
I am very saddened to announce that I am quitting Tor - chmars
https://shiromarieke.github.io/tor
======
rjzzleep
What we're doing in tech right now is extremely dangerous. We're mixing
political correctness over fact finding (i.e. what she said as first shoot
then ask) with technical competency.

Remember when we shot Brendan Eich and replaced him with a marketing dude and
then wondered why Firefox is suddenly driven by marketing decisions?

The boundaries are pretty(I say pretty, because even here countries opinions
differ) clear on what physical rape is, but the boundaries on what is
considered harassment in a global world are EXTREMELY blurry. Don't ever
forget that.

And before you start shouting that I'm defending Jake, I'm not, I don't even
like the guy.

~~~
zorpner
Don't be ridiculous. Eich couldn't be CEO if _for no other reason_ than that
he didn't have a narrative ready for when people brought up his donation to a
controversial cause. Seriously basic PR, and he wasn't up for it. No CEO.

It's the same reason Yarvin can't run a technical organization -- not because
he's not technically competent (he isn't, but that's a different
conversation), but because he can't help himself from flaunting his violent
racism and undermining whatever it is that he's involved in. If he could
manage to turn off his bigotry faucet, _maybe_ he could be trusted to run an
actual project. Probably not.

Don't blame an increasingly inclusive and considerate culture for the
continued incompetence of a bigoted few. It's not hard to do good technical
work, but apparently it's quite difficult for these particular white men to
manage without funding/advocating/practicing bigotry and sexism. That's on
them, and every time you feel oppressed by "political correctness" a dozen or
more people are feeling like they can participate safely for the first time.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Don't blame an increasingly inclusive and considerate culture for the
> continued incompetence of a bigoted few.

Don't confuse political correctness with tolerance. You might feel its more
inclusive, but everyone still has a bias, even if its unconscious.

I'll think less of you if you believe in a religion, but I won't treat you
differently outwardly for it.

EDIT: Also, I'm old school. I might not agree with you, but I will protect
your right to free speech to the death, no matter how abhorrent it is (again,
I do not have to agree with you to protect your rights). We are judged how we
defend other's rights when we're in violent disagreement with them.

~~~
zorpner
I feel like we might be talking past each other -- conscious vs. unconscious
bias is a complex issue worth discussing, but is only tangentially related to
complaints about political correctness, which are all demands not for free
speech, but for consequence-free speech.

I am also intensely pro-free speech. As a concrete example, I am in favor of
the right of people to discuss their displeasure with someone's (freely!)
stated views, and to use that speech to encourage organizations to not give a
platform to views they find abhorrent.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I don't think we are. My thesis is simple: everyone is biased, and we all need
to tolerate each other. You can have your views, as long as your decisions are
transparent when scrutinized by others to ensure your views (which others
might consider abhorrent) did not come into play.

You don't want to take the pitchforks from one group, and hand them to the
other.

~~~
zorpner
Hrm. The idea that an arbitrary decision could be scrutinized in isolation to
determine the amount of bias that went into it is... optimistic at best.
Realistically it's willfully naive, and practically it serves to preserve the
status quo of bias in the workplace and in society.

You talk pretty big ("I will protect your right to free speech to the
death"!), but it's quite clear that you wont't actually defend anyone's right
to free speech (unless they're discussing their own bigotry, in which case
apparently we aren't permitted to freely speak against them).

EDIT: A simpler way to put it might be that the decisions you make regarding
whose free speech you defend are obviously colored by your own unconscious
bias.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Realistically it's willfully naive, and practically it serves to preserve
> the status quo of bias in the workplace and in society.

It's willfully naive to think that witch hunts will remove the bias you seek
to remove.

------
PuffinBlue
If anyone could take the time to break down what this is about and why it's
significant for those like me who are very out of the loop I'm sure we'd
appreciate it.

~~~
zasz
I found this Wired article:
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiWnu6j5cbOAhVCxmMKHfvjC5IQFggeMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2F2016%2F06%2Ftor-
developer-jacob-appelbaum-resigns-amid-sex-abuse-
claims%2F&usg=AFQjCNHQFG5mkMDPLt05o461PoHVVwTq6Q&sig2=hEH0dZmdcNv4WAznNbF6lw)

Basically, multiple women accused Jake Applebaum, a big shot in the Tor
community, of sexually assaulting them, and his ex-girlfriend (the OP) was
made into a pariah for defending him. For what it's worth, if the accusations
are true, it's not improbable that he would've refrained from being an ass to
his ex-girlfriend. Brock Turner, the Stanford rapist, has a female friend who
wrote a moving testimony to what a great friend he was.

~~~
TillE
> it's not improbable that he would've refrained from being an ass to his ex-
> girlfriend

That's not what she says: "Still, I do have a weird feeling about many of
these stories because they contain facts I know are wrong"

Remember that time a couple people accused Appelbaum of sexually harrassing a
woman, and then she said that's not what happened at all? Yeah.

The sad thing is that I'm fairly confident that most of the stories are true.
But they're mixed in with some real garbage from people who hate Jake for
weird reasons, which makes them _seem_ less credible. Awful tactics.

~~~
zasz
I'm responding to the part in her email where she said Jake was a great guy
who had always treated her right.

~~~
gdy
You misrepresented it as a basis for her position.

------
Glyptodon
Don't know if it's just me, but it seems like there is a bit of a trend lately
to embellish or distort problems that can otherwise stand on their own as they
are for reasons that seem anywhere from unclear to shortsighted to
unnecessary.

------
patrickburke
Reminds me of the 4ds: Disrupt, Degrade, Deny, Destroy

------
parfe
I read the whole drama bomb which could be a high school aged spat as easily
as the adults involved in the Tor project, but this stood out:

>To be clear I believe Jake has hurt people (which he has admitted himself)
and didn't respect people's boundaries. I do not believe he is a rapist or a
harasser and I am wondering what the people who started this campaign are
trying to achieve.

Admitting he's abusive and ignores boundaries while at the same time saying
that behavior isn't harassing or rape is some Grade A dissonance. There wasn't
some conspiracy. This woman even admits the guy hurts people and disrespects
boundaries. The fact she doesn't have specific details about a rape or other
harassment is irrelevant.

She knows the guy has hurt others, and then thinks there is a campaign allied
against him?

I'd want any person like _she_ describes removed from any communities I belong
to, and not surprised the Tor Project decided the same.

~~~
x3n0ph3n3
Hurting someone and being abusive are not the same. It also doesn't specify
they he ignored _physical_ boundaries (could he have been too clingy?)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Hurting someone and being abusive are not the same.

Disrespecting boundaries and being abusive _are_ the same. _What_ boundaries
differentiates between emotional and physical abuse, and in some cases between
whether the abuse is merely an ethical issue or actually a legal issue, as
well.

------
jdright
Why is this "flagged"?

------
nomanisanisland
this crypto-drama is giving me nausea

