[Noisebridge-discuss] FWD: anti-jim and anti-anons2.0
jim at well.com
Mon Nov 18 16:29:53 UTC 2013
On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 21:25 -0800, Tom Lowenthal wrote:
> On 17 November 2013 21:12, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
> > I'm also really not okay with the concept of ideas being deigned
> > "actively harmful". Jim can say what he wants. His dumber ideas aren't
> > going to physically set anybody on fire here.
> Sure, Jim can't set people on fire with words. That would be awesome,
> and also incredibly scary.
> However, ideas, opinions, and words like this *can* cause harm. If
> someone were to read Jim's post and think that they couldn't report an
> instance of sexual harassment or abuse to the Noisebridge community,
> that would be harmful. If someone were to read Jim's post and think
> that the “Noisebridge way” to deal with an abuser is to fight back,
> and that person were further hurt, that would be harm caused by the
> things Jim has written.
> The truth is that the things we say do have an impact. People are
> affected by the things that they are told, and the things that they
> read. I think that our strong and consistent response has minimised
> many of the potential negative impacts of what Jim has written. That's
> important too, but it doesn't eliminate their impact, their ability to
> hurt people, or their potential to cause real-world harm.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss