[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

jim jim at systemateka.com
Sun Nov 17 09:39:27 UTC 2013


I'm interested, can you give me a date or 
subject heading so I can find it? 



On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 17:53 -0800, Jeffrey Carl Faden wrote:
> I have actually invoked the policy when a discussion arose using
> harmful language on the mailing list. Everyone involved learned a
> valuable lesson about friendship.
> 
> 
> 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
>         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




More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list