[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a group of women regarding *Appelbaum*
pnaomi at gmail.com
Wed Jun 15 17:37:47 UTC 2016
Also now deanonymized:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> Oh, but by the way:
> 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>
>> > 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
> Naomi Theora Most
> naomi at nthmost.com
> skype: nthmost
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss