[pp.int.general] Correct word usage for PP.

Tue Apr 12 11:50:54 CEST 2011

El mar, 12-04-2011 a las 04:24 +0200, Boris Turovskiy escribió:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> > You've manufactured an apparent contradiction by equating apples with
> > oranges.  We don't shun people who half-support our cause, but we do
> > refuse to sign manifestos that reject part of our views.
> No, I didn't manufacture anything. You had the choice to use your
> authority - and you do have one - to support a cause which definitely
> didn't contradict your position but just "didn't go far enough" and
> besides, used "banned" words (that's what can be concluded from your
> statement about the PDM). You chose not to support it, and you chose to
> do so not by a quiet "hey guys I'm not with you on this one" but by
> vocal criticism. For me, that doesn't look like the behaviour of someone
> who wants to achieve a common goal, but rather like someone who wants to
> achieve his personal goal with the attitude "those who aren't (fully)
> with us are against us".

I'm going to be sandwiched between the two of you, and maybe alienate
all those who shun intellectual debate like the plague, but I can not
remain silent while you stab at each others throat.

There is a very confused reality out there that can not be ignored, and
each of us has constructed a picture of it for himself the best he can.
While it is more or less easy for each of us to decide unilaterally on
the contents to cherrypick for ones own picture, and this makes for many
different individual pictures with some common content BUT also some
content that may be mutually incompatible across different pictures, it
is far more difficult to look at the whole thing from the point of view
of someone who is aware of these phenomena and has adopted a meta-point
of view that cares about the necessity to influence these individual
points of view to straighten out, eliminate and ban to the non-essential
background the irreconciliable bits of the pictures of all involved.

I insist on it because it is important. Sometimes it may come across as
if I try to push forward my own individual view, because it is not easy
to spot the fact that sometimes I try to move people into giving up one
controversial point and next I try to push someone else into giving up
exactly the opposite point of view ;) . Of course what I try to do is
achieve the maximum compatibility possible between what everybody
chooses to keep.

Considering the limits of what anyone can choose to keep, there is one
thing everybody should keep in mind, and that is the fact that there are
compact and sound logical and ethical frameworks that consist of a few
basic ideas that connect perfectly one within another and form a
coherent base on which to build. Few people have such a framework from
which to work, and most of the rest of the people fail to integrate all
elements of their visions into one single and coherent puzzle where all
pieces have their proper place. Most of the time they have different
groups of apparently fitting together pieces, and a tough time trying to
fit those different groups into one only unified carpet.

Sorry for those that think I write too much... that was just the
preliminary introduction ;)

What I want to get across is that people react differently if the point
you want them to adopt a different opinion about is one that in their
views is an isolated free-floating piece of their puzzle they have no
fixed opinion about and do not yet know where to fit in their core view,
than when it is a center piece of their core opinion.

Richard has a big logical and ethical framework on which to continue
building. It should be easy for anyone to understand that while he can
support all kinds of free-floating stuff (from his points of view,
without taking into account those of others) if this support has
potential to move this stuff sooner or later towards definitively
docking into the base station around his core views. If this
free-floating stuff has potential for drifting away from his core views,
he will abstain or oppose it, and if it is dangerous for the
conservation of his core values and might corrupt his base if adopted
widely... then he will fight the damn thing preventively as soon as he
spots the danger.

And that is the sound thing to do, no matter how many confused people
don't get to understand why.

> > I responded to the point someone else raised.  If the point he raised
> > is not the one that concerns you, that's not my fault, but you are
> > trying to pretend it is one.
> Oh no. The point raised was that you only wanted to have "absolutely
> pure" adepts around you; and that raises the legitimate question how you
> react to the "half-pure" (those who accept only parts of your ideas) or
> even the "non-pure" (those who agree with part of your ideas but
> actively disagree with other parts of it). You only responded to the
> first part of that question - and in an unsatisfactory way, as
> demonstrated by your opinion about the Public Domain Manifesto - but
> that doesn't mean the second part just doesn't exist.

I outlined the reasons why someone might want to react, and the logic
necessary to understand it, so I can be short here ;(

> > Your goal is apparently to find fault with me, and you don't mind
> > stooping to nonsequiturs and other irrationality to do it.
> I'll be blunt: I consider you more a threat to the Pirate movement than
> an asset. We don't need fanatics, and we most surely don't need fanatics
> who start with other basic assumptions than ours.
> Therefore, the goal of my persistent attacks on you have been (and
> continues to be) to decrease the influence of you and your adepts in the
> Pirate movement by exposing your faults, which I believe are numerous.
> Some of my attacks may be irrational, but my last mail nailed you to the
> wall by pure logic, so I guess I can write a 1 on my side of the
> chalkboard this time.

Boris, have you ran the fanaticism detector through your own words here?

While I may have the same intentions, the final goal is to enable
everyone to collaborate together on sound terms. I'd rather use
intellectual discourse trying to compatibilize sound logical and ethical
underpinnings, avoiding loading the cannons and staging runs to the
armory... things that can only lead to us blasting each other out of
existence without significant gain of cause for any but the common
enemy.

> Your turn.

Sorry if I was not invited on this one, continue as if I had not been
here ;) .

> Best regards,
> Boris
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20110412/4f873b1f/attachment-0001.pgp>