[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a group of women regarding *Appelbaum*

[Simon C. Ion]

On 06/13/2016 11:30 AM, brianhenderson474 at yahoo.com wrote:
> When I said I wasn't going to address her statement, I thought it was
> clear I was referring to substance of it...

Bähring's statement is the *entirety* of the document, not just the
facts of the events of the evening. You took issue with the opinions
expressed *after* the recitation of facts, so you addressed (and took
issue with) her statement. :)

> But she then goes from a description of what happened to pondering that
> a bunch of women are lying about being assaulted.
> That's ridiculously inappropriate, and she should be ashamed of
> telling other women that they're lying about being assaulted.
> 
> Again, by her OWN STATEMENT, these three witnesses did in fact see her
> distressed for personal reasons and Jake physically coming on to her
> as she desperately tried to find her missing bag. ...
>
> It's disgusting to take the account from three people who acted
> reasonably and appropriately and use it to try and discredit
> victims of sexual assault.

You should remove the anger/disgust/other-negative-affect from your mind
and *carefully* re-read Bähring's statement. Remember that Gizmodo
apparently published Tan, Paterson, and Shepard's account of the events
without even _bothering_ to speak to the person that the three witnesses
identified as a victim.

If you had an associate who told a *really* damaging (and *really*
juicy) story to a widely-read gossip rag that was based on a
*significant* misinterpretation of the events of an evening, wouldn't
you be *rather* pissed at both the associate (for going to the gossip
rag without speaking to you) and the rag (for failing to speak with you
to verify the account before publishing)?

If that associate was then _intimately_ involved with the relating and
eventual publishing of similar sorts of equally damaging and juicy
stories, wouldn't you have reason to question the accuracy of *those*
stories?

> Without the context she knew, it's easy to see how someone witnessing
> this would come to a different conclusion.

That element of uncertainty is why Gizmodo should have called her up to
verify the account of the events of the evening before publishing the
story. It's also why Gizmodo (and anyone else publishing these stories)
should question the veracity of information that they've gotten from
Tan, Paterson, and/or Shepard... assuming that they haven't yet gotten
around to verifying the story they were handed (and maybe have already
published).


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20160614/7425c4b9/attachment-0003.sig>