[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a group of women regarding *Appelbaum*

John Shutt john.d.shutt at gmail.com
Thu Jun 16 16:37:20 UTC 2016


If you turned in a news piece that deliberately avoided speaking about most of the relevant information, any editor on the planet would reject it, FYI.
> On Jun 16, 2016, at 9:28 AM, Simon C. Ion <ion.simon.c at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 06/14/2016 03:57 PM, Hep Svadja wrote:
>> Why are we focusing on this one account to the exclusion of all the other
>> accounts?
> 
> Brian Henderson's opinion on Bähring's statement seemed to me to be
> *dramatically* uncharitable and -perhaps- colored by mind-killing
> properties of the larger situation that it's a part of.
> 
>> Can we not waste any more time pushing this singular
>> account as some sort of "get out of all your other sexual assaults free"
>> card?
> 
> Where did you get the impression that I was "pushing" anything, let
> alone declaring *anything* a "Get out of X free card"?
> 
> My comments have been deliberately restricted to journalistic
> fact-checking, Bähring's statement and Henderson's opinion on the
> statement. Beyond suggesting that journalists should perform the basic
> fact-checking that they should do with *every* story that crosses their
> desk, I have *very* deliberately avoided speaking about any of the other
> accounts. I thought that I had made it clear that my position on
> Henderson's opinion was that if we removed the mind-killing aspects of
> the situation (for instance, say it was damaging and inaccurate
> reporting of a banal-but-significant female-on-female abuse of power
> story *without* any sexual misconduct aspects) then his opinion on the
> last two paragraphs of Bähring's statement would be *significantly* more
> charitable and more in line with what I mentioned in my June 14th message.
> 
> Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I'm a strong believer in the
> discourse-enhancing power of being able to talk calmly and rationally
> about disturbing and horrible situations. I also strongly believe that
> discussion is improved when those who converse are permitted (or even
> encouraged) to tell their conversation partner when the partner's
> argument is fallacious, not supported by the facts of the situation, or
> seems to otherwise be founded on seriously shaky ground.
> 
> Tangentially related to all that: unless you have *strong* reason to
> suspect otherwise, a person's lack of vocal condemnation of a thing
> doesn't imply support for that thing. :)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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