[governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words"
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Aug 14 10:03:12 EDT 2013
On Wednesday 14 August 2013 03:19 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> You will excuse me, but I do not intend to engage in a long exchange
> on this.
Sorry Bertrand, I cant excuse you. You made a sweeping personal
accusation and I ask you to justify it with some instances. You will
have to do that. There is no escape or excusing. Ok, let me give you
another way. You can do this off-list to me with cocos cc-ed, or include
a wider group of all earlier co cos. But you cant get away with making
personal characterisations on the list and then not justifying, what in
default will be, your most objectionable conduct.
> I have said what I felt.
:) . I can assure you Bertrand, if it comes to that, and I have to say
what I myself feel about some people who have been going around
expressing their feelings openly, it will be fully as I really feel.
The normal rule of public behaviour, especially on elists like this,
however, is that even if you get some negative feelings about a person
as such, beyond just his/ her arguments, dont bring it out publicly. You
know what happens; if one consistently doesnt like the political view
point of another, it can begin to tend towards personal dislike as well.
Just a psychological fact. Not a good thing but that is how often it is.
But one has to control oneself in public and stick to discussing issues
rather than people. You (and some others) have broken that rule, and you
must justify it. You can disagree as violently with a viewpoint as you
want, but dont target the person.
> I think it is time to move forward and not waste people's time that
> could be devoted to something more useful. One can survive with egos
> bruised.
I can survive with bruised ego, but not with people having exercised
power over me... I have a gut reaction against bowing to power. Maybe an
activist's normal training. /*For me this is a political act.*/
Especially on this political field of this elist. The manner in which
some members here think that they have superior rights than others to
pass judgements, and others should then simply move on....... It cant be
accepted. It wont be.
parminder
> It's a proof of moral strength and willingness to work for the common
> good.
>
> Your response below however seems to imply you have little desire to
> help calm things down, let alone recognize when your attitude may hurt
> others. If you are looking for a confrontation, I regret it but will
> not be the sparring partner you are looking for. Flame wars are not my
> cup of tea. Besides, I am now on well deserved holidays and intend to
> enjoy them.
>
> We will have other opportunities to address this in person in the
> coming months, if the grudge persists after a few weeks.
>
> For now, I wish you and the list a very happy month of August and a
> good preparation of what awaits us in September.
>
> Best as always
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:49 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
> 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 <tel:%2B33%20%280%296%2011%2088%2033%2032>
>>
>> "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")
>
>
>
>
> --
> ____________________
> 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/20130814/1d223c13/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