[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
Jeffrey Carl Faden
jeffreyatw at gmail.com
Sun Nov 17 01:53:45 UTC 2013
I have actually invoked the policy when a discussion arose using harmful
language on the mailing list. Everyone involved learned a valuable lesson
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 5:28 PM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:
> How's it working out in practice?
> On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 16:31 -0800, Hannah Grimm wrote:
> > You know what actions I've taken in response to harassment that have
> > felt really empowering, Jim?
> > Getting an anti-harassment policy passed.
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:
> > My replies interspersed below:
> > On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 13:30 -0800, hep wrote:
> > > I would like to take this opportunity to point out that this
> > entire
> > > discussion is a pretty good example of why in 2013 we need a
> > firm,
> > > clear, anti-harassment policy for noisebridge to take the
> > first step
> > > for being a truly safe environment for everyone.
> > JS: I believe such a policy will have negligible
> > affect.
> > > Here in November 2013, a man is seriously proposing that
> > women*, many
> > > of whom: may be smaller than many males, non-confrontational
> > for one
> > > reason or another, alone except for their attacker, and/or
> > may
> > > possibly have reasons for not wanting to engage physically
> > with a male
> > > who has just sexually assaulted them, hit their attacker and
> > then
> > > silence themselves from any community support, over an issue
> > that will
> > > often be called into question repeatedly as to a) whether it
> > happened
> > > b) whether it was "enough" to warrent a response, and c)
> > whether the
> > > victim merely "misinterpreted" what happened to their own
> > body.
> > JS: I proposed no such thing.
> > > Then that man asks a woman who is upset by the tepid
> > official response
> > > to sexual assault in the community if she should really be
> > so mad, and
> > > if she really has the "higher ground" to stand on.
> > JS: I have previous experience with that person
> > and stand by my suggestion that she may be living
> > too much in anger.
> > >
> > > Then that man goes on to repeatedly back these points.
> > JS: incorrect, as your description of the points
> > is largely erroneous.
> > >
> > > Then that man *claims that the community should support his
> > viewpoints
> > > because he is somehow a less privileged community member*
> > and deserves
> > > equal "community support" as a sexual assault victim.
> > JS: I made no such claims. I suggest that individuals
> > consider that taking action might be empowering for
> > them. I do not suggest that anyone necessarily take
> > action alone, and as someone rightly suggested, taking
> > action, especially alone, might prove dangerous and
> > foolish.
> > >
> > > Just sayin'.
> > JS: and liking it.
> > >
> > > -hep
> > > I say woman only because he framed that as the example.
> > JS: yes, and I now regret choosing such a lurid
> > example. I now wish I'd used a homeless-seeming
> > and non-hacker-seeming person as an example. The
> > dynamics would have been more interesting to
> > explore.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss