There is a sleight of hand here,
Correct me if I’m wrong, I think you believe this to be a sleight of hand where I’m jumping from “defender of abuser” to “rape apologist” on the grounds that sexual_abuse != rape. I think these are sufficiently equivalent to make that claim. Read the “River” story on http://jacobappelbaum.net. That is non-consensual sex. Non-consensual sex is rape. Ergo, Appelbaum is a rapist so one who defends him is a rape apologist.
And if you’re wondering why I take such a hardline stance on this, most women I know (over 3/4) have been raped. I’ve seen what this does to them. I don’t want that happening to other people, and I go out of my way to take such an aggressive stance because I feel not enough people do.
What I actually said was
Could you clear up this matter?
Jake Appelbaum is most certainly an abuser (see so many stories), and defending him makes one a rape apologist. The author of that post (the same one cited in the article) has publicly many times defended him.
There is a sleight of hand here, from alleging someone is an abuser, to the defense of said persons other characteristics, to necessitate defense of said abuse. To that claim you have produced no proof. Critiquing said defense on its own merits is another matter, and unless you can find proof to support your claims, what you have engaged in is libelous defamation.
You further dismissed a critique of CoCs on account of stemming from the person you deemed to be a rape apologist. This is an attack of character.
Failing to demonstrate why, implying a conflict of interest on part of said person, even guilty as far as you are concerned, one would think there is some sort of causal connection between sexual misconduct and instating a CoC.
Not a chain of command and handling of information, but the very implicit nature of policing people, where the law is already clear. Splitting it up and starting out by instating ones ideal without the enforcement. That it stems from a select few integral developers, and pertains to be for the community, really begs the question of who it represents, and for what reasons.
They are not mine, and as an irrelevant contributor, i respect your meritocratic authority to enforce it, but don’t hide it from me in plain sight.
The reason it is not something I, or I imagine others, are too happy to get into, is because it seems sanctimonious. You are one of very few people, to discuss such matters privately.
I understand it is not in effect still, but as such a person, I will still hold you to it.
Your position here is not on a continuum of either being against or raising support for victims of rape. It is an ad populace imposition out and inward of morality that enforces you in applying injustice to others.
I do not count you out of these victims, because your sympathy seems well founded, but unsupportable.
There is no defence of ioerror in the critique of the CoC.
Furthermore, the person making it, never defended abuse, actually, to the contrary.
Your logic here would make me a rape-apologist by extension. To be clear, I defend a persons right to have an opinion about CoCs without being called a rape-apologist, and i demand evidence to that effect, based on its altercations alone.
I am a defender of the onus on extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims. To which you still have presented none.
If 3/4 of the women you know have been raped, your immediate surroundings has a huge problem, i still account for that as clouding judgement. It is actually worse than anywhere I know of. I would hope you could find and focus on something to mend the situation and prevent these from happening in the future.
What your aggression amounts to, is drawing other people, some of which have been raped, into it.
It does not make it better on anyone, and by asserting and assigning blame where no blame is due, you are extending what could have been a reasonable critique of an extended problem, into a discussion where it does not belong.
I hope I can get you to see that there is a time and a place, and that I will listen to it.
You further dismissed a critique of CoCs on account of stemming from the person you deemed to be a rape apologist. This is an attack of character.
This isn’t attacking her character. This is stating that given her history, we should not consider her opinions on the matter just s we shouldn’t listen to what BP think about environmental protections.
This extends what is an attack on her character into an incitement of forever enacted reprisal based on it.
If you don’t consider someone’s opinion, you have left out all recourse of
them actually changing, were they to have regretted an earlier position.
What you do here, is assign blame towards someone who has no history
(that you have pointed to thus far) of excusing rape.
She left the Tor community by her own admission she says. I don’t think she has a dog in the game.
It is different from BP having a vested current interest, and historical attempts
behind it at covering over environmental disasters.
I will listen to BP when BP makes sense. If the powers to be do well, you will
have refused to listen on account of some paternalist, no, not in the male sense,
idea of what people ought to do in your view.
one would think there is some sort of causal connection between sexual misconduct and instating a CoC.
I mean, yeah. I think there is. CoC’s seem to often be opposed be abusers and casual misogynists (not imply anyone in this thread is any of those things, for the record). And CoCs help mitigate the threat pf abuse.
Where are fewer people raped as a result of a CoC? Where are people less capable of rape as a result of a CoC?
The mere idea that someone is capable of abuse, but incapable of silently accepting a CoC, is unfathomable for me. Who are these CoC-abiding abusers we are showing the door?
That sure isn’t the stated reason why people leave communities that instate a CoC, so they must have some sort of moral imperative not to breach the CoC, but feel the need to cook up solid evidence and reasoning to bring down CoCs as they do, instead of accepting this openly.
It is a very ambivalent relation to have with CoCs.
where the law is already clear
As an anarchist, I put minimal faith in the law and legal system to adequately map to morality.
The law also applies to you. You also have the option to support defamation,
charater-assasination and libel through other means, even general murder openly.
If you want to say rape isn’t adequately presented in law, I am all ears.
If you think the mere notions of beginning to rule out or penalize
these behaviours through law are unjust, I will still listen, because that presents a
“A judge in Canada is facing removal from the bench for his conduct when he asked a woman in a rape case why she couldn’t “just keep [her] knees together.” (link)”
A person has his legally extended power removed, because he can’t behave
according to law. Sounds like a win for the law.
To present a neutral view of knowledge, we don’t know that his work up until then was good. I will give you indices that it wasn’t. The idea that he was able to claim to power is a hypothesis
in need of evidence that there is a systematic leniency not to either educate,
test or vet people, and I will listen to that if you present it.
Especially as folk who work on the edge of what the law permits (and certainly goes counter to their interests), many of us are not the type to go to the police when something happens. We have to decide for ourselves what is acceptable and what to do.
You have played that out of your hands when any reasonable person would. Which is the exact same premise most people call the police on.
I don’t see people charged with their every offence once they do, which is the premise of people wanting to call the police. Maybe they undermine that elsewhere. Again law.
I gave you the opportunity to not double down. Entertain the idea that I know exactly what you know about what isn’t public knowledge, then defend your position as if i didn’t.
I feel like you’re implying that I’m willfully being misleading or slanderous and would backtrack once called out.
As for misleading, I don’t know that you don’t see it the way you present it. Mens rea a concept of establishing intent. You seem confused to me.
So confused about something to me very simple, that it makes you seem more so. This has been my reasoning in dealing with it.
slander (countable and uncountable, plural slanders)
"A false or unsupported, malicious statement (spoken, not written), especially one which is injurious to a person's reputation; the making of such a statement."
I am not implying it, I am presenting it in the context of that definition. Without proof, you can’t call people rape-apologists and not make yourself guilty of slander.
This is true till you present such evidence, or alternatively denounce the statement.
Or that I don’t have knowledge of these people that isn’t public that may differ from yours.
This is not the fora to compare notes. I can’t say Dalai Lama is a war criminal publicly for privately held positions.
Has it then been a problem to the point it needs pointing out?
Yes. It does because so many communities have these kinds of people, and having a CoC either forces them to keep their behavior in check or roots them out, both of which I support.
I don’t shy away from dealing with things directly. I won’t change because a CoC tells me not to.
I support your ability to wish for community being more outwardly pure than that which could include ESR, RMS and linus. It doesn’t mean the endeavour is not unfruitful or morally rotten.
It is a false security, because it lacks empathy with people one ought to not feel sympathy for.
This feels like security nihilism. Because we can’t keep out some extreme cases, we might as well not try?
It feels like security nihilism to you because you think it matters. What you describe looks like defeatism to me, because i think it is not related to actual security.
Apply your hacker mentality to thwarting this CoC to the purpose of your own benefit. You are welcome.
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
I used to think that, but then I remember that people’s words can be traumatic or can incite violence, and now I think otherwise.
This critique was presented towards a book in which a rational and consistent argument was presented. On the merit of words alone, and the emphasis you put on limiting their use, I find your argument less so consistent. What brought us the enlightenment was this very concise rationality, and i think you will find it prevented violence and led to a decrease.
I think you will find rolling back on this is the best gift to forces that don’t believe in it, some of which are violent enough in nature to rule out the mere consideration given the chance.
I used to believe in exposure therapy, and I still do, because it is a recognized psychological form of treatment. How you go about that is important, crucially in not trying to rule it out.
Incitement of violence is illegal. We still have freedom of speech. You could disagree by extending it, but not by shrinking it. I never claimed you have to be for it, I am saying that is what it is.
Allowing free speech doesn’t magically flip a switch that lets all types of speech go without consequence. Actions have consequences. One of which is limiting speech. That is a magical flip that imposes restrictions on the one tool we have at our disposal to settle our differences in a verbal manner. In its ability to censor, it creates subcultures of it, and gives a great argument to positions held within those, that otherwise would have none.
You limit speech, you lose.
Exclusion by exclusion is not compatible with inclusion.
Related to the above, if we don’t kick out the people who say heinous things (for some definition of heinous) their very words will drive others out. What is the bigger harm? To let one person stay because we can’t exclude anyone or to boot them to let many others stay?
Related to the above, you are fine with having such people, so long as a CoC supposedly keeps them from acting on it. It changes nothing about current bad behaviour to kick someone out.
I think justice should be reformative. The bigger harm that does change people is alienating people to society in a repetitive fashion. That creates monsters.
I never said you couldn’t exclude anyone. You believe in free association based on speech, I do too. That is how good ideas take form and promulgate. I am not of the opinion that if someone in my community says something I then have to agree with it.
I am of the opinion that if you create rule of inclusion based on not having these beliefs, and create rules to that effect, you have neither anarchy, nor the good sides of it.
So sexuality is deemed immoral or unwanted now is it? How humane is that?
That’s not what it says. The CoC is aim to create an atmosphere for getting shit done. I am among the most liberal people when it comes to sexuality and could have endless discussions about it with people outside the context of SD. Sexuality is fascinating. But. I can also recognize that many people do not want to be faced with it for many different reasons.
Joke joke, danger danger
The unshameless plug is the butt of a joke I won’t make. It reflects too well on myself.
And here we are discussing sexuality, like the humans we are. Who are these people that want to rule out discussing sexuality…?
I would argue this discussion is how to prevent abuse, and to form the basis of consent. I don’t think the topic will come up ever often, but I do think treating it as a taboo because it might does it no favours.
If you treat people as children, they behave as children.
We’re not treating people as children. The CoC is saying: people come from different places with different experiences, and we want to minimize accidental or intentional hard to we can get as much done on SD as possible.
It doesn’t actually say that, you did. But in saying so, what have you communicated and what perceived effect do you think it will have? Meanwhile I wasted time presenting unanswered arguments regarding this, in line with and contrary to the stated goal.
This is not how sexual attraction works, which in no way is an excuse of sexual abuse.
Sure, you can’t know someone into until you ask or hint, but this is a professional activist community. Forums and chats aren’t a place to pick up other devs.
Maybe they aren’t very catered to it, but what do you think to exclude by enforcing it, other than human nature? The CoC applies to all venues of the SD community btw.
I think that extends to the very real physical meetings. In the consensual expression of mutual attraction between adults, how is the SD community hurt by that?
You use the word professional, but in a way that doesn’t mean paid workers, nor used in a way that supports excluding behaviour that is illegal to rule out in a professional setting.
I find it hard to reconcile your view with how you are to determine “Unwelcome sexual attention.”
It doesn’t change human nature, and you treat people like non-humans by pointing it out.
“We” are the community. You, me, the other contributors, etc.
You answered on part of someone else there. I found the non-sequiteur to be the statement that just because we agree on a CoC, that people trusted to handle it should be designated.
The capacity in which “we” is invoked there, is really pressing.
why the community here needs one.
It’s preemptive. We write one so if something in the future happens, we have a way to deal with it.
What is it you can’t deal with that you need a CoC for? If it was pre-emptive it wouldn’t happen, or I take it to mean dealing with something means you have to establish a doctrine first.
The legal aspects there you can just apply to law for.
As for a code of reaction, or “escalation practice” sure, saves valuable time and lays things out clearly. Meanwhile you cant monopolize action taken directly, or through outside means.
This CoC never had a community backing.
My existence disproves this. I have been a member of the community since 2015, as a volunteer and never officially part of FPF. I back this CoC.
Granted. I salute your efforts.
I wanted to not represent a community by a select few people in it, myself included, as it is not representation worthy of their participation. This is the only impetus i need for collaboration.
What happened to people representing themselves, before you came to their aid by deciding they were marginalized?
Being an ally to marginalized doesn’t inherently dehumanize them.
This is not contested. Though who asked for allies? If you declare someone as a cause, that is now their plight.
Saying “marginalized groups, like women and people of colour”, decides on part of someone else as a premise of not belonging to said group,
Wrt. the above, still if you do. I believe in the full representation of people, in the capacity they wish. Broad sweeping statements about derived status based on gender and race, leaves room for well founded concern. Just because it sounds like well-meaning concern, does not make it so that everyone has to accept what you can argue to be an unfavourable label.
I think the way out of the culture of victimhood is to fight the culture that surrounds it.
We’re not saying everyone is a delicate flower that needs protection. We’re saying “maybe there’s only one, but let’s be gentle to accommodate.”
I don’t like being encompassed in the we, but that is beside the point.
What if you don’t want to be singled out? You are saying, there is one, it is this one, and the mere redundancy of bringing up a special problem relating to it, in a saying that encompasses all, (and rightfully should) is unwarranted.
And there’s a whole lot more I could respond to but it’s getting late I have a birthday to attend. I’ll try to get back to the rest later.
Congratulations on the birthday, on your part or extended to someone else, I hope you have fun.