[bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal

[parminder]

On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote:
>
>> ad hominem comment
> (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos -
> i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and we could all get back to rational calm conversations)
>
> an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant.
> It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully.
>
> I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list.

Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad 
hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, 
someone attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and 
with a view to undermine, her/ his argument.  You are making a specious 
distinction above that  does not hold. In middle of a discussion, 
personal attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like 
of this list, where people otherwise have little or no offline 
relationship and thus no particular reason for animosity - with a view 
to undermine that person's argument.

On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an 
allegation and an ad hominem attack.

  Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email 
to me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations 
themselves could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, 
cheating etc, whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.)

, Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's 
words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in 
terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, 
obviously to distract from the argument made - which in this case what 
that Anriette seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian 
document, which I said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to 
say, which is just my view. Nothing personal here.

> For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense.
> Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong way I will get beat up for it.
>
> One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so mean.
>
> (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants)
>
> Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent.
> Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for fear of starting a flame war.
> Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass.

BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made 
directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends 
towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such 
things about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather 
than anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove 
my claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the 
precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you 
find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique 
of someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the 
nature of a personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may 
even go back further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it 
appears you are a very good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I 
promise, I will not argue with the example/ instance you provide, I wont 
even respond, I  just want it to out for everyone to see,  rather that 
your be subject to your insinuations.

> Someone/everyone, please stop the venom.
> It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant.

I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I 
am ready to enter a discussion about.
> When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the outrageousness of a few individuals.

Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not 
people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there 
enough degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side 
and at other times the other  side will feel strongly about things.) 
But, never against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly 
subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my 
statement wrong. As for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's 
email, even your reference above of not responding to me with the fear 
of starting a flame war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter 
one, given the normal standards.

(Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and 
positions of a good part of  civil society involved in IG space - often 
dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power 
structures, which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well 
with some people. But I always voice it in a collective structural 
manner and never directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This 
is the view I have - and I consider it very important in the current 
global circumstances -  and I cannot desist from offering when the 
occasion so demands.)

> The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many.

Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... 
That is always the million dollar democratic question!

parminder

> please stop
>
> Note to coordinators.  I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive being kicked of the list would bring great relief.
> I have heard others say similar things.
>
> And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass.
>
> avri
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t