Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Dealing with blind hatred for the GPL

[Aaron Wolf]

On 02/27/2016 12:16 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 02/27/2016 12:09 PM, Yui Hirasawa wrote:
>>>>> Mention "freedom" and they'll say the GPL is "restrictive" and
>>>>> "viral".
>>>>
>>>> Many people who think that are anarchist who also think they should
>>>> be allowed to kill.
>>>
>>> It's very unfortunate you'd think this way. I too find the GPL
>>> restricts some freedom, but understand the need for it and advocate
>>> its use over permissive licenses. And I'm an anarchist, but I don't
>>> think I should be allowed to kill. I don't know what kind of
>>> anarchists you met, but no one I know thinks they should be allowed to
>>> kill.
>>
>> If you reread my mail you will see that I didn't say that all anarchist
>> think that you should be allowed to kill. But these people specifically
>> think that their freedom should be ultimate to the point where they are
>> allowed to do things that harm others.
>>
> 
> Yui, you are flat out wrong here. It's harmful to our arguments to make
> or even hold such baseless assertions about other people. It's far far
> far far more likely that people are *hypocrites* than that they belief
> the most extreme ramifications of their statements.
> 
> You have no actual basis to think these people would say that they want
> the power to physically hurt others. That's insane to even suggest. If
> you say this to their face, basically 100% of them will get offended
> because they do not believe such things.
> 
> Practice Rapaport's Rules here and everywhere:
> 
> “First, you must attempt to re-express your opponent’s position so
> clearly, vividly, and fairly that your opponent says, ‘Thanks, I wish
> I’d thought of putting it that way.’ Then, you should list any points of
> agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread
> agreement), and third, you should mention anything you have learned from
> your opponent. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of
> rebuttal or criticism.”
> 

To clarify about Rapaport's Rules I just quoted, this approach is orders
of magnitude more persuasive and damning than others. Showing how much
you understand someone even better than they understand themselves and
then respectfully showing where they are wrong, this is the most
devastating critique you can make.

> (note I consolidated this in a footnote on a page with other good
> practices for online discourse at
> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/honor-users )
> 
>>> Back to the point, I agree that the battle is uphill when trying to
>>> convince someone who's alredy made up his mind about software freedom.
>>> But it's not a lost battle, and if you don't fight back on public
>>> forums, you give the impression they are right. You aren't really
>>> trying to convince them, but showing other readers that there's
>>> another way.
>>
>> You make a valid point that it might make a them appear to be right when
>> you don't contest them, that is very unfortunate indeed. Of course if
>> you don't mind getting called names and other stuff then you should
>> definitely call them out when they are saying things that are bullshit.
>>
>