[governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words"
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Aug 12 02:49:29 EDT 2013
Bertrand,
Pl see inline.
On Friday 09 August 2013 06:46 PM, 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.
I have many things to say about your email, but for the present, would
you be so good as to provide instances to substantiate your above
sweeping statement(s). You have made some serious allegations against a
civil society colleague with whom you have worked for around 8 years
now. I sincerely hope you would not shrink from standing your ground on
this, and not slip away.
> There are moments when one must call a spade a spade.
Quite true. In fact I am considering availing some such moments
presently. Although this current 'controversy' really arose from an
incident of calling a spade a spade, however mildly - a spade that laid
in full view of the list members, in the text of emails exchanged on the
list.
regards
parminder
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <http://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")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130812/c1612999/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list