[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Statement on Jacob Appelbaum

Mon Jun 13 19:14:58 UTC 2016

Wow, that got out of hand fast. Views "from the outside" are actually very
important here, precisely because emotion is clearly trumping reason (e.g.
in VonGuard's posts). Whether genuine or a cheap rhetorical tactic, it
isn't helping anyone towards the truth of the matter.

Aside from an uncorroborated anonymous account submitted to that site, has
anyone actually accused Jacob of raping them? Forest's account seems to me
a genuine description of Jacob as not exactly a boy scout, but showing
healthy shame and being apologetic when confronted about transgressions.
This is not the person described in some of the more harrowing accounts.

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:06 AM, VonGuard <vonguard at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry to unload on just you, but really, I was upset at the whole
> thread.
>
> Sexual assault and misconduct accusations should be handled in private.
> The MOMENT people start demanding a rape victim be open with the public
> about the rape is the moment rape victims are silenced.
>
> I get it. Nerds want to be even handed, just, and never want to exclude
> people.
>
> Unfortunately, this instinct FREQUENTLY results in one person being
> allowed to repeatedly offend and drive others away. Others who are too
> afraid to write anonymous testimonials.
>
> So, for everyone else who has issues with this: contact the board and ask
> them the questions. This is not a subject for open debate. If you want to
> come in on the list and say "Hey, did you think this through?" Just stop.
> It's not appropriate. Your drive-by ethics check is not needed, and only
> serves to add more voices to the already deafening chorus of people now
> thinking Jacob is the victim.
>
> How fucked up is that? People who are, literally, braver than Noisebridge
> has been in the past, coming forward to stop this repeated abuse, and the
> first thing that happens is they are seen as the attackers, and Jacob, the
> victim.
>
> Yeah, the site they built is ham-fisted, but please, don't add to the
> chorus of people painting Jacob as the victim here. Jacob specializes in
> living in the gray area where his victims are made to seem unstable and
> unreliable, and he thrives on that fact.
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:01 AM, robb <sf99er at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> thx Lesley, that's exactly what i was looking for.
>>
>> my original comment was based on what i gleaned from this/these thread(s).
>>
>> i have been the victim of false accusations (theft) by a mob of people i
>> thought were my comrades who brought only the conclusion that i stole $ w/o
>> any evidence or facts.
>> it is very damaging as one can't defend oneself against mere conclusions.
>> i apologize if my bad experience has made me hyperobjective. i guess it
>> still affects me.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:45 AM, VonGuard <vonguard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Your response is, in fact, victim shaming. You come in and IMMEDIATELY
>>> assume they're lying, and ask for an anonymous account of what happened.
>>> There are a lot out there already, so I can ONLY assume you want more.
>>>
>>> Victim shaming isn't about telling someone they're lying to their face.
>>> It's about coming to the group and saying "Everyone sure in here?" like
>>> some kinda fucked up dad checking in on the uncle molesting children in the
>>> basement. "You sure he was molesting you? Let's sit down and have you write
>>> an essay about how he molested you because you're a child and I cannot take
>>> your word for it."
>>>
>>> So, yeah, coming around and saying "I want a statement, I want proof, I
>>> want to know exactly how he raped this person" is, in fact, victim shaming.
>>>
>>> Maybe you didn't know this. Seems few people do.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:23 AM, robb <sf99er at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:45 AM, VonGuard <vonguard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I don't give a rats ass what this "looks like from the
>>>>> outside."
>>>>>
>>>> that's obvious
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If one more fucking person DEMANDS that the victims come forward with
>>>>> evidence and photos and videos and rape kits, I'm gonna blow my fucking
>>>>> stack.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i did not demand any physical evidence
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Demanding evidence is NOT what you do in these cases.  Instead, you
>>>>> quietly discuss, find the evidence and statements needed quietly, AND NOT
>>>>> IN PUBLIC, so as not to shame and humiliate the victims.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> again, i did not demand physical evidence. i merely suggested an
>>>> anonymous account that demonstrates Jake's culpability.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think Noisebridge did wrong, you don't trust Noisebridge. This
>>>>> decision was NOT made lightly, and as it CLEARLY states in the statement,
>>>>> Jake was a problem at Noisebridge BEFORE this began.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i don't think nb did *wrong *
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You want facts? You go get raped by him then come back here and listen
>>>>> to everyone tell you you're lying. Then try to cough up some "facts."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> no comment
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an inherently messy situation, and you know what? Reminding us
>>>>> all of that fact and questioning the victims is NOT HELPING. We know.
>>>>> Noisebridge knows. Noisebridge has WAY more experience with Jake than most
>>>>> people. Either trust that Noisebridge did right, or find a hackerspace
>>>>> where Jake is allowed in the door, if it matters that much to you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> my concern for jake, personally, is nil. i do care about fairness &
>>>> equity alot though
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We're fucking done with him. Go plead his case and cast aspersions on
>>>>> the victims elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you are seriously delusional if you think i'm pleading his case. my
>>>> concern is for nb. this is a public list. libel is a real.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes me physically ill to see more people supporting Jake than the
>>>>> victims. I don't care how ham-fisted their reports sound. Assuming multiple
>>>>> ladies and men are lying and Noisebridge is just being reactionary is just
>>>>> ludicrous.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i am not supporting jake
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For all these accusations to be right ONLY ONE THING MUST BE TRUE:
>>>>> Jacob has to be a bad guy. Terrible to believe, I know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For all the accusations to be wrong, and for all these orgs to to toss
>>>>> Jacob out improperly, then everyone of the orgs and every one of Jacobs
>>>>> accusers has to be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>> clearly, i'm lacking some facts here
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Explain to me again how it makes sense to shame the victims and
>>>>> everyone else involved and run to the defense of a single, powerful
>>>>> individual accused of shaming victims and threatening them. Please explain
>>>>> to me how the one accused of making these victims feel afraid and ashamed
>>>>> needs your help, rather than the victims needing your help.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i'm not trying to defend anyone but nb.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, continue discussing this on the email list and informing all
>>>>> of us at Noisebridge that we made a hasty decisions you don't like,
>>>>> assuming wee're all just reactionaries and making this shit up. Assume we
>>>>> don't know Jacob better than you. Please, continue to assume we don't have
>>>>> dozens of other cases where Jacob hurt members of the Noisebridge community
>>>>> in the past. Please assume we're just being vengeful.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU are reactionary, evidenced by your response to my post
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Please, continue to victim shame.
>>>>>
>>>> nice conclusion...now where exactly in my post did i shame any victims?
>>>>
>>>> again,
>>>> the allegations against jake are extremely serious accusations.
>>>> it is imperative to handle this matter responsibly for all the parties
>>>> involved - including nb & tor project.
>>>>
>>>> i wish you all well
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:45 AM, VonGuard <vonguard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I don't give a rats ass what this "looks like from the
>>>>> outside."
>>>>>
>>>>> If one more fucking person DEMANDS that the victims come forward with
>>>>> evidence and photos and videos and rape kits, I'm gonna blow my fucking
>>>>> stack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Demanding evidence is NOT what you do in these cases.  Instead, you
>>>>> quietly discuss, find the evidence and statements needed quietly, AND NOT
>>>>> IN PUBLIC, so as not to shame and humiliate the victims.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think Noisebridge did wrong, you don't trust Noisebridge. This
>>>>> decision was NOT made lightly, and as it CLEARLY states in the statement,
>>>>> Jake was a problem at Noisebridge BEFORE this began.
>>>>>
>>>>> You want facts? You go get raped by him then come back here and listen
>>>>> to everyone tell you you're lying. Then try to cough up some "facts."
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an inherently messy situation, and you know what? Reminding us
>>>>> all of that fact and questioning the victims is NOT HELPING. We know.
>>>>> Noisebridge knows. Noisebridge has WAY more experience with Jake than most
>>>>> people. Either trust that Noisebridge did right, or find a hackerspace
>>>>> where Jake is allowed in the door, if it matters that much to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're fucking done with him. Go plead his case and cast aspersions on
>>>>> the victims elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes me physically ill to see more people supporting Jake than the
>>>>> victims. I don't care how ham-fisted their reports sound. Assuming multiple
>>>>> ladies and men are lying and Noisebridge is just being reactionary is just
>>>>> ludicrous.
>>>>>
>>>>> For all these accusations to be right ONLY ONE THING MUST BE TRUE:
>>>>> Jacob has to be a bad guy. Terrible to believe, I know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For all the accusations to be wrong, and for all these orgs to to toss
>>>>> Jacob out improperly, then everyone of the orgs and every one of Jacobs
>>>>> accusers has to be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Explain to me again how it makes sense to shame the victims and
>>>>> everyone else involved and run to the defense of a single, powerful
>>>>> individual accused of shaming victims and threatening them. Please explain
>>>>> to me how the one accused of making these victims feel afraid and ashamed
>>>>> needs your help, rather than the victims needing your help.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, continue discussing this on the email list and informing all
>>>>> of us at Noisebridge that we made a hasty decisions you don't like,
>>>>> assuming wee're all just reactionaries and making this shit up. Assume we
>>>>> don't know Jacob better than you. Please, continue to assume we don't have
>>>>> dozens of other cases where Jacob hurt members of the Noisebridge community
>>>>> in the past. Please assume we're just being vengeful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, continue to victim shame.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:33 AM, robb <sf99er at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> fwiw, from the outside, this looks like a smear campaign.
>>>>>> perhaps an account of the facts - changing the names to protect the
>>>>>> innocent - could be posted somewhere.
>>>>>> repeated statements of conclusions w/o facts are not convincing & do
>>>>>> more to raise suspicions about an unaccountable process than they do about
>>>>>> Appelbaum's conduct.
>>>>>> the allegations against jake are extremely serious accusations.
>>>>>> it is imperative to handle this matter responsibly for all the
>>>>>> parties involved - including nb & tor project.
>>>>>> ~r
>>>>>> <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/20160613/57d2980d/attachment-0003.html>