[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
leif at synthesize.us
Sun Nov 17 16:36:06 UTC 2013
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 01:51:55AM -0800, jim wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 18:11 -0800, Liz Henry wrote:
> > [...]
> > Jim, your continued apologist defenses also piss me off because you
> > seem to be saying that women in particular, if sexually assaulted,
> > should not participate in public discourse about it.
> NOT TRUE; I NEVER SAID SUCH A THING!
> > you get to dictate how women
> > should respond to assault, and that they should respond to it with
> > escalating violence.
> NOT TRUE! DAMMIT. QUOTE ME CORRECTLY, DO NOT
> MAKE UP STUFF. I EXPRESSED AN OPINION AND TO
> SOME EXTENT HAVE RESCINDED SOME OF IT! I NEVER
> CLAIMED THAT I CAN DICTATE TO OTHERS! MY POINT
> IS THAT IT'S GOOD FOR PEOPLE TO STICK UP FOR
> I DID NOT RECOMMEND ESCALATING VIOLENCE! I SAID
> I'D EAGERLY DEFEND SOMEONE WHO DID SO, AND
> BRAVO TO THEM FOR THEIR COURAGE!
jim, you didn't just say you'd defend someone escalating violence, you said so
in the very same sentence where you said you dislike turning to the community
Here is your whole unabridged paragraph:
> As to females being harassed, for cases of
> crude coppings of feels, I dislike taht female
> turning to the community for support; I would
> eagerly defend any female who hauled off and
> slugged whoever copped a feel or to go get some
> friends and return to verbally educate the
> offender: it's dis-empowering to perceive one's
> self as a victim and turn to a community for
> support for what is an individual incident.
Are you surprised that people interpret those words to mean that you believe
(a) incidents should not be made public, and (b) violence is a good
Also, as to this "individual incident" notion - are you aware of the several
cases in Noisebridge's history where repeat offenders have been discovered
(and, in every case I'm aware of except one, been subsequently declared
unwelcome) after a single incident was brought to the larger community's
Despite the meme to the contrary, I think Noisebridge is actually generally
pretty good at dealing with these types of problems *when we hear about them*.
I have some reservations about the anti-harassment policy because I don't think
it would have helped deal with the situations we've dealt with (and also
because of its clause about "sexual language and imagery" which I expect will
be improved eventually). But, I think having such a policy does help people to
be confident that if unacceptable behavior is brought to light it *will* be
dealt with, and (I can't believe this even needs to be said!) people feeling
confident that they can turn to the community for support is a good thing.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss