Burn the witch!
6 Likes
Be true to your… barracks?
Gosh, Nick sure was a jerk for using such language!
1 Like
Which, to be fair, is how it should be. The response to someone claiming to have been victimized should never be “You’re wrong.” Their story should be believed until there is sufficient doubt cast upon it.
This does not mean that it’s not worth looking at an allegation from a different perspective. If person A, for example, says that when they joined the workplace, person B made an offensive sexual comment to person C, but person B and C say that it was an in-joke that, in context, wasn’t sexual at all, that’s an understandable difference of perspectives.
I am sorry to hear that. As I’ve stated elsewhere, that’s a horrible thing that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemies.
And that sounds like it fits with the narrative that I’ve been hearing: not that Appelbaum was a psychopath who enjoyed inflicting pain or humiliation on others, but that he was a person who wasn’t used to taking a “No” answer quietly. The kind of stubbornness that you describe is, in some cases, is a good thing. Perhaps anarchism and hacktivism are places where that attitude does more harm than good, but if — if — Jacob allowed that stubbornness to carry over to sexual matters, that is a very bad thing.
And, you know what, fair enough. People make mistakes, and the only difference with smart people is that their mistakes tend to be correspondingly bigger. However, the price of anarchism is that you have to own up to your mistakes.
Reading his reply, the closest he comes to denying the allegations (other than calling them “spurious”) is Cory’s quote above: “I want to be clear: the accusations of criminal sexual misconduct against me are entirely false.” Which, if you’re asking us to look at this from an anarchist’s perspective, is a ludicrous statement. Literally, he’s saying, “If we took this before the State, they would conclude that I haven’t committed a crime.” Not, “I haven’t done any of the things I was accused of,” but, “I haven’t done anything criminally wrong.”
If there were some sort of attempt to look at this through the eyes of someone he might have wronged, then maybe we could move forward and start talking about reconciliation, however, his response was:
Inevitably, there may have been moments in my professional or private life when I may have inadvertently hurt or offended others’ feelings. Whenever I was aware of these instances, I have, and will continue to, apologize to the friends and colleagues in question and to continually learn how to be a better person. Though the damage to my reputation caused by these allegations alone is impossible to undo, I nonetheless take the concerns of the Tor community seriously.
An apology, to be meaningful, has to have three things: an admission of what you did wrong (bonus points for why it was wrong), a request for forgiveness, and a promise to be better in the future (bonus points for how you’ll attempt to be better). Then again, this is not even an attempt at apology: it’s a declaration that he has apologized for things in past and will apologize for things in future.
I think we have the same vision of the future: a place and time when allegations of this nature are taken seriously by both law enforcement (formal or contracted informal) and by the public at large. Sad to say, that future isn’t the present.
Look at Cosby. It started out exactly the same as Appelbaum: a few people came forward anonymously, and then a few came forward publicly, and then finally, someone came forward with enough proof, and with allegations that were still within the statute of limitations, and they could make a case. However, before that point, literally dozens of women had to come forward and tell their stories before they were believed, and I’m sure some of them got the same kind of death threats that Appelbaum is getting.
It doesn’t make the people jumping on either the alleged victims or the alleged perpetrators right; however, until we foster an environment where people can come forward in public safely, we shouldn’t think too harshly of them for staying in the shadows.
If you’re thinking that these allegations are made up: I’ve written some fiction, and, at one point, I tried to write a rape/torture scene. I literally couldn’t do it. In order to write that kind of detail, you need to see the things happening in your head, to make them real, and I couldn’t force my mind into that place at more than a very superficial level before my mind tore ass out of that place like a cat wriggling its way loose from an unwanted hug.
I’m not saying that people can’t make this stuff up, but I think that the number of people who can rape someone and the number of people who can make up a detailed, false, allegation of rape are similarly small due to how sociopathic you need to be in order to make your mind go to that place.
If I were dealing with a secure, encrypted, anonymous submission, my default would be to use a secure delete, not just deleting the file’s entry in the table (and, to use some of your own snark, hey, Shava, what kind of hacker doesn’t know how to delete files/sectors so that they can’t be recovered yo?).
I agree that he shouldn’t face any consequences for allegations that haven’t been proven, but so far, the only consequences I can see are a stain on his reputation (which is unavoidable, regardless of whether this came forward on an anonymous website, in an informal moot, or through formal charges), and his resignation from Tor (which is less a consequence against him than it is a way to keep Tor from getting dirtied by the mud being slung).
So, largely, I agree with you: we should keep open minds and not rush to judgement. But, as humans, we need to choose a narrative, and in cases like this, my default is always going to be to believe any victim brave enough to come forward and make a statement. If facts come out that cast doubt upon these alleged victims, then I am open to having my mind changed, but given Appelbaum’s non-apology, I’m not particularly optimistic about that.
10 Likes
This is not a courtroom, and thus such presumption is not something the State has any control over.
3 Likes
Unless I’m on a jury or have the personal ability to impact someone’s life, the value of keeping an open mind as to someone’s guilt or innocence is nil. There’s no real moral value to running around saying that X person is probably guilty, and so I prefer to refrain from it. Instead I prefer to focus on the people who, as a class, have come forward and had people refuse to believe them on principle. There is a distinction that makes all the difference in the world between saying that there is a presumption of innocence, and immediately assuming that people who make an accusation are liars.
Is Jacob Appelbaum guilty? I have no idea, I wasn’t there, and I don’t know anyone who was. That being said, I also have no reason to disbelieve the people who are his accusers and to call them liars is simply to focus guilt in another direction rather than engage in a presumption of innocence. This betrays one’s bias, rather than reveal them as the dispassionate soul they would rather you see them as.
When it comes to this particular case, unfortunately, I can see it. It was only a matter of time before the wrong person takes the wrong lesson from the Assange case and realizes that this community will stand behind them if they rape. Assange, for all the good he may have done, is not above reproach, but he was placed on that pedestal and handed the rather confused status of victim. Rapists know vulnerabilities when they see them, and so do security researchers. In a way, it’s the perfect crime given the skillset.
I am always disturbed when people who are not attached to an issue rush to withhold judgement in a way that is simply displacing judgement onto the lesser-known party. If @doctorow stood up and said, “I’ve known him for years and don’t believe it.” Or, “I’ve known him for years and feel like I should withhold judgement,” I’d tolerate that. I think that it makes sense for your friends or people who know you to be biased in your favor in ways that perhaps they shouldn’t be. At least as long as they’re not making important decisions about anything related to the victims and they’re never going to be on a jury. I think that having this particular kind of blind spot is part of the human condition and should possibly be embraced as such. But everyone else has the epistemic responsibility to not engage in this kind of favoritism as if they know the person because they’ve read more about them. I don’t assume Amber Heard is lying because I’d never heard of her before the allegations of abuse against Johnny Depp for instance. That’s a logically indefensible position.
When it comes to conspiracy theories, the rule is and always will be, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” They can be dismissed with the level of proof given: None.
9 Likes
This is a non-sequitur, sorry. If you can’t say or think “you’re wrong”, you can’t say or think “you’re right” either. Their story should be checked out until one side looks significantly less dubious than the other. If it can’t be done right away, fine, let the victim recover before getting her through the process, but this does not imply that the counterpart should be jailed in the meantime “just in case”.
The alternative is a license to libel, which many youngsters actually take for granted these days.
Okay, first, I’m not telling anyone what to think. If you want to doubt someone’s story, that’s fine.
I’m just saying that if you level a finger at that person and say, “You’re lying,” or, “That didn’t happen,” or something similar, you’d better have some damned good proof, especially if you’re going to publicly cast doubt upon their story. Even with the anonymity of the Internet, it’s a big risk to step forward and make an accusation like this. Until/unless someone can present a motive that makes sense when weighed against that risk, then reflexively calling people liars will just drive victims into the shadows, and possibly re-victimize them.
Oh, certainly. I think that the standard for holding someone without being charged is two days, and the standard for charging someone with a crime is that you need to be able to prove that, assuming there is no defense, you have enough evidence to secure a conviction. Even then, to hold them in jail until trial, you need to prove that they’re a flight risk or at risk of committing further crimes. I think all of that is reasonable.
A single person’s statement, no matter how compelling, does not meet the standard of “enough evidence to secure a conviction,” and so the government’s response to an accusation shouldn’t just be “arrest the guy until trial, and don’t investigate further.”
However, we’re talking about the court of public opinion here, which has much different evidentiary standards. Whether or not we believe an alleged victim should be a much different question to whether or not we should take the alleged perpetrator and lock them up and throw away the key.
7 Likes
False sex abuse allegations are what, 5% or so?
Checking them out is one thing, but I’m perfectly happy to default to believing them in the court of public opinion, particularly when there are multiple reports.
8 Likes
Wikipedia: False accusation of rape - Wikipedia
TL; DR: realistically, anything between 1% and 20%, probably 1 in 10.
Oh yeah, I totally agree; I’m just saying that this shouldn’t reflexively lower the standards of proof for the accusing side, which is what you do if you uncritically accept their version of the story. Basically, once the accusation has been made, one should avoid hurting either side.
In a perfect world, that wouldn’t be the case. Alas, we are only humans; and justice is clearly not of this world.
2 Likes
Well, no, the director of the Tor Project didn’t have him step down and leave because of social engineering did she? They had credible people come and directly talk to them and the Tor Project has retained legal counsel. That sounds like something.
9 Likes
Well, maybe I’m used to stricter European libel laws, but I’m usually disgusted by those public lynchmobs of the blogosphere, whether they end up rendering a “guilty” verdict or piling on the original accuser instead.
The court of public opinion and of internet shitstorms adds up to a significant impact on someone’s life. This means there is quite some individual responsibility for all of us to keep an open mind, in my opinion.
And again, I feel I’m used to stricter Austrian libel laws. If someone is “not guilty” (due to lack of evidence) and the accuser if “not guilty” of wrongly accusing him (again, due to lack of evidence), I don’t want a court of public opinion to destroy the life of one or both parties. Opening a website explaining how someone is a rapist? Ouch. Take it to the courts instead.
Sounds scary. Taking an accusation for granted as a matter of principle does a lot more damage than making honest mistakes on the same order of magnitude. Even if it’s “just” the court of public opinion and the punishments aren’t jail time but just a ruined career and a few death threats.
Should it have different standards? The accusers have chosen to take it to the court of public opinion, and if the court of public opinion can’t bring itself to render a “not guilty” (for lack of evidence) verdict without accusing the other party of lying, then it is a kangaroo court of public opinion. In other words, why should someone lose their reputation and their job just because there is not enough evidence to be convinced that he is innocent and that the accuser is lying?
And if the statute of limitations has expired?
Once again, I’d like to say that the Cosby thing started pretty much the same way, with a few anonymous accusations, which snowballed to dozens of accusations, and only one of those charges is going to trial.
Should “What opinion do I have of this person” and “Is this person going to be locked up for years” have different standards? Certainly.
Let me turn that question back at you. Should rape victims be forced to keep their mouths shut about their rapes unless they’re convinced that the police (who don’t exactly have a fantastic track record at prosecuting rapists) will believe them and prosecute the people that they’re accusing? If they think that the person will keep raping other people, should they just keep silent if they do not have enough proof to secure a conviction?
In a specific case, do you think that all of the dozens of women who have accused Cosby should have stayed silent, except for the one who actually managed to get her case heard before a court?
5 Likes
Again, the standard is whether you have the ability to impact someone’s life. I’m not responsible for other people’s harassment, calling in death threats, or SWATing someone. Those things are crimes and I refuse to take any notional or other responsibility for actions I condemn. I’m also not responsible for other people engaging a person in an irresponsible manner based on their prejudices.
Otherwise I’m sorry, but the harm amounts to people not liking you or wanting to hear what you say. Deal. People live their entire lives with that burden because of little more than a religious predilection or the color of their skin. In terms of his employment, this is intrinsically connected to said employment, and its his employers who are taking direct action without regards to or in relation to any “Internet shitstorm,” so that aspect isn’t relevant in this case. Even if this never hit the public eye, leaving your previous employer due to sexual misconduct allegations is something that your next potential employer is liable to find out about, public opinion or not.
4 Likes
That is true. It sounds like it is possible to make a broken system slightly less broken by deliberately breaking it in a different way as well.
Cosby’s victims should never have felt the need to wait so long that statutes of limitation started expiring. It should not be necessary to be “one of many accusers” for the courts to hear your case. I mean, if a celebrity only ever abuses one person, do they get a free pass?? And it should not be necessary to publicly shame a person before their guilt is determined in order to get other victims to come forward.
So I still disapprove, but I see how it can be the lesser evil.
“Keeping their mouths shut” in public but sill telling the police? Well, depends. I certainly prefer to live in a society where people are not just protected from physical attacks on each other, but also from attacks on their reputation (that is a very European thing, I think). And when you consider attacks on reputation as something that the judicial system is supposed to protect people from, any public campaign to make somebody’s crimes known is essentially a mild form of vigilante justice.
When the police & judicial system is less than reliable, arguments against all forms of vigilante justice become weaker First, it becomes legitimate to shout it from the rooftops that someone is a dangerous criminal. And when things get worse, there is some point when you can make a moral argument for physically punishing the perpetrator yourself before he can do more damage.
But in my ideal world, an individual victim will go to the police right away; the police will take the allegation seriously and proceed accordingly. Police, prosecutors & courts will eventually come to a conclusion on the truth of the matter. And if they say “not guilty” or “no reason to even prosecute”, in my ideal world, that will be the correct decision. And then it’s not too much to ask the victims of an alleged crime to refrain from attempting to publicly ruin a person’s reputation before the decision has been made.
In my ideal world. I admit that world isn’t ideal, and that it’s not “my” world at all, so I’m ready to compromise. But I don’t need to like it.
But the incidence of those crimes increases as the public opinion turns on the individual. Does that not confer at least a little responsibility to us, as people who make up a tiny part of public opinion, to try to limit the damage? I mean “responsibility” in the sense of “it is morally good if we try to do something about it”, not in the sense of “it is our fault”.
Point taken. There are other cases where the court of public opinion had much more impact.
The thing is, I am not saying that I will refrain from forming an opinion for myself. But I have no reason to believe that my opinion will be all that reliable, and so I feel obliged to keep it to myself for now.
2 Likes
Accusing someone of sexual abuse and or rape in our society is much like going on a kamakaze run… it is certainly going to end the life the accuser has known and may damage the abuser.
Just throwing that out there.
1 Like
Would you say that going to the police to report a rape is similarly “going kamikaze” because of how it may affect the trajectory of the person?
What is your analogy for someone who rapes?
What are their actions akin to?
Your comment there seemed more interested in people coming forward than you are interested in the ultimate veracity of the claim.
Yeah right. Did you read what Farr wrote?
The issue at hand are claims of sexual abuse. Farrs Story, if true, shows that Applebaum is an asshole, not a rapist. Farr doesn’t talk about anything sexual.
Yeah right. Did you read what I wrote?
2 Likes
