Free software activists and advocates are often accused of "user shaming". And they often do. Generally speaking, it's difficult to both consider and balance others opinions when you have a hard-line stance on something. It's a sign of experience and empathy when you can. Not everyone can.
With regards to software freedom: we wish that nobody would have to sacrifice their four freedoms to use proprietary software, but if they wish to do so, that is their choice. But we have an obligation to discourage it---not only because we are opposed to it, but because others' use of proprietary software in effect encourages others to use it as well. For example, the GNU operation system would never prevent users from installing proprietary software. (Actually, it can't, because someone would consider that to be an anti-feature and simply remove it.) But GNU and the FSF would never endorse distributions that encourage you to do so.
So you're not "doing it wrong" by running Windows in the sense that you're free to do your computing however you wish, and me insisting that you do otherwise would be disrespecting you as much as if someone insisted that I use proprietary software. I may not respect proprietary software, but I respect that you've given consideration and have decided to use it.
Back in the day when my status as Person Who Knows Computers meant being frequently called on to (re)install computers and get rid of malware and what not, my little stance for free software was refusing to install pirated software. And once people saw what a Microsoft Office license actually costs, suddenly OpenOffice looked very attractive.
> Free software activists and advocates are often accused of "user shaming".
What do you mean with "shaming"? I've been at many DebConfs and I have never heard any other DD calling people names just for using some closed source software.
Making users feel put down in some manner for using proprietary software, even when they might not be aware of the issues surrounding it. Users might be made to feel like they're hurting themselves and others in doing so. While being made to feel personally responsible (intentionally or not), they might then be exposed to a barrage of statements about how proprietary software is bad/evil and all of the problems surrounding it, which might make them feel even worse about their position.
This can have mixed results. If a user _didn't_ feel personally attached to those problems, then he/she might find it informative and a good illustration of the problem. Otherwise, users might become defensive or angry. Some might feel ashamed or bullied.
rms can come off that way, for example, even though he legitimately doesn't intend for that to happen. He has to balance his writing style with other concerns. One of his articles[0] was the topic of discussion on an internal GNU list where I and others provided some feedback to reduce the sense I just described. He makes strong, important points in the article, but it can be off-putting to people who aren't a part of the free software community. So for free software advocates reading it, it might seem informative and an excellent example of the issues, whereas someone not familiar with software freedom might experience the issues I mentioned above. It can be difficult to convey that using proprietary software is doing harm by encouraging others to use it, for example.
With regards to software freedom: we wish that nobody would have to sacrifice their four freedoms to use proprietary software, but if they wish to do so, that is their choice. But we have an obligation to discourage it---not only because we are opposed to it, but because others' use of proprietary software in effect encourages others to use it as well. For example, the GNU operation system would never prevent users from installing proprietary software. (Actually, it can't, because someone would consider that to be an anti-feature and simply remove it.) But GNU and the FSF would never endorse distributions that encourage you to do so.
So you're not "doing it wrong" by running Windows in the sense that you're free to do your computing however you wish, and me insisting that you do otherwise would be disrespecting you as much as if someone insisted that I use proprietary software. I may not respect proprietary software, but I respect that you've given consideration and have decided to use it.