[sudo-discuss] Fwd: Re: Fwd: [Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus on Barring Shawn Landden from the Noisebridge space and community (Was Re: On Asking People To Leave (Was Re: Shawn L. ))

[Anon195714]

What I see is a community based on trust & common ground, coming to
terms with a predator in their midst.  (I don't see victim-blaming going
on here.)

The following quote has much in common with the situation around child
molestation:

> And in this case, the victims all (reportedly) said, when they were
> approached about his actions, "I thought I was the only one!"  The
> subtext of a declaration like that is, "I thought there was something
> wrong with me, so I didn't want to tell anyone."

Read up on the Sandusky trial and you see the same thing come up again
and again.  Each of his victims thought that they were the only one, and
that there was something particular to their relationship to Sandusky
that was involved.  Same thing for kids abused by priests. 

This is how these types of predators operate.  Charm and divert, divide
and conquer, exploit and abuse.

Predators in human social ecosystems have "tricks" for preying on
others, just as predators in natural ecosystems do. 

The item about "Shawn seemed like a pretty decent guy..." points to the
possibility of the "charm" factor: deliberate manipulation in order to
maintain access to potential targets.  (Mnemonic for manipulation:
"Charm" is spelled "c-harm", which is pronounced "see harm".)

Yes I agree this is not the last time we're going to have to deal with
predators.  I agree that NoiseBridge isn't "broken," this is just one of
the risks of a group growing larger and larger.

This doesn't mean the community is broken.  It does mean that there are
limits to the belief in "open," and one of those limits is that we are
not open to predators in our midst. 

-G.


=====


On 13-03-23-Sat 9:37 PM, Naomi Most wrote:
> Look a little deeper before you call what I wrote "garden-variety
> victim blaming."
>
> This is victim blaming:  "Women should just be more confident and
> report their problems sooner."
>
> What I wrote was defining the parameters of the social problem.
>
> I have no problem defining my thick skin and confidence as privilege.
> There's nothing about being underconfident that says to me, "well,
> they should just snap out of it."
>
> --Naomi
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:17 PM, netdiva <netdiva at sonic.net> wrote:
>> I think while its apparent that a discussion on issues of privilege, who is
>> sheltered from what types of harm by existing social structures, and related
>> topics are beyond the reach of this discussion, some of the statements i'm
>> seeing in this sound like garden variety victim blaming. If that many people
>> had been that overwhelmed by him, there wouldnt be criminal charges on
>> record.
>>
>> On 3/23/2013 8:42 PM, Naomi Most wrote:
>>> Yeah... I'm going to chime in here to perhaps add some perspective as
>>> to why it did take so long.
>>>
>>> Shawn seemed like a pretty decent guy.  I thought he was a little
>>> skeezy (he was always heaping more attention on the ladies at
>>> Noisebridge than was warranted by normal dictates of conversation /
>>> situation) ...
>>>
>>> ...but I just figured "slut", not
>>> multiple-misdemeanors-warrant-for-his-arrest-etc.
>>>
>>> And I'm (probably) a lot more socially aware than most hackers. I'm
>>> also pretty fearless for someone of my gender.
>>>
>>> What that means is that someone like Shawn instinctively goes after
>>> women full of fear and self-doubt, who don't see his manipulation
>>> coming.
>>>
>>> So while people like me, who interacted with Shawn on a very regular
>>> basis (he was there almost every afternoon I happened to be there),
>>> figured, "hm okay, nice enough guy, here a lot, whatever..."  he was
>>> able to throw down some major bullshit in other social territories.
>>>
>>> When you've got victims being fearful and unconfident people in the
>>> first place, it's extremely unlikely they will come forward about
>>> whatever happened to them.
>>>
>>> And in this case, the victims all (reportedly) said, when they were
>>> approached about his actions, "I thought I was the only one!"  The
>>> subtext of a declaration like that is, "I thought there was something
>>> wrong with me, so I didn't want to tell anyone."
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I hope that helps.
>>>
>>> The huge question Noisebridge is presently dancing around right now
>>> is, how many of our current cultural disturbances are based on
>>> Noisebridge being broken, and how many are basically inevitable
>>> outgrowths of NB having grown to 10 x Dunbar's Number in community
>>> size?
>>>
>>> My money's on situations like Shawn L. coming up again, and not
>>> because NB is broken, but because these are the problems of our time.
>>>
>>> The positive side of that is, maybe, despite these being hard problems
>>> that nobody has yet been able to solve, hackerspaces can figure this
>>> out. And then we'd win Civilization!
>>>
>>> --Naomi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:18 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
>>> <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Feel free to follow through on the ideas you have posted here and report
>>>> back to the group.
>>>>
>>>> If you believe that people acting on their own agency haven't gone far
>>>> enough it would be more productive (and considerate of mitigating
>>>> factors,
>>>> such as the social shitstorms heaped on women who pursue harassment
>>>> remediation within the tech community) to go for what you see as the next
>>>> step, rather than criticizing the tactics chosen.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree with some of what you have stated (re permanent demonization
>>>> of
>>>> bad actors) but you are welcome to that opinion.
>>>>
>>>> R.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>