Re: Support RMS

[quiliro]

Aaron Wolf <wolftune@riseup.net> writes:

> On 2021-04-15 5:54 p.m., quiliro@riseup.net wrote:
>> Aaron Wolf <wolftune@riseup.net> writes:
>> 
>>> Ali,
>>>
>>> I agree with your concerns here, and I have seen many unfair accusations.
>> 
>> No you don't.  You are not even addressing his concerns.
>> 
>
> I don't need to address his concerns because I don't disagree with
> them.

So you agree that RMS was targeted just because he is famous?  That is,
in synthesis what ARH proposes.

> There's nothing to discuss about it. My whole reply was about
> recognizing the nuance of things that are *different* than the concerns
> he has. When it comes to concerns about false and exaggerated
> accusations, I wasn't disagreeing with anything.

It does not look like that at all.  It rather looks as if you want to
seem as accepting contrary assertions as equally true.  Not as equally
valid opinions for each party, but as non-contrary.  That is plainly
false and insulting the intelligence of everyone in this list.

>>> However, we must be sure not to dismiss other concerns. In Deb's recent
>>> reply, she didn't repeat any of the unfair exaggerated accusations. We
>>> can grapple with the more subtle nuanced issues without assuming all
>>> critics are the most extreme ones. Even people who signed the Open
>>> Letter (which I saw as grossly unreasonable in some regards) are not all
>>> people who would have written the language exactly that way (which is
>>> one of the problems with open letters, people feel pressured to sign to
>>> signal general agreement and there's not much room to express nuance or
>>> a mix of agreement and disagreement).
>> 
>> She is repeating the same blablabla in other words.  Diplomacy does not
>> cover for the harassment.  It is better that she'd rude but sincere than
>> diplomatic and false.
>
> This form of pretending to know other people's minds is toxic and
> harmful. Even if she were much *worse* than you believe, it would be a
> problem.

I do not accept this adhominem attack.  It is not necessary.

I am not pretending I know what she thinks.  I can just see her actions.

> If you make mistakes in understanding your worst enemies, it
> leaves you in a weaker position. You don't know Deb, and you are reading
> plain text communication on the internet. For you to accuse Deb of being
> insincere, of being diplomatic and false — you are falling to the level
> of the people you criticize. You are levying accusations without
> adequate knowledge or evidence.

Saying something in a way to convince to do their way by manipulating
feelings is not truthful.  Usually people which lie look very nice.  It
could be false.  But the results and history of this case demonstrates
there are only witch hunts.

>> If she feels bad here, it is wise to become part of another group, not
>> to try to take over this group or to sabotage the cause of freedom by
>> dividing people here.  We know how she feels.  She knows how we feel.
>> No consensus, no work together.  That's it!
>> 
>
> Deb is not trying to take over this group or sabotage anything. And one
> of the core problems with "cancel culture" and so on is the dynamic of
> drawing simplistic with-us-or-against-us lines. You are demonstrating
> exactly how to divide and sabotage in every aspect of your "That's it!"
> attitude which implies you know all you need to know, there's nothing to
> be curious about, nothing to learn, and people are either good or
> evil.

Evil is the act, not the person.  It is dividing people in this
community in two camps.  There is no searching for understanding and
consensus.  It is just manipulating the group to control what a single
person does.  I would not allow even my mother to tell me what to do and
she intends to tell RMS and all of us what to do with our own advocacy.

> Now, that's the *impression* I get from your email. If I were to just
> *conclude* that you were forever hopeless and dogmatic and write you
> off, I'd be doing the same mistake myself. I don't actually know you,
> and I'm only guessing about what's behind your text. And the story in my
> mind is that you are upset about the unfair attacks on RMS and are in a
> reactive and defensive state which is why you are so dismissive of Deb's
> concerns. To be fair, she and others have been reactive as well and
> sometimes added to the drama.

I am upset by the manipulation.  I would rather have her ask something
that we would accept, even if it would involve some sacrifice.  That
would be more honest.

> Keep in mind the Fundamental Attribution Error. Generally, people fall
> into this mindset where when *we* are reactive and angry, we see it as
> just how we are in that circumstance, not how we always are. But when we
> see OTHERS being reactive and angry, we presume that this is a
> fundamental part of who they are, that they just ARE reactive people who
> want to be controlling etc.

Just stop trying to control and harrass people.  That is all we are asking.