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

[Naomi Most]

> 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.

Wikileaks.

Oh, but by the way:

https://medium.com/@flexlibris/theres-really-no-such-thing-as-the-voiceless-92b3fa45134d#.8arvvgp10

--Naomi


On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Andrey Fedorov <me at anfedorov.com> wrote:

> 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>
> wrote:
> > 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).
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>


-- 
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
+1-415-728-7490

skype: nthmost

http://twitter.com/nthmost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20160615/5629e798/attachment-0003.html>