[Noisebridge-discuss] [Noisebridge-announce] Noisebridge Statement on Jacob Appelbaum
me at anfedorov.com
Sat Jun 11 20:32:46 UTC 2016
John: That's quite possible. The author of an anonymous victims stories site
<http://jacobappelbaum.net/#faq> says, on behalf of the people submitting
stories, that what they want is "mainly awareness":
We want people to know how Jake behaves so they can protect themselves:
> avoid being alone with him, be on guard against attempts he might make to
> manipulate them, avoid drinking or taking drugs with him, and warn friends
> who seem vulnerable.
> Also, we hope that this site will prompt groups and organizations to think
> twice about any involvement they have with him. Maybe it is not a great
> idea for him to be part of their communities. Maybe they shouldn't invite
> him to speak at or attend their conferences. Maybe they don't want to be
> associated with a person who is accused of the behaviors detailed on this
I think the first is absolutely reasonable, but the latter requires a bit
more than anonymous accounts, especially given the context of Jake's work.
The best solution to dealing with people who push boundaries to learn to
enforce boundaries, not to create blacklists. Having acquaintances with
similar patterns of behavior as described there (albeit not as extreme),
the language I usually go with is "X is an ally more than a friend because
I don't like how I see him treat women he's pursuing. be careful". I would
never tell someone to avoid him, or make the decision on their behalf.
2011Plguppy2111: gmail has a mute feature
will find helpful.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:44 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
> 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>
>> On 06/11/2016 12:45 AM, Andrey Fedorov wrote:
>> > Sure thing, Jim. I'll refrain from quoting Niemöller, and just say
>> > of discussion via emotional triggers is a really shallow rhetorical
>> > 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
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss