpret it (understandably but unreasonably) as saying "you are an unethical person" (whereas the responsible reaction is, "hmm, maybe there's an ethical issue here that I should consider that I haven't yet"). Then, people focus all their attention on rationalizations to reject the other person, such as calling them "ideologues".
The Trisquel website doesn't say, "if you use or make proprietary software, you are evil". People react to the subtle implications as if that's what it said though. Maybe that's because people don't want to admit that they actually do act in ways that are ethical compromises?
Are the GNU/FSF folks doing that? The most I'm aware of is strongly-worded blog posts, which is rather short of physical ... outbursts.