Alison Macrina: I’m one of the people Jake Appelbaum sexually assaulted
medium.com
medium.com
It's disturbing how many stories of alleged or actual sexual harassment/assault involve alcohol. We've figured out that we cannot handle mixing alcohol and driving, and so make an effort to have a "designated driver" so that those drinking won't have to drive.
Is it perhaps time to extend this beyond driving? When interacting with people you might be sexually attracted to in situations where you are going to be drinking, have some designating non-drinkers around to watch over those who imbibe and stop them from making alcohol induced mistakes?
Alcohol is problematic in sexual situations for a couple reasons:
• It impairs the ability to give informed consent, so people who have been drinking often agree to do things that they would not have agreed to had they not been drinking.
• It impairs the ability to recognize that someone else is too impaired to give consent.
This can lead to truly bizarre situations, such as two people each thinking that they are willingly having sex with the other but legally they are actually each raping the other.
I suspect that most people also greatly underestimate how much alcohol it takes to impair their judgement sufficiently for them to get into problematic situations that they would normally easily avoid.
So what can be done about this? No way are people going to give up alcohol, or even give up getting smashed at social events. Can something be done to help those people at least not abuse people while smashed or become easy victims while smashed?
It's better for straight, platonic friends of the opposite sex to sleep in different beds to avoid misunderstandings (or predatory "misunderstandings", for that matter).
>As politely as I could, I explained, “You can have the floor, and I’ll take my bed, or the other way around. If you’re comfortable with it, we can share my bed, as friends. Meaning no physical contact.”
True misunderstandings are easily cleared up. Predatory "misunderstandings" are not.
While travelling, the first time he came to the city I
lived in, I invited him to stay at my house. As politely
as I could, I explained, “You can have the floor, and
I’ll take my bed, or the other way around. If you’re
comfortable with it, we can share my bed, as friends.
Meaning no physical contact.” We both slept in my bed.
That turned out (mostly) fine. (Except, of course, being
propositioned again, this time for a threesome with Jake
and one of my roommates.) In fact, Jake and I proceeded
to share beds in a friendly manner over the years, and
nothing bad ever happened.
Never mind.
This is basically personal power in group dynamics. It's found in many in-groups where a person has the power to do whatever they want, yet still remain a vital part of the group.
There's also a fallacy here that a "community" is what people think it is: a group of people who work together in each others' best interests. More often, communities are groups of individuals who sometimes cooperate, but whose priority is still their own position in the group. This is partly why a critical mass of community members coming forward at once is needed to challenge power.
(The other aspect is that a challenge to a person in power is also implicitly a challenge to the other group members who have given them power, which is why you see people either ignore or react personally when a person with power is attacked)
> Calls for police intervention are particularly alarming to hear from a community in which so many advocate for a stateless society.
We do not live in a stateless society. We live in a society that makes people feel shame, fear and indecision for reporting certain crimes. If you believe in transformative justice, design your education to help people feel comfortable going to the police immediately. No lovey-dovey non-violent community action is going to substitute the fear of repercussions for crimes, such as jail time.
> 1. We must believe victims, and continue to foster an environment where they feel safe to report their stories of abuse.
I agree with the second part. The first part implies that anyone who claims to be a victim is a victim, and completely defeats points 2.1 and 2.3. If Jake decried being a victim first, we would be forced to believe him (unless you're going with either gender stereotype or bandwagon fallacy as the determining factor, the latter of which could also end in Jake's favor).
Communities are not impartial and can not police themselves impartially. There's a reason that there are police that police the police.
No positive comments will come from this post.
Well it's a good thing that HN isn't just a place for happy, fun joy that you get to experience while people elsewhere are being abused and exploited.
If this was some kind of article about these people's experiences, then I can understand the value it adds. But this is just he-said-she-said, there's no value here. The guy they purport to be an offender hasn't even been charged!
Courts are not the arbiters of truth, and they may claim to deal in justice, but really what courts can judge is tightly bounded by law and doesn't get into the full moral complexity of day-to-day life.
Which of course doesn't include the still completely unsubstantiated plagiarism claims, and answering no questions about that. It doesn't include stunts like "TimeToDieJake" or this: https://twitter.com/Shidash/status/741259721756319744 and whatever else will predictably follow in the wake of sentencing someone as "rapist, sociopath, plagiarist, period", just to start it all off. It doesn't include flagged Jill Bähring's account either, naturally, that's not abusing and exploiting someone and then not even allowing them to defend themselves.
None of this takes away from the other allegiations, but two wrongs still don't make a right, one can be abusive in response to abuse.
All that while you waggle your finger at me? Nope. Use your words, or live with your part in this. Having double standards isn't twice as good as having standards. It's like having none.
If the allegations true, they should prosecute, and should have prosecuted immediately. As well as all the other people who knew of it. And we should continue to work towards a world where that is a no brainer.
Most people are nice. It's only a few people, mostly with unfortunate backgrounds or fates that are not. Let's work towards institutions which handle this efficiently, without the need for mobs
The idea that people who suffer abuse are in the wrong by not going to authorities who typically also disbelieve them is poisonous.
You are right, victim blaming is horrible. That's why I didn't say "they should have said something immediately, now they have lost credibility"
I understand why they might not go immediately and don't blame them for it. I still think the right thing is immediate prosecution. If they don't feel like they will be helped by the authoritiesthat is a problem, which needs to be addressed both on the sides of the authorities (with proper training and procedures) and education (teaching people to prosecute immediately instead of shutting up)
Their opinion is clearly irrelevant to the question of whether abuse occurred, and that they would offer such an irrelevant opinion is neutral evidence at best.
Also re authorities, you're talking about people on the Tor project, and most systemic abusers are pretty careful to not provide a clear chain of evidence. So you're asking someone to go to an authority they likely specifically distrust to blow up their relationship with their community likely for no gain, since there will almost certainly not be a successful prosecution. I'm sure you can see how this might not be an appealing option.
I just really dislike this situation where it boils down to "(s)he said/(s)he said" and the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" flies out the window
Another thing I don't get is why they wouldn't prosecute now that the community is already fractured.
Also, and this is where I probably sound like an as:
If you are an anarchist and don't believe in law enforcement OR in the ability of your community to replace them then tough shit if something happens and you have nobody to turn to. That is kinda the whole purpose od ordered society to provide a way to deal with that
Have you ever been sexually assaulted? (That's a rhetorical question, unless you actually want to answer.) It's deeply traumatic. In situations where you previously trusted the person who hurt you, it can be very hard to come to terms with what actually happens. Many victims feel shame. It takes time and often therapy to come to a place where you're ready to speak about it publicly.
(I'm not saying this is the experience of everyone who's ever been sexually assaulted, but it's an experience that has been commonly attested to.)
And yes, I understand that, the "immediately" was a bit knee jerk. But at least part of what you described is what I meant in another comment here: it should be part of both education and procedures to make immediate prosecution not only possible but a no brainer. Then we can avoid situations like this, which always reeks to me as "guilty until proven innocent"
Prosecution of alleged crimes is, in most jurisdictions, at the sole discretion of the state, not that of the injured parties.
(Civil litigation is possible at the instigation of the injured parties, but the calculation of whether that is desirable even if legally justified is not so straightforward that one could reasonably, in a blanket way, say that if there allegations are true, they should make and pursue them in court.)
You may not agree, but this is an important psychological factor when discussing this particular community.
There's a clear trend here among the posts that get downvoted, and while it is within the rules and spirit of the site to do so, it is at the very least ironic that supposed anarchists and libertarians, who so vehemently oppose centrally mandated censorship are perfectly fine when that happens to advance a narrative they agree with, through an echo-chamber which essentially works as the central authority.
That certainly takes away what little credence there was left to their idea about a stateless society and doesn't paint a pretty picture to the magnitude of a delusion required to somehow, in one's mind, to convince themselves that mob justice is better than the rule of law.
How many people are afraid to speak out here, despite disagreement?
Quoting the punchline of a common joke, "No, we can only conclude that there is at least one field, containing at least one sheep, of which at least one side is black."
What evidence leads you to conclude that the self-described anarchists and libertarians approve of centrally mandated censorship? Unless you have non-public knowledge of individual HN voting patterns (and are willing to assume that downvotes accurately reflect a desire to censor) it seems like an unwarranted leap to go from a handful of anonymous internet downvotes to decrying the hypocrisy of both movements.
What, with the horrible consequence of being downvoted looming over them? Probably a lot fewer than are afraid to speak out about charismatic abusers who have threatened to ruin their personal and professional lives if they speak out.
This is a pretty classic example of a common phenomenon -- to paraphrase Alana Massey, people often mistake the discomfort of being confronted with their own violence for the suffering they caused by it. Appelbaum's "victimization" isn't remotely close to the suffering of the his victims.
Downvoted? How about losing your job. Speak out and if your account has your Twitter handle, email, employer, etc. that many HN'ers share (or indirectly share by using the same handle on other sites) - risk having an ideological hate mob targeting you and lighting a metaphorical fire under your employer's ass until you get laid off because they disagree with your beliefs? Shit that has been happening in increasing amounts in the past decade. Plenty of people with the "wrong thoughts" self-censor or remain psuedonymous or anonymous to share their "real" thoughts.
The defense for attacking these people is almost always "They are a bigot/sexist/racist/transphobe/Islamiphobe/___ist/___phobe", often without actual evidence or relying on a he-said/she-said. Which is just a "morally correct" version of attacking someone for their beliefs and opinions. With very few lines and exceptions - I do not think anyone should lose their jobs for having their own beliefs and opinions. It's a very dangerous line to walk.
>Appelbaum's "victimization" isn't remotely close to the suffering of the his victims.
Innocent until proven guilty has been tossed to the side I see.
> They included first-person accounts of Jake deliberately intimidating and shaming people, not taking no for an answer, undressing and sexually touching a person who was sleeping, and having sex in front of a group with a person who had repeatedly said no.
So...we're supposed to believe that this guy decided to have sex in front of a group of people with a person who repeatedly said no and gave no consent, and the group just sits there and watches it, and then blogs about it months/years later? What kind of people are these that just stand around and watch an obvious rape go on? Are they accomplices? Liars? People suffering from bystander effect?
I'd like to ask all the people that claim that he raped a random person in front of a group of people: How do you feel about your own involvement in it? Do you feel any guilt at all for letting this guy just rape someone right in front of you?
Also, with your example, the power differential is drastically different. If you have 7-8 people, you can easily coerce a slightly larger crowd to not do anything under threat of violence.
If you have one guy raping someone and 20 people standing around, that is completely different from 1 guy raping, 6-7 threatening people, and 20 watching.