[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
jim at systemateka.com
Sun Nov 17 09:51:55 UTC 2013
On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 18:11 -0800, Liz Henry wrote:
> I have lost the thread of how we got onto this from the original
JS: good point.
> Jim, your continued apologist defenses also piss me off because you
> seem to be saying that women in particular, if sexually assaulted,
> should not participate in public discourse about it.
NOT TRUE; I NEVER SAID SUCH A THING!
> You trivialize
> sexual assault as "copping a feel"...
NOT TRUE: I tried to define a trivial example,
quite badly, I admit and have admitted previously
in this thread.
> speech and collective action are valid
> options for women to take in response to sexual harassment and
RIGHT, I AGREE, AND HAVE SAID SO PREVIOUSLY
IN THIS THREAD!
> think *you* can discuss things and call people out and that's totally
> ok but...
RIGHT, AND SO CAN OTHERS--FREELY, THE MORE
> you get to dictate how women
> should respond to assault, and that they should respond to it with
> escalating violence.
NOT TRUE! DAMMIT. QUOTE ME CORRECTLY, DO NOT
MAKE UP STUFF. I EXPRESSED AN OPINION AND TO
SOME EXTENT HAVE RESCINDED SOME OF IT! I NEVER
CLAIMED THAT I CAN DICTATE TO OTHERS! MY POINT
IS THAT IT'S GOOD FOR PEOPLE TO STICK UP FOR
I DID NOT RECOMMEND ESCALATING VIOLENCE! I SAID
I'D EAGERLY DEFEND SOMEONE WHO DID SO, AND
BRAVO TO THEM FOR THEIR COURAGE!
> It's also just weirdly like you just missed the
> entire last 100 years of anti-rape activism. You can't possibly have
> missed it. It's fucking San Francisco. What the hell, man.
OF COURSE I DIDN'T. I WROTE NOTHING ABOUT RAPE,
WHICH IS HEINOUS.
> - lizzard
> 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
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss