[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

[jim]

My replies interspersed below: 

On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 13:30 -0800, hep wrote:
> I would like to take this opportunity to point out that this entire
> discussion is a pretty good example of why in 2013 we need a firm,
> clear, anti-harassment policy for noisebridge to take the first step
> for being a truly safe environment for everyone. 
JS: I believe such a policy will have negligible 
affect. 

> Here in November 2013, a man is seriously proposing that women*, many
> of whom: may be smaller than many males, non-confrontational for one
> reason or another, alone except for their attacker, and/or may
> possibly have reasons for not wanting to engage physically with a male
> who has just sexually assaulted them, hit their attacker and then
> silence themselves from any community support, over an issue that will
> often be called into question repeatedly as to a) whether it happened
> b) whether it was "enough" to warrent a response, and c) whether the
> victim merely "misinterpreted" what happened to their own body. 
JS: I proposed no such thing. 


> Then that man asks a woman who is upset by the tepid official response
> to sexual assault in the community if she should really be so mad, and
> if she really has the "higher ground" to stand on. 
JS: I have previous experience with that person 
and stand by my suggestion that she may be living 
too much in anger. 
> 
> Then that man goes on to repeatedly back these points. 
JS: incorrect, as your description of the points 
is largely erroneous. 
> 
> Then that man *claims that the community should support his viewpoints
> because he is somehow a less privileged community member* and deserves
> equal "community support" as a sexual assault victim. 
JS: I made no such claims. I suggest that individuals 
consider that taking action might be empowering for 
them. I do not suggest that anyone necessarily take 
action alone, and as someone rightly suggested, taking 
action, especially alone, might prove dangerous and 
foolish. 
> 
> Just sayin'. 
JS: and liking it. 
> 
> -hep

> I say woman only because he framed that as the example. 
JS: yes, and I now regret choosing such a lurid 
example. I now wish I'd used a homeless-seeming 
and non-hacker-seeming person as an example. The 
dynamics would have been more interesting to 
explore.