9 ms·

> What on earth are you talking about? Specifically, this: "When harassment, sexual or otherwise, requires a cost-benefit analysis, you have failed." And thi

by js8 10y ago

> What on earth are you talking about? Specifically, this: "When harassment, sexual or otherwise, requires a cost-benefit analysis, you have failed." And this: "When someone harasses, humiliates, discounts, abuses, threatens, stalks, takes action to harm someone, no — they do not do good work." > He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community. Assuming he is a rapist (he hasn't been convinced), then yes, he should be in jail. But even then, he shouldn't be entirely prevented to participate in coding on Tor or political activity or whatever he was doing. > Anyone who introduces people to you by lying and saying you give good head in a business context is absolutely someone who needs to be completely ostracized I disagree. I don't think a person like that should be completely ostracized. Yes, he should get a different job, something that perhaps requires less social skills. Let me ask you, in practice, what are you going to do with all those ostracized people? If you're American, I am not surprised with your views - that's the way how you got the largest prison population on the planet. But I don't think it's a way to run a civilized society, I am sorry. A case of Hans Reiser came to my mind. I don't think he should be ostracized and prevented to commit any new code in his life (assuming he wants to), and he is a murderer. Or that we should reject ReiserFS or its concepts in jest. I am sure there are many other examples from history.

gnaritas 10y ago
Well, we completely disagree; if you voluntarily employed such a person, I'd consider you complicit in his behavior and just as reprehensible as him. That's not black and white thinking, that's moral reasoning. If fact views like yours are the problem here, you're basic point is "but he does good work".
- js8 10y ago
  Yes, we disagree. The problem with this, in my view, very extreme black-and-white moral thinking, is that if everybody would strictly follow it we would very quickly run out of people who are not reprehensible. I simply think there needs to be a balance, and somebody who is not actively punishing others (even if he actually thinks they are immoral) is not on the same level of reprehensible as them. That's why human morality has also a component of forgiveness.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    It's not extreme, it's normal and healthy to exclude abusive people from groups. Your position, keeping them, is the extreme one and it's abusive to those whom he abuses. You're concerned about a slippery slope that doesn't exist, your position is based on fear of a possible bad future rather than the reality of an abusive person actively hurting people in the present. If you support someone by continuing to employ them, when they are known to act this way, you are complicit in their abuse. Forgiveness applies after someone is accountable for and have changed their behavior; it has no relevance here.
eutropia 10y ago
> Specifically, this: "When harassment, sexual or otherwise, requires a cost-benefit analysis, you have failed." JA was not essential for Tor's continued survival as a project and a movement. They chose the convenience of a good developer at the cost of his victims. Are you going to personally tell the victims that their sacrifice was worth it, because Tor is better than ever?
- js8 10y ago
  > Are you going to personally tell the victims that their sacrifice was worth it, because Tor is better than ever? Probably not, I don't know any of them personally. > They chose the convenience of a good developer at the cost of his victims. That's one interpretation. But maybe the community around Tor decided that these accusations are independent problem, which should be dealt with by the police and justice system. I am not part of that community, so I cannot tell them how to deal with it; they should have freedom to decide for themselves. Yes, maybe they will make some other members unhappy in the process. Suppose the illegal act in question is a little different. It gets revealed that famous person in OSS project cheated on taxes. Should there be a call trying to ban him from working on OSS? Should everybody denounce his work? Or should he just get his punishment and continue with whatever he was doing?
  - dpark 10y ago
    > they should have freedom to decide for themselves. Yes, maybe they will make some other members unhappy in the process. They can and do have the freedom to decide for themselves. Right now they seem to be deciding that this guy should be excluded because it's better for the community. Some people struggle to understand when it's okay to exclude others, presumably because they were excluded at some point and found it hurtful. Sometimes, though, the person you are trying to include is hurtful, and the rest of the community suffers as a result. By excluding a hurtful person, you include others who are driven away by the hurtful person. You might think that you're giving the "choice" to everyone by keeping the hurtful person in the community, but you aren't. The people driven away by the dangerous, hurtful, or just plain abrasive people don't have the choice to participate in a healthy community. So long as the community chooses to include hurtful people, they choose to exclude the people victimized by those hurtful people. I have friends who were really into tabletop gaming (e.g. Warhammer 40k). They used to go to the gaming store to play with other people in the gaming community. They stopped going because a number of the players there were assholes. They were abrasive, and made creepy remarks toward women, and generally made it unpleasant to be there. New people would show up to play a few times, have a bad interaction, and stop coming. Other people also stopped going because of this, which meant the assholes were an even bigger piece of the community. Eventually my friends stopped going entirely because the community wasn't fun to engage with anymore. Including the assholes drove away too many of the good community members. Including the assholes hurt everyone else. > It gets revealed that famous person in OSS project cheated on taxes. Should there be a call trying to ban him from working on OSS? This is entirely different, because in the case of Appelbaum, the community is (allegedly) being victimized. If he'd cheated on his taxes, no one would likely be calling for him to be excluded from the community. If he were repeatedly stealing from his co-workers wallets? Yeah, there would probably be a call to exclude him because he's toxic.
dpark 10y ago
>But even then, he shouldn't be entirely prevented to participate in coding on Tor or political activity or whatever he was doing. You think that if this guy literally raped people he should not be excluded from the community he exploited and damaged? What the fuck, dude? If the stories coming out about this guy are true, then he is dangerous. He should be excluded from the community, not as some sort of vigilante punishment, but to keep others in the community safe. If you know someone has a pattern of hurting others and you choose to keep enabling them, then it's your fault, too. Hans Reiser is an interesting comparison because he didn't murder his coworkers. It's one thing to say "everybody deserves a second chance". It's an entirely different thing to say that everyone deserves a second chance with the very same people they victimized. Do you think Reiser's in-laws are morally obligated to invite him to their holidays once he's served his time?
- js8 10y ago
  > You think that if this guy literally raped people he should not be excluded from the community he exploited and damaged? Duh, no, and I already explained my position in other comments. Perhaps I should have written "society" instead of "community" in the original comment, that would have been clearer. Any community should be free to shun him, or not to do it. And community which doesn't shouldn't be called out for not doing it. Your question is a little loaded, because you assume that the community feels it was damaged. But maybe it doesn't.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > Duh, no, and I already explained my position in other comments. Perhaps I should have written "society" instead of "community" in the original comment, that would have been clearer. I don't think anyone here has actually proposed that Appelbaum be excluded from society as a whole. It is, however, perfectly legitimate to tell people/communities/society, "Hey, be wary of this guy. He has a history of abuse." > Any community should be free to shun him, or not to do it. And community which doesn't shouldn't be called out for not doing it. It's absolutely reasonable to call out a community for not doing the right thing. If a community is enabling members to do terrible things, they should be called out. If a community is enabling abusers, or sheltering thieves, or otherwise hiding unethical or criminal behavior, it's perfectly correct to say, "Hey, you're an accomplice to the crimes you're enabling." To say that no one should call out the Tor community for enabling Appelbaum is to say that no one should have called out the Catholic Church for hiding child molestation. > Your question is a little loaded, because you assume that the community feels it was damaged. But maybe it doesn't. Clearly at least part of the community feels that Appelbaum has done damage.

by js8 10y ago

gnaritas 10y ago

Well, we completely disagree; if you voluntarily employed such a person, I'd consider you complicit in his behavior and just as reprehensible as him. That's not black and white thinking, that's moral reasoning. If fact views like yours are the problem here, you're basic point is "but he does good work".

js8 10y ago
Yes, we disagree. The problem with this, in my view, very extreme black-and-white moral thinking, is that if everybody would strictly follow it we would very quickly run out of people who are not reprehensible. I simply think there needs to be a balance, and somebody who is not actively punishing others (even if he actually thinks they are immoral) is not on the same level of reprehensible as them. That's why human morality has also a component of forgiveness.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  It's not extreme, it's normal and healthy to exclude abusive people from groups. Your position, keeping them, is the extreme one and it's abusive to those whom he abuses. You're concerned about a slippery slope that doesn't exist, your position is based on fear of a possible bad future rather than the reality of an abusive person actively hurting people in the present. If you support someone by continuing to employ them, when they are known to act this way, you are complicit in their abuse. Forgiveness applies after someone is accountable for and have changed their behavior; it has no relevance here.

eutropia 10y ago

> Specifically, this: "When harassment, sexual or otherwise, requires a cost-benefit analysis, you have failed." JA was not essential for Tor's continued survival as a project and a movement. They chose the convenience of a good developer at the cost of his victims. Are you going to personally tell the victims that their sacrifice was worth it, because Tor is better than ever?

js8 10y ago
> Are you going to personally tell the victims that their sacrifice was worth it, because Tor is better than ever? Probably not, I don't know any of them personally. > They chose the convenience of a good developer at the cost of his victims. That's one interpretation. But maybe the community around Tor decided that these accusations are independent problem, which should be dealt with by the police and justice system. I am not part of that community, so I cannot tell them how to deal with it; they should have freedom to decide for themselves. Yes, maybe they will make some other members unhappy in the process. Suppose the illegal act in question is a little different. It gets revealed that famous person in OSS project cheated on taxes. Should there be a call trying to ban him from working on OSS? Should everybody denounce his work? Or should he just get his punishment and continue with whatever he was doing?
- dpark 10y ago
  > they should have freedom to decide for themselves. Yes, maybe they will make some other members unhappy in the process. They can and do have the freedom to decide for themselves. Right now they seem to be deciding that this guy should be excluded because it's better for the community. Some people struggle to understand when it's okay to exclude others, presumably because they were excluded at some point and found it hurtful. Sometimes, though, the person you are trying to include is hurtful, and the rest of the community suffers as a result. By excluding a hurtful person, you include others who are driven away by the hurtful person. You might think that you're giving the "choice" to everyone by keeping the hurtful person in the community, but you aren't. The people driven away by the dangerous, hurtful, or just plain abrasive people don't have the choice to participate in a healthy community. So long as the community chooses to include hurtful people, they choose to exclude the people victimized by those hurtful people. I have friends who were really into tabletop gaming (e.g. Warhammer 40k). They used to go to the gaming store to play with other people in the gaming community. They stopped going because a number of the players there were assholes. They were abrasive, and made creepy remarks toward women, and generally made it unpleasant to be there. New people would show up to play a few times, have a bad interaction, and stop coming. Other people also stopped going because of this, which meant the assholes were an even bigger piece of the community. Eventually my friends stopped going entirely because the community wasn't fun to engage with anymore. Including the assholes drove away too many of the good community members. Including the assholes hurt everyone else. > It gets revealed that famous person in OSS project cheated on taxes. Should there be a call trying to ban him from working on OSS? This is entirely different, because in the case of Appelbaum, the community is (allegedly) being victimized. If he'd cheated on his taxes, no one would likely be calling for him to be excluded from the community. If he were repeatedly stealing from his co-workers wallets? Yeah, there would probably be a call to exclude him because he's toxic.

dpark 10y ago

>But even then, he shouldn't be entirely prevented to participate in coding on Tor or political activity or whatever he was doing. You think that if this guy literally raped people he should not be excluded from the community he exploited and damaged? What the fuck, dude? If the stories coming out about this guy are true, then he is dangerous. He should be excluded from the community, not as some sort of vigilante punishment, but to keep others in the community safe. If you know someone has a pattern of hurting others and you choose to keep enabling them, then it's your fault, too. Hans Reiser is an interesting comparison because he didn't murder his coworkers. It's one thing to say "everybody deserves a second chance". It's an entirely different thing to say that everyone deserves a second chance with the very same people they victimized. Do you think Reiser's in-laws are morally obligated to invite him to their holidays once he's served his time?

js8 10y ago
> You think that if this guy literally raped people he should not be excluded from the community he exploited and damaged? Duh, no, and I already explained my position in other comments. Perhaps I should have written "society" instead of "community" in the original comment, that would have been clearer. Any community should be free to shun him, or not to do it. And community which doesn't shouldn't be called out for not doing it. Your question is a little loaded, because you assume that the community feels it was damaged. But maybe it doesn't.
- dpark 10y ago
  > Duh, no, and I already explained my position in other comments. Perhaps I should have written "society" instead of "community" in the original comment, that would have been clearer. I don't think anyone here has actually proposed that Appelbaum be excluded from society as a whole. It is, however, perfectly legitimate to tell people/communities/society, "Hey, be wary of this guy. He has a history of abuse." > Any community should be free to shun him, or not to do it. And community which doesn't shouldn't be called out for not doing it. It's absolutely reasonable to call out a community for not doing the right thing. If a community is enabling members to do terrible things, they should be called out. If a community is enabling abusers, or sheltering thieves, or otherwise hiding unethical or criminal behavior, it's perfectly correct to say, "Hey, you're an accomplice to the crimes you're enabling." To say that no one should call out the Tor community for enabling Appelbaum is to say that no one should have called out the Catholic Church for hiding child molestation. > Your question is a little loaded, because you assume that the community feels it was damaged. But maybe it doesn't. Clearly at least part of the community feels that Appelbaum has done damage.