[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
jim at systemateka.com
Sun Nov 17 18:41:23 UTC 2013
You are right. See my second reply to R1.0
if you can stand it.
On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 16:36 +0000, Leif Ryge wrote:
> 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 SOME EXTENT HAVE RESCINDED SOME OF IT!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
> > THEMSELVES.
> > 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
> for support.
> 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.
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss