This is an important area for you, one that you're passionate and vocal about: something you've been posting about for a long time.
This statement jumped out at me:
> I criticise Canonical's policies in the hope that we, as a community, > can convince Canonical to agree
If you goal is to 'convince Canonical, then your strategy needs a rethink, because you're not achieving your goal. In fact, opinions are just becoming more entrenched.
If you want to convince the 'other side' then you need to understand their fears/hopes and drivers, you have to acknowledge and understand their perspective. You need to build up trust and credibility. If you empathise and understand you can help them work through the problem, explain the deficiencies in their thinking and help them find solutions which generally involves compromise.
On the other hand, how do you feel if you're called stupid, morally suspect and 'othered' as not being part of "the community"? Does it make it more or less likely that you'll be convinced of an argument? Of course, we all believe our own opinions, but Free Software arguments are particularly dangerous because there's an element of ethics and morality mixed in. Making your own views morally 'pure' and treating others views as morally suspect may be emotionally satisfying but it denigrates the other side, stops them from hearing you and leaves no room for compromise. After all, most people are trying to do the right thing.
I hope you'll give it some thought. And, I wish you the very best of luck.
To 'win' the argument you need to understand and respect the other side
This is an important area for you, one that you're passionate and vocal about: something you've been posting about for a long time.
This statement jumped out at me:
> I criticise Canonical's policies in the hope that we, as a community,
> can convince Canonical to agree
If you goal is to 'convince Canonical, then your strategy needs a rethink, because you're not achieving your goal. In fact, opinions are just becoming more entrenched.
If you want to convince the 'other side' then you need to understand their fears/hopes and drivers, you have to acknowledge and understand their perspective. You need to build up trust and credibility. If you empathise and understand you can help them work through the problem, explain the deficiencies in their thinking and help them find solutions which generally involves compromise.
On the other hand, how do you feel if you're called stupid, morally suspect and 'othered' as not being part of "the community"? Does it make it more or less likely that you'll be convinced of an argument? Of course, we all believe our own opinions, but Free Software arguments are particularly dangerous because there's an element of ethics and morality mixed in. Making your own views morally 'pure' and treating others views as morally suspect may be emotionally satisfying but it denigrates the other side, stops them from hearing you and leaves no room for compromise. After all, most people are trying to do the right thing.
I hope you'll give it some thought. And, I wish you the very best of luck.