[rhblake]

So a number of high-profile, veteran, respected, typically anti-authoritarian members of the hacking community - including multiple Tor project members - have spoken out against Applebaum in the past week. That it's all being orchestrated by some three-letter agency is theoretically possible, sure, but I think that's extremely unlikely. Applying some Occam I just end up with a tragic case of an abusive asshole.

(I don't personally know Appelbaum, nor his accusers, although I've spoken to several of them and seen them at conferences throughout the years. I thought Appelbaum was great at promoting Tor. I also remember my second conversation with him, at 26C3 in 2009: he bragged about how he'd stayed at a squat during his visit in Stockholm the month before and fucked some anarchist girl. Which, at the time, I thought was a bit odd bringing up in casual conversation with someone he didn't know.)

[kbenson]

> Which, at the time, I thought was a bit odd bringing up in casual conversation with someone he didn't know.

I'm not sure that being crass is necessarily an indicator that he's more likely to be a rapist. That's the problem with all this, there's a lot of substantiated stories about him being an asshole, an actual refutation by the party involved of one of the stories that was originally conveyed by a third party, and a bunch of unsubstantiated stories about him being as asshole and a rapist. I don't think the correct thing to do in this case is to assume his guilt. The right may not include assuming his innocence either, until more information is presented.

There's a lot of "you should believe the victim" stuff going around, but at this point are we sure there even is a victim (in the rape accusation)? Is it all third party accusations about anonymous victims, or do we actually have a victim that has come forward? I think that's an important distinction. I put a lot less trust in anonymous sources.

[syngrog66]

it almost makes me wish we had some kind of... I dunno... "system" by which we as a society can be very specific about what is allowed and not. and a system for determining whether the disallowed things happened or not. and a system also for then punishing people who have been found guilty of those disallowed things.

I'm just brainstorming. Perhaps in a hundred years we'll create a way to do that. Until then, let's all just whisper and rumor and accuse and retweet and go with how we "feel" at any particular moment. /s :-)

[xcasex]

Veterans who have spoken out about brashness, him being socially clumsy, him being an asshole.

There are as of yet unsubstantiated, uncorroborated & unverified stories.

[rhblake]

They have essentially described him as a sociopath. That's very different from merely being brash and clumsy...

[kbenson]

Unless you have some training that makes you qualified to assess that (in which case qualifying yourself as such would help), perhaps you should refrain from throwing around terms like that.

[syngrog66]

perhaps. but the set of things which are not illegal include: being brash, clumsy, an asshole or even a sociopath.

Rape and sexual assault are illegal. Let's let the courts decide that, based on evidence. Not rumor, innuendo or mob retweets.

[PavlovsCat]

It also also says something people throwing that word around like that, especially in light of "TimeToDieJake" thing, denying the impersonation attempts (even though "ioerrror" can't be explained away that easily), finding this [0] terribly funny, while still being unable to back up the plagiarism claims (e.g. Nick Farr answered all sorts of softball questions, but not that). That's very different from anything resembling a good faith effort.

And when it comes to mental health, considering their behaviour and words, I would need to see a clinical diagnosis of ALL involved people to take that seriously in the least. So far I see people who are being abusive saying someone else is abusive; so far I see people demonstrating no empathy, intellectual honesty or capability to reflect, calling someone else a sociopath. So far I see a "community" with very little courage or integrity talking about standing up to bullies, while flagging the story which is clearing up a false claim that has already been spread. A safe space for lynch mobs.

Appelbaum might be guilty of some or a lot of things, but I'm not taking anyone's word for it when they can't even answer the most simple and obvious questions, questions they should have had answers for before even speaking. And the "trust" or "respect" of people who don't notice that is at best of zero value for my own evaluation, at worst it has negative value. And as it stands, I can't interpret the "diagnosis" as sociopath (and plagiarist) as anything than another red flag for those making it, considering all the proof in all this pudding so far, and considering how they don't "criticize their own".

I guess that's also Appelbaum's sinister influence, or something, that so many people don't dare to or are unable to do what a somewhat moral, somewhat intelligent child would already have done (maybe you can even strike "moral" and "intelligent" and replace that with "without an agenda or outside pressure, freely and honestly responding"). Don't put any obligations on victims, after all - including having to prove their victim status that gives them amnesty for any and all transgressions and regressions.

Though maybe they're not transgressions, since a sociopath is not a human being (and just with the victim status, since a sociopath has no rights you don't have to prove the claim after you made it), like someone spookily alluded to but then somehow didn't follow up on [1]. But remember, Appelbaum's allegedly the sick person, so nobody else can be sick. He is allegedly manipulative and dishonest, so nobody else can be.

[0] https://twitter.com/J9Roem/status/741358060191514625

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845678