Re: Support RMS

[Danny Spitzberg <stationaery@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6144 bytes --]

Confirmation bias is a heck of a drug. It feels good feel right- to draw
conclusions, accept only supporting evidence, and reject everything else.
Fo a year now it seems people want to frame everything as a matter of
“character assassination” — and that is why the line Aaron quoted again
about decades of bad conduct and dysfunction is so important. FSF created a
union to protect staff against the whims and wills of RMS, like if he
suddenly decided to take away health insurance for everyone. But while
confirmation bias feels good, it feels even better to build a free software
movement with peers who believe it’s more than one person.

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 9:54 AM Aaron Wolf <wolftune@riseup.net> wrote:

> The reason I bothered speaking up here is because there is a trend
> toward dismissiveness. Seek ways to lump the critics in with the bad
> actors. Reject an analogy because it's not equivalent.
>
> Those are the methods by which we *avoid* learning all we can learn.
>
> If our goal is indeed to gain all the perspectives we can to be as wise
> as possible, we must start with the presumption that there *is*
> something to learn. Presume that the critics have some insight *even* if
> they are guilty of some other unfair statements. Presume that an analogy
> has some insight even if it's not actually equivalent.
>
> To learn, we can say, "*how* is this critique true?" and "what about
> this analogy is *true*?"
>
> To avoid learning, we can say "what aspects of the critic can we use to
> dismiss them?" and "in what ways is the analogy wrong?"
>
> A good mental model: fill in the blank: "I would accept your feedback if
> _____" (maybe, if you were an expert, or if it were presented without
> some unfair attack, or if you have personal experience, or if you've
> been part of the community long enough" etc etc)
>
> Next, recognize that every one of those filters is an *obstacle* to an
> open mind. I'm not saying we should be so open-minded that our brains
> fall out. But we can be conscious of our filters. Every feedback-filter
> is a closed door. It's possible to get to say, "I will truly listen to
> and consider any feedback in any form from anyone and any time", but I'm
> not saying that's right for us or for anyone in particular. I'm just
> saying to *notice* our filters.
>
> Don't just look for the flaws. Ask: how is the Snowden analogy *useful*?
>
> On 2021-03-26 9:40 a.m., Yuchen Pei wrote:
> > I agree with you we should take feedback seriously, however:
> >
> >> Georgia's line is exceptionally important: "…the fact that he faced
> >> consequences for his creepy Epdtein-adjacent comments and not the
> >> decades of shitty behavior…"
> >>
> >> These are not people who are dogpiling on hearsay or gotcha online
> >> statements or whatever else. Those anti-patterns do indeed happen, and
> >> they polluted and harmed the credibility of the recent open letter
> >> against RMS. But here we have people who fully understand the unfairness
> >> and yet can express from extensive personal experience the *actual*
> >> reasons why RMS's leadership is problematic.
> >
> > In the same Twitter thread, she also told people that she signed the
> > "open letter", which is based on hearsay and gotcha online statements.
> >
> >>
> >> As someone who deeply and profoundly respects RMS for various reasons, I
> >> still don't just simply support his leadership role. I do not want him
> >> banished, I want him to learn and do better on his pain points. I don't
> >> want to be naive though, efforts in this direction have obviously been
> >> done for years and not been enough.
> >>
> >> I would like to continue to get RMS' insightful and pointed perspectives
> >> without having him lead the organization. I would like him to live in
> >> the zone where his genius most thrives and he contributes the most, and
> >> I suggest that the other roles he has had would be better filled by
> >> others.
> >
> > If we do not take a stand against character assassination, we may lose
> > the organisation and RMS's ability to provide insightful and pointed
> > perspectives.
> >
> >>
> >> If we want a resilient movement, we need to be really open to engaging
> >> with complaints. An organization that defends the status quo against
> >> such critics is like the NSA attacking Ed Snowden and people insinuating
> >> that Snowden is working for Russia (similar to people talking about how
> >> Deb now works for the OSI and the OSI is connected to corporations).
> >>
> >> I'm not suggesting deference to the outside unfair critics, the people
> >> who do indeed levy unfair attacks, mine quotes, spread FUD, etc. That
> >> stuff can be real, and we need to defend against it.
> >>
> >> But people like Deb are our whistleblowers, they are insiders who are
> >> bringing attention to serious issues. If we ignore or attack
> >> whistleblowers, we will fail to learn important lessons. This attitude
> >> can be fatal to a movement.
> >
> > This is a terrible analogy. Ed Snowden was risking his life spearheading
> > a fight against a powerful government body, but accusing a person from a
> > safe distance while that person is being attacked in all directions is a
> > different matter.
> >
> >>
> >> In solidarity,
> >> Aaron Wolf
> >> (FSF member since 2014, co-founder of Snowdrift.coop)
> >>
> >
> > Again, I agree that we need all perspectives and we should value all
> > feedback, including those from Deb and Georgia that are not based on
> > falsehood. But I also don't think it is helpful to raise concerns about
> > someone who is besieged.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> >> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> >> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 6894 bytes --]

   Confirmation bias is a heck of a drug. It feels good feel right- to
   draw conclusions, accept only supporting evidence, and reject
   everything else. Fo a year now it seems people want to frame everything
   as a matter of “character assassination” — and that is why the line
   Aaron quoted again about decades of bad conduct and dysfunction is so
   important. FSF created a union to protect staff against the whims and
   wills of RMS, like if he suddenly decided to take away health insurance
   for everyone. But while confirmation bias feels good, it feels even
   better to build a free software movement with peers who believe it’s
   more than one person.

   On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 9:54 AM Aaron Wolf <[1]wolftune@riseup.net>
   wrote:

     The reason I bothered speaking up here is because there is a trend
     toward dismissiveness. Seek ways to lump the critics in with the bad
     actors. Reject an analogy because it's not equivalent.
     Those are the methods by which we *avoid* learning all we can learn.
     If our goal is indeed to gain all the perspectives we can to be as
     wise
     as possible, we must start with the presumption that there *is*
     something to learn. Presume that the critics have some insight
     *even* if
     they are guilty of some other unfair statements. Presume that an
     analogy
     has some insight even if it's not actually equivalent.
     To learn, we can say, "*how* is this critique true?" and "what about
     this analogy is *true*?"
     To avoid learning, we can say "what aspects of the critic can we use
     to
     dismiss them?" and "in what ways is the analogy wrong?"
     A good mental model: fill in the blank: "I would accept your
     feedback if
     _____" (maybe, if you were an expert, or if it were presented
     without
     some unfair attack, or if you have personal experience, or if you've
     been part of the community long enough" etc etc)
     Next, recognize that every one of those filters is an *obstacle* to
     an
     open mind. I'm not saying we should be so open-minded that our
     brains
     fall out. But we can be conscious of our filters. Every
     feedback-filter
     is a closed door. It's possible to get to say, "I will truly listen
     to
     and consider any feedback in any form from anyone and any time", but
     I'm
     not saying that's right for us or for anyone in particular. I'm just
     saying to *notice* our filters.
     Don't just look for the flaws. Ask: how is the Snowden analogy
     *useful*?
     On 2021-03-26 9:40 a.m., Yuchen Pei wrote:
     > I agree with you we should take feedback seriously, however:
     >
     >> Georgia's line is exceptionally important: "…the fact that he
     faced
     >> consequences for his creepy Epdtein-adjacent comments and not the
     >> decades of shitty behavior…"
     >>
     >> These are not people who are dogpiling on hearsay or gotcha
     online
     >> statements or whatever else. Those anti-patterns do indeed
     happen, and
     >> they polluted and harmed the credibility of the recent open
     letter
     >> against RMS. But here we have people who fully understand the
     unfairness
     >> and yet can express from extensive personal experience the
     *actual*
     >> reasons why RMS's leadership is problematic.
     >
     > In the same Twitter thread, she also told people that she signed
     the
     > "open letter", which is based on hearsay and gotcha online
     statements.
     >
     >>
     >> As someone who deeply and profoundly respects RMS for various
     reasons, I
     >> still don't just simply support his leadership role. I do not
     want him
     >> banished, I want him to learn and do better on his pain points. I
     don't
     >> want to be naive though, efforts in this direction have obviously
     been
     >> done for years and not been enough.
     >>
     >> I would like to continue to get RMS' insightful and pointed
     perspectives
     >> without having him lead the organization. I would like him to
     live in
     >> the zone where his genius most thrives and he contributes the
     most, and
     >> I suggest that the other roles he has had would be better filled
     by
     >> others.
     >
     > If we do not take a stand against character assassination, we may
     lose
     > the organisation and RMS's ability to provide insightful and
     pointed
     > perspectives.
     >
     >>
     >> If we want a resilient movement, we need to be really open to
     engaging
     >> with complaints. An organization that defends the status quo
     against
     >> such critics is like the NSA attacking Ed Snowden and people
     insinuating
     >> that Snowden is working for Russia (similar to people talking
     about how
     >> Deb now works for the OSI and the OSI is connected to
     corporations).
     >>
     >> I'm not suggesting deference to the outside unfair critics, the
     people
     >> who do indeed levy unfair attacks, mine quotes, spread FUD, etc.
     That
     >> stuff can be real, and we need to defend against it.
     >>
     >> But people like Deb are our whistleblowers, they are insiders who
     are
     >> bringing attention to serious issues. If we ignore or attack
     >> whistleblowers, we will fail to learn important lessons. This
     attitude
     >> can be fatal to a movement.
     >
     > This is a terrible analogy. Ed Snowden was risking his life
     spearheading
     > a fight against a powerful government body, but accusing a person
     from a
     > safe distance while that person is being attacked in all
     directions is a
     > different matter.
     >
     >>
     >> In solidarity,
     >> Aaron Wolf
     >> (FSF member since 2014, co-founder of Snowdrift.coop)
     >>
     >
     > Again, I agree that we need all perspectives and we should value
     all
     > feedback, including those from Deb and Georgia that are not based
     on
     > falsehood. But I also don't think it is helpful to raise concerns
     about
     > someone who is besieged.
     >
     >>
     >>
     >> _______________________________________________
     >> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
     >> [2]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
     >>
     [3]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discus
     s
     >
     >
     _______________________________________________
     libreplanet-discuss mailing list
     [4]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
     [5]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discus
     s

References

   1. mailto:wolftune@riseup.net
   2. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   3. https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
   4. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   5. https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss