Re: Support RMS

[quiliro]

Aaron Wolf <wolftune@riseup.net> writes:

> 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.

Good reasoning.  Taking the matter off-topic is not the way to argue
usefully about the issue.  But this bit is educational.

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

I'll take the bait.  How is it?  How is attacking an old activist from the
safety of distance comparable to risking our lives?