Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages

[Michael Lamb]

> Weird enough, a while ago I started to write a free book called
> "Libre software apologetics" (inspired by C.S. Lewis) which had the
> exact same intent!

It is funny that you mention _that_, because I was inspired by
RationalWiki, a resource for atheists and those opposed to
pseudoscience. http://rationalwiki.org/

> I also didn't want to write something that could be misinterpreted as
> edgy, judgemental or condescending, while my intention was to use
> arguments based on reason and information exclusively.

I didn't mention RationalWiki earlier, because I don't want to adopt
its tone, which can easily read as having contempt and mockery for
their opponent.

That is far, far away from what I want, and it would be self-defeating
because a sneering person will be ignored and opposed even when they
are right.

If we build out this idea in earnest we should strive to keep the tone
polite, conversational, as if having a discussion with a dear friend,
who has somehow arrived at the conclusion that proprietary software is
wonderful and copyleft is terrible.

Let's take to heart the quote that Aaron Wolf mentioned earlier, that
I absolutely love:

> Practice Rapaport's Rules here and everywhere:
>
> “First, you must attempt to re-express your opponent’s position so
> clearly, vividly, and fairly that your opponent says, ‘Thanks, I wish
> I’d thought of putting it that way.’ Then, you should list any points of
> agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread
> agreement), and third, you should mention anything you have learned from
> your opponent. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of
> rebuttal or criticism.”

There are very good points on the page he mentioned earlier too, which
we could adopt for our resource:
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/honor-users

Maybe we should add a page of guidelines about how to structure each
"response" page.

> It used a conversational style (one-sentence responses), but I scrapped
> it since I tried some of my arguments on people and they didn't work
> (see the previous thread for reference).

I'm hopeful that by including common-responses-to-our-responses, we
can continue to eliminate misinformation. And like I mentioned before,
the argument may not "work" on your opponent (misguided friend) but it
will help prevent undecided others from being misled by bad arguments.

> Now, I am no writer and I really didn't plan to ever talk about it, but
> since the cat is out of the bag, I think the fact that we've had a
> similar idea is very meaningful, and I think using _reason_ and
> _information_ should still be the way to go about doing this in a way
> that won't just annoy people and/or cause them to perpetuate their
> labelling of free software activists as zealots and cultists.

Agreed!

> So, if you ask me, it's an idea worth pursuing. I think we should work
> on making it a short pamphlet under a free license (in multiple
> languages, if possible) and make sure all free software activists can
> download a copy (and contribute to it) easily.

Partially agreed, but for me, in most cases, I have wished for
something to use in the context of a text-based internet discussion.
So perhaps a script that compiles such a pamphlet using the wiki that
we build?

> I also think a person from the other side (someone who doesn't mind
> and/or supports proprietary software) should be involved in its writing.
> Their arguments should be listened to and addressed, one by one. It's no
> good to have one-side conversations, and they are the target audience
> anyway: arguments that can be dismissed pretty easily are useless, and
> we should make sure our arguments have no blind spots and/or fallacies.

I agree with this; it is why in one example I linked to a forum from
which I sourced a flawed argument. I like Jim Proctor's idea of
listing several prominent for- and against- arguments that we might
analyze and respond to.