[Noisebridge-discuss] [Noisebridge-announce] Noisebridge Statement on Jacob Appelbaum

Ryan Pepin rjpepin at gmail.com
Sat Jun 11 20:04:08 UTC 2016


Meh,

Effectively this entire list has seen 'this guy is a likely rapist' but
posting any actual firsthand accounts is apparently too triggering for
anyone to read.

This is the third time in this ~12 message chain that the response to
people asking for information has effectively been, "you should evaluate
your own morals you sexist, how could you question my(as of now) baseless
claim, it involves potential sexual misconduct after all"

Rape is bad, sexual harassment is bad, sexual misconduct is bad; let people
draw their own judgements from actual facts please or keep the defamation
entirely off list.

Post a link to legitimate accounts if they are too triggering for the list.

The ones I have read haven't in my eyes been worthy of a ban(all of which
involved crass language and no physical contact) and genders reversed
likely wouldn't even be considered offensive in the first place.

Perhaps I'm not fully informed, in which case what is to be gained from
withholding the facts?

I reiterate for the fourth time, what claims and what reasoning?

I will happily eat my own words.
On Jun 11, 2016 3:45 PM, "John Shutt" <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:

> It’s possible you haven’t read all of the first-hand accounts, but there
> are many claiming patterns of sexual harassment and intimidation and
> several claiming outright sexual assault. If you believe those claims and
> don’t see how they would justify a ban, you should really reflect on that,
> and try to imagine a scenario where a space could be healthy and functional
> while refusing to bar a serial sexual abuser who primarily targets members
> of the community.
>
> On Jun 11, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Andrey Fedorov <me at anfedorov.com> wrote:
>
> Should either the vast majority of the claims turn out to be unfounded
>
>
> Even if all of the first-hand accounts I've read are completely true (and
> I believe they are), I do not see it as obviously justifying a ban from the
> space.
>
> So again: what claims and by what reasoning?
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Simon C. Ion <ion.simon.c at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/11/2016 12:45 AM, Andrey Fedorov wrote:
>> > Sure thing, Jim. I'll refrain from quoting Niemöller, and just say
>> suppression
>> > of discussion via emotional triggers is a really shallow rhetorical
>> tactic.
>> > I think we're better than that.
>>
>> Should either the vast majority of the claims turn out to be unfounded
>> or -even worse- the whole thing turn out to likely be a coordinated
>> smear campaign, I would hope that Noisebridge and others who have made
>> denouncements would have the stones to make a *very* public apology.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20160611/5c74ac98/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list