Re: Support RMS

[Aaron Wolf]

The reason I bothered speaking up here is because there is a trend
toward dismissiveness. Seek ways to lump the critics in with the bad
actors. Reject an analogy because it's not equivalent.

Those are the methods by which we *avoid* learning all we can learn.

If our goal is indeed to gain all the perspectives we can to be as wise
as possible, we must start with the presumption that there *is*
something to learn. Presume that the critics have some insight *even* if
they are guilty of some other unfair statements. Presume that an analogy
has some insight even if it's not actually equivalent.

To learn, we can say, "*how* is this critique true?" and "what about
this analogy is *true*?"

To avoid learning, we can say "what aspects of the critic can we use to
dismiss them?" and "in what ways is the analogy wrong?"

A good mental model: fill in the blank: "I would accept your feedback if
_____" (maybe, if you were an expert, or if it were presented without
some unfair attack, or if you have personal experience, or if you've
been part of the community long enough" etc etc)

Next, recognize that every one of those filters is an *obstacle* to an
open mind. I'm not saying we should be so open-minded that our brains
fall out. But we can be conscious of our filters. Every feedback-filter
is a closed door. It's possible to get to say, "I will truly listen to
and consider any feedback in any form from anyone and any time", but I'm
not saying that's right for us or for anyone in particular. I'm just
saying to *notice* our filters.

Don't just look for the flaws. Ask: how is the Snowden analogy *useful*?

On 2021-03-26 9:40 a.m., Yuchen Pei wrote:
> I agree with you we should take feedback seriously, however:
> 
>> Georgia's line is exceptionally important: "…the fact that he faced
>> consequences for his creepy Epdtein-adjacent comments and not the
>> decades of shitty behavior…"
>>
>> These are not people who are dogpiling on hearsay or gotcha online
>> statements or whatever else. Those anti-patterns do indeed happen, and
>> they polluted and harmed the credibility of the recent open letter
>> against RMS. But here we have people who fully understand the unfairness
>> and yet can express from extensive personal experience the *actual*
>> reasons why RMS's leadership is problematic.
> 
> In the same Twitter thread, she also told people that she signed the
> "open letter", which is based on hearsay and gotcha online statements.
> 
>>
>> As someone who deeply and profoundly respects RMS for various reasons, I
>> still don't just simply support his leadership role. I do not want him
>> banished, I want him to learn and do better on his pain points. I don't
>> want to be naive though, efforts in this direction have obviously been
>> done for years and not been enough.
>>
>> I would like to continue to get RMS' insightful and pointed perspectives
>> without having him lead the organization. I would like him to live in
>> the zone where his genius most thrives and he contributes the most, and
>> I suggest that the other roles he has had would be better filled by
>> others.
> 
> If we do not take a stand against character assassination, we may lose
> the organisation and RMS's ability to provide insightful and pointed
> perspectives.
> 
>>
>> If we want a resilient movement, we need to be really open to engaging
>> with complaints. An organization that defends the status quo against
>> such critics is like the NSA attacking Ed Snowden and people insinuating
>> that Snowden is working for Russia (similar to people talking about how
>> Deb now works for the OSI and the OSI is connected to corporations).
>>
>> I'm not suggesting deference to the outside unfair critics, the people
>> who do indeed levy unfair attacks, mine quotes, spread FUD, etc. That
>> stuff can be real, and we need to defend against it.
>>
>> But people like Deb are our whistleblowers, they are insiders who are
>> bringing attention to serious issues. If we ignore or attack
>> whistleblowers, we will fail to learn important lessons. This attitude
>> can be fatal to a movement.
> 
> This is a terrible analogy. Ed Snowden was risking his life spearheading
> a fight against a powerful government body, but accusing a person from a
> safe distance while that person is being attacked in all directions is a
> different matter.
> 
>>
>> In solidarity,
>> Aaron Wolf
>> (FSF member since 2014, co-founder of Snowdrift.coop)
>>
> 
> Again, I agree that we need all perspectives and we should value all
> feedback, including those from Deb and Georgia that are not based on
> falsehood. But I also don't think it is helpful to raise concerns about
> someone who is besieged.
> 
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
>> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
>> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
> 
>