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

Andrey Fedorov me at anfedorov.com
Wed Jun 15 02:46:08 UTC 2016

Andy: Jill is the alleged victim, speaking publicly, and I believe her
story over someone else's interpretation. Did you read it?

Naomi: I won't do anything with it, but it will make me feel a ton better
about the community. I'm appealing to the notion that usage of
institutional power like bans on politically active individuals be thought
through and well reasoned. Words like "demand" and "proof" are very
specific and not at all what I am doing or asking for. "Over half a decade"
is a long time -- memories can shift and take on new meaning by then. Is
this ban based on people's recollections of something Jacob did the better
part of a decade ago? None of this seems even remotely like any of the
stories on the /wiki/86 list.

Rob: yes, I've read some of those, and for all you know, I wrote one, too.
Ask any professional journalist, investigator, or lawyer about how much
weight one ought to give uncorroborated anonymous accounts on the internet
in finding the truth of a matter. Seriously -- do you know any? Ask them.
That said, some of the stories appear to paint a personality type very
different from the others.

Oxblood's story is a good example of someone furthering and augmenting
unsubstantiated rumors. First, he is clearly miffed by Jacob's networking
in leu of "making movies, writing, coding", and then talks of "throwing him
out" upon cDc becoming aware of "anonymous accusations of sexual assault".
He follows up with a story of his own about making inappropriate remarks to
a female colleague and a discussion of sexual assault. I see lots of
confusion and emotions and not much reasoning in his account.

It's fine to dislike Jacob for a variety of reasons personal and political,
the same say it's fine to dislike Bill Clinton. Not liking someone and
personally avoiding them is very different than using institutional power
to publicly declare them unwelcome or banned.

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Simon C. Ion <ion.simon.c at gmail.com
<javascript:;>> wrote:
> On 06/13/2016 11:30 AM, brianhenderson474 at yahoo.com <javascript:;> 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).
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net <javascript:;>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20160614/fdd85487/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list