[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a group of women regarding *Appelbaum*
hepkitten at gmail.com
Tue Jun 14 22:57:11 UTC 2016
Why are we focusing on this one account to the exclusion of all the other
accounts? OK, this account has been proven false. However there are like 50
other accounts. Can we not waste any more time pushing this singular
account as some sort of "get out of all your other sexual assaults free"
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Simon C. Ion <ion.simon.c at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/13/2016 11:30 AM, brianhenderson474 at yahoo.com wrote:
> > When I said I wasn't going to address her statement, I thought it was
> > clear I was referring to substance of it...
> Bähring's statement is the *entirety* of the document, not just the
> facts of the events of the evening. You took issue with the opinions
> expressed *after* the recitation of facts, so you addressed (and took
> issue with) her statement. :)
> > But she then goes from a description of what happened to pondering that
> > a bunch of women are lying about being assaulted.
> > That's ridiculously inappropriate, and she should be ashamed of
> > telling other women that they're lying about being assaulted.
> > Again, by her OWN STATEMENT, these three witnesses did in fact see her
> > distressed for personal reasons and Jake physically coming on to her
> > as she desperately tried to find her missing bag. ...
> > It's disgusting to take the account from three people who acted
> > reasonably and appropriately and use it to try and discredit
> > victims of sexual assault.
> You should remove the anger/disgust/other-negative-affect from your mind
> and *carefully* re-read Bähring's statement. Remember that Gizmodo
> apparently published Tan, Paterson, and Shepard's account of the events
> without even _bothering_ to speak to the person that the three witnesses
> identified as a victim.
> If you had an associate who told a *really* damaging (and *really*
> juicy) story to a widely-read gossip rag that was based on a
> *significant* misinterpretation of the events of an evening, wouldn't
> you be *rather* pissed at both the associate (for going to the gossip
> rag without speaking to you) and the rag (for failing to speak with you
> to verify the account before publishing)?
> If that associate was then _intimately_ involved with the relating and
> eventual publishing of similar sorts of equally damaging and juicy
> stories, wouldn't you have reason to question the accuracy of *those*
> > Without the context she knew, it's easy to see how someone witnessing
> > this would come to a different conclusion.
> That element of uncertainty is why Gizmodo should have called her up to
> verify the account of the events of the evening before publishing the
> story. It's also why Gizmodo (and anyone else publishing these stories)
> should question the veracity of information that they've gotten from
> Tan, Paterson, and/or Shepard... assuming that they haven't yet gotten
> around to verifying the story they were handed (and maybe have already
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
415 867 9472 || http://hepic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss