[ Originally posted as a talkback, this essay deserves wider
dissemination. -lt ed ]
By Mike Cornall
It’s an old propaganda trick to use words as a trojan horse. The
speaker will say something that has one meaning on the surface,
while carrying a hidden meaning underneath. The surface meaning
will generally be something innocuous, or obvious, i.e. something
that no one would refute. The speaker’s real purpose, however, is
to deliver the hidden meaning, which is more sinister, and could
easily be refuted if the speaker said it straight out. In this way,
the hidden meaning gets picked up, perhaps subconciously, without
being questioned. To be most effective, the hidden meaning is aimed
at the emotional level, and may be intended to generate ill-will,
or mistrust, or, very frequently, to create doubt in the mind of
the enemy, such that he starts to pull his punches.
The anti-Linux campaign uses the word “zealot” very
methodically, because it has two meanings:
1) An enthusiast or advocate.
2) A fanatic or dogmatist.
Note how frequently the word “zealot” gets used, rather than the
word “fanatic”. The speaker always claims to be opposing
fanaticism, so why doesn’t he use the word “fanatic”? The reason is
because that’s only the surface meaning. The real purpose of using
the word “zealot” is to deliver the hidden meaning, i.e. that there
is something wrong with being enthusiastic in your support for
Linux.
Thus, whenever I hear charges of zealotry, what I really hear is
“tone down your enthusiam”, or in other words, “quit writing all
those letters to the editor, and allow our pro-Microsoft, and
anti-Linux propaganda to stand unchallenged”. That is something I
refuse to do.
Articles like this one make me nervous, because it feels like
we’re playing into the hands of the anti-Linux campaign (by
worrying ourselves into inaction, and by promoting the idea that so
many Linux supporters are fanatics that we need to write articles
like this one). We should at least be doing our part to correct the
propaganda. When distinguishing between good advocacy, and bad, we
should use words such as “fanatic” and “enthusiast”. We should
definitely urge honesty, the use of facts over opinion, and, above
all, politeness, but we don’t want to make people afraid to express
their support for Linux.
Now, I’m not saying that this article has a sinister intent —
it seems to be a straightforward commentary by a Linux supporter.
But, to me, it repeats the tired notion that advocacy has to be dry
and boring. Couldn’t the article at least make a statement in
support of enthusiasm? It’s one thing to admonish the troops for
their failings, but a good leader will then try to rally them.
Therefore, my response is this:
I *am* a Linux zealot — the good kind. Nobody is going to
dampen my enthusiasm, or make me pull my punches.
Related Story:
Linuxtopia.com:
Be an advocate, not a zealot (Oct 05, 1999)