3 ms·

> I don't think anyone here has actually proposed that Appelbaum be excluded from society as a whole. Well, that's how I read the original article (it's an app

by js8 10y ago

> I don't think anyone here has actually proposed that Appelbaum be excluded from society as a whole. Well, that's how I read the original article (it's an appeal to all tech people to shun him) and some of the comments. > If a community is enabling abusers, or sheltering thieves, or otherwise hiding unethical or criminal behavior But we don't know if he was criminal. It's a matter of justice to decide that. In any case, I meant my original quote assuming that the person gets actually punished if they are found guilty. If they have been punished for their deeds, why should any community be necessarily required to add to that punishment? > 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. It's not the same. Tor community is not preventing criminal investigation. It's perfectly OK to call out community for interfering with justice (since they are part of the society). But it's not OK to call out some community because it doesn't do extra punishment to people who we consider morally bad. (Also, the Catholic Church case has another dimension which is hypocrisy.)

gnaritas 10y ago
> t's an appeal to all tech people to shun him) Tech != society as a whole. > But we don't know if he was criminal. We know he's an abusive person due to the multiple incidence described in the article which included specifics that can be verified. That's enough to get him shunned regardless of any criminal behavior. > But it's not OK to call out some community because it doesn't do extra punishment to people who we consider morally bad. You're confused, what he's doing is not merely morally bad, it's directly abusive to people, i.e. it's actually bad regardless of any loose morality, there are victims. He's victimizing people with sexually abusive behavior in public, this isn't a simple matter of "morals" being different.
dpark 10y ago
> But we don't know if he was criminal. You're reading selectively. I also mentioned abusers and unethical behavior. You overlooked that because it doesn't fit into your "justice system" narrative. > But it's not OK to call out some community because it doesn't do extra punishment to people who we consider morally bad. Yes, it absolutely is. The problem here is you're worried about punishment when you should be worried about the community. Shunning someone is partly about punishment but it's also largely about protecting the community. It is perfectly right to say "hey, you have predators in your midst and it's hurting some of your community members while you look the other way." The Catholic church issue is extremely relevant because it is the same scenario at a higher level of severity. Predators preying on the weak should be called out, and if the community doesn't do it, they should fully expect those outside the community to do so. Your concerns here are especially nonsensical, though, because it's actually community members calling this guy out.
- js8 10y ago
  I am worried about the community. But I consider abusers to be part of it, whether you like it or not. I believe that shunning them out completely is worse than trying to rehabilitate them (which means some punishment plus some forgiveness). I see this as a variation of a NIMBY problem. If you consider community as a sort medieval thing, which needs to be protected from outsiders at all cost anyway, it's a perfectly valid strategy to deal with abusers by shunning them out. But modern world is not like that. The abusers have to live somewhere in the society, and if they are not allowed to interact with others, you will get a bigger problem. And arguably, USA applies this strategy the most from all developed world, and it is a cause of considerable problems. And I am saying again, what I specifically disagreed with was the call to other groups to shun him.
  - dpark 10y ago
    I don't think that continuing to include serial abusers is in any way rehabilitating. It's just enabling. I'd be interested in hearing how allowing someone with a consistent pattern of sexual harassment continue to participate in the community will result in anything other than more of the same. To be clear, shunning this guy from the community isn't likely to result in him being a homeless criminal. He has marketable skills and clearly people have in the past ignored his behavior because it was beneficial to business. He can undoubtedly find a job. What he might not find after this is a position of power and influence, which is a good thing. (Of course assuming the accusations are largely true.)
    - js8 10y ago
      > He has marketable skills and clearly people have in the past ignored his behavior because it was beneficial to business. He can undoubtedly find a job. But isn't this what the OP argues against? That nobody should consider him having good skills because he is a harasser? And regarding him having "position of power". I actually wish no one had a position of power, ever. I would even argue that the whole concept exists to facilitate sexual selection, and that's the reason why many people (of both sexes) will want it to exist.

by js8 10y ago

gnaritas 10y ago

> t's an appeal to all tech people to shun him) Tech != society as a whole. > But we don't know if he was criminal. We know he's an abusive person due to the multiple incidence described in the article which included specifics that can be verified. That's enough to get him shunned regardless of any criminal behavior. > But it's not OK to call out some community because it doesn't do extra punishment to people who we consider morally bad. You're confused, what he's doing is not merely morally bad, it's directly abusive to people, i.e. it's actually bad regardless of any loose morality, there are victims. He's victimizing people with sexually abusive behavior in public, this isn't a simple matter of "morals" being different.

dpark 10y ago

> But we don't know if he was criminal. You're reading selectively. I also mentioned abusers and unethical behavior. You overlooked that because it doesn't fit into your "justice system" narrative. > But it's not OK to call out some community because it doesn't do extra punishment to people who we consider morally bad. Yes, it absolutely is. The problem here is you're worried about punishment when you should be worried about the community. Shunning someone is partly about punishment but it's also largely about protecting the community. It is perfectly right to say "hey, you have predators in your midst and it's hurting some of your community members while you look the other way." The Catholic church issue is extremely relevant because it is the same scenario at a higher level of severity. Predators preying on the weak should be called out, and if the community doesn't do it, they should fully expect those outside the community to do so. Your concerns here are especially nonsensical, though, because it's actually community members calling this guy out.

js8 10y ago
I am worried about the community. But I consider abusers to be part of it, whether you like it or not. I believe that shunning them out completely is worse than trying to rehabilitate them (which means some punishment plus some forgiveness). I see this as a variation of a NIMBY problem. If you consider community as a sort medieval thing, which needs to be protected from outsiders at all cost anyway, it's a perfectly valid strategy to deal with abusers by shunning them out. But modern world is not like that. The abusers have to live somewhere in the society, and if they are not allowed to interact with others, you will get a bigger problem. And arguably, USA applies this strategy the most from all developed world, and it is a cause of considerable problems. And I am saying again, what I specifically disagreed with was the call to other groups to shun him.
- dpark 10y ago
  I don't think that continuing to include serial abusers is in any way rehabilitating. It's just enabling. I'd be interested in hearing how allowing someone with a consistent pattern of sexual harassment continue to participate in the community will result in anything other than more of the same. To be clear, shunning this guy from the community isn't likely to result in him being a homeless criminal. He has marketable skills and clearly people have in the past ignored his behavior because it was beneficial to business. He can undoubtedly find a job. What he might not find after this is a position of power and influence, which is a good thing. (Of course assuming the accusations are largely true.)
  - js8 10y ago
    > He has marketable skills and clearly people have in the past ignored his behavior because it was beneficial to business. He can undoubtedly find a job. But isn't this what the OP argues against? That nobody should consider him having good skills because he is a harasser? And regarding him having "position of power". I actually wish no one had a position of power, ever. I would even argue that the whole concept exists to facilitate sexual selection, and that's the reason why many people (of both sexes) will want it to exist.