To be honest, there are half-truths and half-lies on both sides. I've been following the debate too and it's too much to pick apart everything right now. But some critics are right about certain things, and wrong about others.
Similarly, among the SAIF people there are also many charlatans and wannabes who don't really belong there. I'm guessing this will consolidate itself over time.
My biggest issue with the criticisms is that they refuse (or maybe they're unable) to understand the necessity of being anonymous. SAIF cannot propagate or even exist without that element. The point is to be nameless and faceless!
It's like someone being reluctant toward Bitcoin because a government is not controlling its monetary policy. They miss the point entirely.
Why exactly? Why must the idea be nameless and faceless in order to propagate?
Hard to explain but basically the "form" of its ideas is inseparable from its content. Theyre like toxically opposed to any kind of credentials, or even gravitating around an individual, because it would just get swallowed by the same forces its trying to resist. But anonymity also forces (or it's supposed to) the discourse to remain on the ideas. But as you can see by the low IQ of its critics, they can't even criticize the ideas on their own because they're so focused on "but what fiat credentials do you have??". It shows that they either can not grasp the (totality of) ideas or they don't care about the ideas but only on the individuals behind them. Its a great filter for who's worth engaging with.
I think SAIF only works if it is nameless and faceless. If it could be tied to one scholar, leader, etc, it could be co-opted, pressured, destroyed, and it can't spread as far if it's tied to an identifiable individual. Bitcoin and Satoshi is a good similarity here.
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. By the way, I'm not trying to grill you here, just trying to understand both sides.
You know, when you notice that an idea must be strictly separated from a person, and only because otherwise discussions would focus too much on the (fallible) person instead of the idea itself, that's actually a sign of an immature discussion culture. Responding with anonymity makes sense, obviously. But what the traditional camp expects here is the old Islamic scholarly tradition (which nobody really follows anymore today, not even many scholars, and certainly not the Twitter mob) - namely tolerance and objectivity between idea and person. Like how the Madhhab Imams could honestly say, "I don't share his view on this or that topic, but I respect him greatly and even send my students to him." But without anonymity, because anonymity has its limitations and own disadvantages.
To put it bluntly, your faction says: People around us are screwed up, so hide behind anonymity so the idea can circulate. And our old tradition (and those who claim to represent it) says, disagreement is okay and good, but absolutely no reason to discredit someone or argue with them.
And honestly, I tend to lean toward the latter. The thinkers and authors mentioned in the MM article aren't anonymous either. And if they aren't, but an anonymous "biomass" sets out to discuss these ideas, it creates a two-class society within this movement, which is actually just a collective shaping of an idea. And guess whose idea carries more weight then. Because in the end, the real person behind an idea always carries strong weight, whether they're personally criticized or agreed with.
nostr:note15ugztqh6rt5gs6u75kse2cqrgtkhghqmqepfjkcufc3a3ute0gssa29ksd