Them
Contributor
No, if they understood, they might disagree, but there would be no tension.
Interesting take. My experience with humans consistently contradicts it though.
I have no idea how you get your translation out of that sentence. The sentence says that others see the insistence on uniformity as an indictment. The implication is that it is not an indictment, and that if they understood it, they would realize that. It does not in any way imply that someone who understood that it was not an indictment would then agree with it, or decide it's better. It just means they'd stop thinking that "Doing it Right" means everybody else is doing it WRONG. (And we have THAT discussion ad nauseum here.)
"Because DIR's insistence on standardization is frequently misunderstood"
Misundersood = lack of understanding (usually to the point of error). Who has a lack of understanding? Certainly not Jarrod or other true DIR practitioners. Frequently = many or most in this context. So: "Because most non-DIR people don't understand the DIR insistence on standardization... "
"...it sometimes becomes a source of tension among divers."
What divers? Do DIR teams start fighting each other? No. It's tension between DIR and non-DIR.
Because most non-DIR divers don't understand the DIR insistence on standardization, the DIR insistence on standardization becomes a source of tension with non-DIR divers.
"This is because some see the insistence on uniformity as an indictment of practices that do not abide by DIR principles."
Who would see that as an indictment? Not DIR divers, right? You have said that yourself. So it must be the non-DIR divers. The ones who don't understand.
Because most non-DIR divers don't understand the DIR insistence on standardization, the DIR insistence on standardization becomes a source of tension with non-DIR divers because some non-DIR divers see the DIR insistence on uniformity as an indictment of non-DIR diving.
In other words: those ignorant non-DIR divers get upset because they see the very existence of a well thought out diving system as a criticism of their sloppy ad-hoc methods.
In other other words: Doing it Right diving in front of non-Right divers is like parking your Mercedes next to the '88 Chrysler with the bondo smeared doors - it's bound to spark resentment because everyone wants to drive a Mercedes. It's their problem not yours.
Seems a straightforward reading to me.
And I have not resorted to ad hominem fallacies or straw men. I am simply trying to understand how you can derive the meaning you have found in what I see as some pretty simple sentences.
You haven't used any ad hominems. IMO "told what to do" was a straw man though. Jarrod's article which I'm quoting is full of implications of agendas, power plays, ignorance, and so on - IOW ad hominems aplenty.
DIR isn't for everybody, no matter how profoundly I might wish it It doesn't even work for all diving situations (sidemount cave). But it's a pretty darned good, widely applicable approach to diving, and I hate to see people discarding it or deriding it for the wrong reasons.
I'm doing neither. I simply pointed out that given what DIR spokespeople say it wasn't a huge surprise that people react to DIR in the way a poster reported.
I don't know if you have ever taken an "understanding personalities" type class based on Myers-Briggs profiling, but it appears that Jarrod is an ESTJ. That doesn't make his position right or wrong, and is neither bad or good, but a lot of people also consider that the a-hole archetype. Since the beginning of this tangent was how people in many stores expressed that sort of view I find this consistent if unimportant.