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

[parminder]

On Wednesday 14 August 2013 07:33 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> 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.

Bertrand

It is almost a month now and you have'nt reverted with the basis of 
making the personal allegation you made - even one instance, for you to 
justify your allegation, and I quote " I resent (referring to me) your 
becoming one of the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. " 
and at another place

"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"....

As I said, this is unacceptable. You cant do what you wish on this list, 
and that goes for some others here as well... Although you havent been 
able to offer one example of an inappropriate comment by me, within 3 
weeks before our above exchange at least two other people made such 
comments about me, Anriette (that I have a tendency to twist words, in 
an attempt to score political points) and Avri (that people dont enter 
into discussion with me with a fear of starting a flame war). And this 
follows numerous similar barbs for a long long period. So this is my 
short response to all three of you, that while my normal way is to do 
just enough so that you feel a bit of pinch to think a little before you 
do such a thing again, I will let it go this time. But not again. So 
consider yourself forewarned.

It is utterly tasteless for me to be doing interactions of this kind 
with people like you. But I wont just run away from here becuase so many 
of you want me to do so. Yes, Daniel Pimienta withdrew, and I assure 
many others did like him, as one coping strategy for what has come of 
this group, that was initially set up during the WSIS in a framework of 
global WSIS civil society with lofty ideals of working for marginalised 
and left-outs of the world. I have chosen a different path. I will stay 
and fight. And I would not allow you to write a one-sided compromised 
history of IG civil society, and of this group.

No, this group is not dead because of any particular bad behaviour, it 
is in this shape  because some of us stood up to blatant attempts by the 
likes of you to turn this place into something that would facilitate, in 
Daniel's words ,"allowing  multistakeholderism to perform smoothly" and 
which trend may "transform us (organized civil society) in the unwilling 
accomplices of many bad actions performed in our field".

Every attempt has been made to browbeat us to shut up - one of the most 
powerful device being, making frequent allegations of poor behaviour... 
Bertrand, down here in the world of activism we know these tactics only 
too well to be afraid of them. But yes, the chilling effect does have 
some traction... Effective conditions have been created here, on this 
list, that, except for a very few people, the cost of speaking a word 
against the US government, big business companies, ICANN etc is 
considered too high. This is what your kind have done to the list/ group.

No, it is not that you dont like it because of 'how' I react to your 
emails, but becuase 'of ''what' I react with to your formulations like 
multistakeholder funding (which I really see only as adding corporate 
funding to core policy spaces which is otherwise unmentionable in 
democratic practice) and ideas like of self-organising issue-based 
governance systems, which is simply often no governance, other than the 
kind that most powerful actors with the most resources of various kinds 
can summon at will (London to Budapest to  Seoul Cyber space conferences 
??) . Such systems work against the interests of the most marginalised 
who are incapable of organising just-in-time governance mechanisms..... 
Such kinds as I provided are valid criticisms coming from long 
established democractic theory. And I have no intention to run away and 
make this space safe for practising anti-democratic kind of MSism. This 
is what you hate - and on a simple self-reflection you are smart enough 
to realize that.

Whatever, but dont transgress the limits again. I know being in powerful 
places  can rub off some haughtiness on almost anyone, even if 
unthinkingly, but I would think that you are a careful and long-term 
operator, so hope that you will take the cue.

It is fortunate that you chose to breach what I thought was otherwise 
mutually respectful relationship we have had since WSIS days. I would 
have let is pass, but there is just too much of politics hidden below 
it, and while I can leave aside personal issues, I dont shrink from my 
political duties. And hence these emails. I do really feel bad that I 
had to say things here that , I know, would hurt you. I would have 
really hoped youd be careful enough.

Regret-fully, and still with regards,

parminder



>
>> 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/20130907/21af609e/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