
Alison Macrina: I’m one of the people Jake Appelbaum sexually assaulted - dogecoinbase
https://medium.com/@flexlibris/theres-really-no-such-thing-as-the-voiceless-92b3fa45134d#.7aaunxgr9
======
tzs
(The following is not specific to this case or the Applebaum situation. It is
more of a general observation based on many current and past cases)

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?

------
yuvadam
Tor developer Isis Agora Lovecruft has just come forward as well, as one of
Jake's victims - [https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/the-forest-for-the-
trees....](https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/the-forest-for-the-trees.html)

~~~
labrador
Call me old fashioned (I'm old) but in my day a man and a woman who were each
attracted to the opposite sex and were not related were advised not to sleep
in the same bed. I am not defending Jake and believe the victims, but just
wanted to make the point that some of the older conventions were there for a
reason.

~~~
exolymph
I promise you, men and women can sleep in the same bed without either one of
them committing sexual assault. Saying that this is inherently dangerous
implies that men can't control themselves, which is ridiculous and absolves
rapists of responsibility.

~~~
theorique
They _can_ , but experience suggests that it's a high-risk situation: risk of
one or both people misunderstanding or poorly communicating their intentions,
risk of one party "trying something" and crossing the line with the other, and
so forth.

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).

~~~
exolymph
She unequivocally told him that she didn't want any romantic or sexual
involvement.

>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.

~~~
cshimmin
Not coming in on any side here, but to clarify this "unequivocal" statement
was made years before the incident, it sounds like.

------
woodcut
I think it's immensely positive that she came forward, although all of this
too late, it would have taken a vastly better environment for the people
involved to be open from the beginning. Abuse shouldn't fester like this.

~~~
sethish
The outright denials in this thread are one of the many reasons why people
don't come forward immediately.

------
peterwwillis
> Jake’s behavior is representative of a systemic problem, grounded in a star
> culture that has allowed individual fame to overpower the ability of the
> community to recognize its collective needs.

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.

------
jbob2000
I flagged this because, aside from the connection to the Tor community,
there's really nothing relevant here to the Hacker News community. This seems
to be a developing issue with no hard facts and lots of he-said-she-said. No
positive comments will come from this post.

~~~
dogecoinbase
I submitted this because it's intensely relevant to the HN community. This
type of dynamic is pervasive, particularly in self-organizing groups (such as
many open source initiatives) and understanding and addressing these issues is
key to the tech community growing more inclusive and productive.

 _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.

~~~
jbob2000
Positive doesn't necessarily mean happy fun joy, in the context of HN, I think
it means "value was added". Look at the comments this post is generating... Is
any value being added?

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!

~~~
exolymph
>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.

~~~
jbob2000
Do you think that random posts on the internet get into the full moral
complexity of day-to-day life, then? A couple hundred words is worth more than
a criminal investigation?

~~~
exolymph
That's a straw man and I assume you know it. Conversations on the internet can
be just as nuanced as IRL conversations.

------
thegp
As a contrast see
[https://mobile.twitter.com/cfarivar/status/74163457267311001...](https://mobile.twitter.com/cfarivar/status/741634572673110016).

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

~~~
zorpner
"As contrast see" someone who wasn't abused state that they know he's a nice
guy? That's not convincing to anyone who doesn't disbelieve victims by
default.

The idea that people who suffer abuse are in the wrong by not going to
authorities who typically also disbelieve them is poisonous.

~~~
thegp
Contrast as in "here is a different opinion by people who also know him better
than most of us". Truth will be found (hopefully) by a criminal investigation,
not by by the court of public opinion.

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 authorities _that_ 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)

~~~
zorpner
The whole point of this type of abuse stemming from authority is to make the
abused discredited, typically by recruiting people into one's defense (and, in
fact, Alison cites a specific instance where she was recruited into
defending). What would be unusual in a case of systemic abuse would be to find
no one who stepped up to defend the abuser _who had no direct knowledge of the
abuse_.

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.

~~~
thegp
Ok, I see your points there.

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.

~~~
zorpner
Thank you for listening! I wouldn't be surprised if there were some sort of
legal action eventually, but I also wouldn't be surprised if there weren't --
as mentioned, it's unlikely he left any hard evidence of wrongdoing. Though of
course a lot of people who thought they were alone in their abuse are now
learning that this was systemic, so they may be able to piece something
together.

------
antisthenes
Regardless of what you think about the events that transpired, this thread is
a perfect example of censorship and self-censorship.

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?

~~~
zorpner
_How many people are afraid to speak out here, despite disagreement?_

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.

~~~
Nadya
_> 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._

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.

------
oh_sigh
Why don't people report/blog about these things immediately? It's hard to tell
what can be true or what is just piling on someone who their ingroup decided
to hate.

> 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?

~~~
exolymph
Why would you not believe that? Bystanders allow heinous things to happen all
the time.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Richmond_High_School_gang...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Richmond_High_School_gang_rape)

~~~
oh_sigh
The question is whether the bystander effect really happened or not.

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.

