[Noisebridge-discuss] [Noisebridge-announce] Noisebridge Statement on Jacob Appelbaum

[Ryan Pepin]

Excuse me?

Any public defamation of an individual regardless of the offence warrants
evidence or at least a public accounting before personal judgement is
rendered. It would be irrational to conduct yourself otherwise.

I'm happily an 'apologist' for wanting verification before I join in the
denigration of a person for something they're not formally guilty of.

No one has asked for anything extreme here, just clarification of a _very_
amorphously defined and _very_ public accusation.

Thank you for baselessly implying I'm anti-government/law/justice unless it
supports rapists though. That's definitely how I define myself existence.

I find the implication that I wouldn't ask the same for other accusations
offensive to be honest.

Awaiting my ban for positing honest opinion interpreted as apologist trash.
On Jun 11, 2016 4:17 PM, "Victoria Fierce" <tdfischer at hackerbots.net> wrote:

> "Smash the state! Except if its rape then we need a police report."
>
> Please keep your apologist trash off the noisebridge-discuss list.
> Thanks.
>
> On Sat, 2016-06-11 at 16:04 -0400, Ryan Pepin wrote:
> > Meh,
> >
> > Effectively this entire list has seen 'this guy is a likely rapist'
> > but
> > posting any actual firsthand accounts is apparently too triggering
> > for
> > anyone to read.
> >
> > This is the third time in this ~12 message chain that the response to
> > people asking for information has effectively been, "you should
> > evaluate
> > your own morals you sexist, how could you question my(as of now)
> > baseless
> > claim, it involves potential sexual misconduct after all"
> >
> > Rape is bad, sexual harassment is bad, sexual misconduct is bad; let
> > people
> > draw their own judgements from actual facts please or keep the
> > defamation
> > entirely off list.
> >
> > Post a link to legitimate accounts if they are too triggering for the
> > list.
> >
> > The ones I have read haven't in my eyes been worthy of a ban(all of
> > which
> > involved crass language and no physical contact) and genders reversed
> > likely wouldn't even be considered offensive in the first place.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm not fully informed, in which case what is to be gained
> > from
> > withholding the facts?
> >
> > I reiterate for the fourth time, what claims and what reasoning?
> >
> > I will happily eat my own words.
> > On Jun 11, 2016 3:45 PM, "John Shutt" <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It’s possible you haven’t read all of the first-hand accounts, but
> > > there
> > > are many claiming patterns of sexual harassment and intimidation
> > > and
> > > several claiming outright sexual assault. If you believe those
> > > claims and
> > > don’t see how they would justify a ban, you should really reflect
> > > on that,
> > > and try to imagine a scenario where a space could be healthy and
> > > functional
> > > while refusing to bar a serial sexual abuser who primarily targets
> > > members
> > > of the community.
> > >
> > > On Jun 11, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Andrey Fedorov <me at anfedorov.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Should either the vast majority of the claims turn out to be
> > > unfounded
> > >
> > >
> > > Even if all of the first-hand accounts I've read are completely
> > > true (and
> > > I believe they are), I do not see it as obviously justifying a ban
> > > from the
> > > space.
> > >
> > > So again: what claims and by what reasoning?
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Simon C. Ion <
> > > ion.simon.c at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 06/11/2016 12:45 AM, Andrey Fedorov wrote:
> > > > > Sure thing, Jim. I'll refrain from quoting Niemöller, and just
> > > > > say
> > > > suppression
> > > > > of discussion via emotional triggers is a really shallow
> > > > > rhetorical
> > > > tactic.
> > > > > I think we're better than that.
> > > >
> > > > Should either the vast majority of the claims turn out to be
> > > > unfounded
> > > > or -even worse- the whole thing turn out to likely be a
> > > > coordinated
> > > > smear campaign, I would hope that Noisebridge and others who have
> > > > made
> > > > denouncements would have the stones to make a *very* public
> > > > apology.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > > > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > > > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20160611/8154c13c/attachment-0003.html>