[Noisebridge-discuss] FWD: anti-jim and anti-anons2.0

[Tom Lowenthal]

On 17 November 2013 21:12, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
> I'm also really not okay with the concept of ideas being deigned
> "actively harmful". Jim can say what he wants. His dumber ideas aren't
> going to physically set anybody on fire here.

Sure, Jim can't set people on fire with words. That would be awesome,
and also incredibly scary.

However, ideas, opinions, and words like this *can* cause harm. If
someone were to read Jim's post and think that they couldn't report an
instance of sexual harassment or abuse to the Noisebridge community,
that would be harmful. If someone were to read Jim's post and think
that the “Noisebridge way” to deal with an abuser is to fight back,
and that person were further hurt, that would be harm caused by the
things Jim has written.

The truth is that the things we say do have an impact. People are
affected by the things that they are told, and the things that they
read. I think that our strong and consistent response has minimised
many of the potential negative impacts of what Jim has written. That's
important too, but it doesn't eliminate their impact, their ability to
hurt people, or their potential to cause real-world harm.

-Tom