[governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words"

Fri Aug 9 21:48:18 EDT 2013

+1 well said Bertrand

On Friday, August 9, 2013, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

> Parminder,
>
> I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly
> the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at
> the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil
> society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and
> indeed becoming irrelevant.
>
> I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You
> wrote: "*Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist
> people's words in order to score political points*"".
>
> I would like to differ. "*You tend to twist people's words in order to
> score political points*" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia)
> because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of
> yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you
> display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's
> position.
>
> To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance:
> "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must
> not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this
> person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned",
> this IS twisting people's words.  In this case, you are basically saying:
> Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it.
> This is putting words in somebody else's mouth.
>
> To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem attack
> a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or ask
> yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did not
> yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments
> just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types
> of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil
> society purity, etc...
>
> This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and
> actually weakening its influence in the global debate.
>
> I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with them
> and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of the
> main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are moments when
> one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co-coordinators of this list had
> called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound
> debate.
>
> This is below you. You have more to contribute.
>
> Respectfully still.
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'parminder at itforchange.net');>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>> '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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy
> (www.internetjurisdiction.net)
> Member, ICANN Board of Directors
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
> Exupéry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
>

-- 
Sent from iPad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130810/04be4766/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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