[personal profile] mjg59
Inspiring change is difficult. Fighting the status quo typically means being able to communicate so effectively that powerful opponents can't win merely by outspending you. People need to read your work or hear you speak and leave with enough conviction that they in turn can convince others. You need charisma. You need to be smart. And you need to be able to tailor your message depending on the audience, even down to telling an individual exactly what they need to hear to take your side. Not many people have all these qualities, but those who do are powerful and you want them on your side.

But the skills that allow you to convince people that they shouldn't listen to a politician's arguments are the same skills that allow you to convince people that they shouldn't listen to someone you abused. The ability that allows you to argue that someone should change their mind about whether a given behaviour is of social benefit is the same ability that allows you to argue that someone should change their mind about whether they should sleep with you. The visibility that gives you the power to force people to take you seriously is the same visibility that makes people afraid to publicly criticise you.

We need these people, but we also need to be aware that their talents can be used to hurt as well as to help. We need to hold them to higher standards of scrutiny. We need to listen to stories about their behaviour, even if we don't want to believe them. And when there are reasons to believe those stories, we need to act on them. That means people need to feel safe in coming forward with their experiences, which means that nobody should have the power to damage them in reprisal. If you're not careful, allowing charismatic individuals to become the public face of your organisation gives them that power.

There's no reason to believe that someone is bad merely because they're charismatic, but this kind of role allows a charismatic abuser both a great deal of cover and a great deal of opportunity. Sometimes people are just too good to be true. Pretending otherwise doesn't benefit anybody but the abusers.

Re: What controversy is this post referring to?

Date: 2016-06-29 05:38 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
It's the smear campaign against ioerror. The name is going unmentioned so that the complete lack of concrete, verifiable evidence doesn't hinder the campaign's effect. "Listen and believe."

Re: What controversy is this post referring to?

Date: 2016-12-12 06:04 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Unverified and often contradictory testimony (some of which, in the case of witness testimony, was contradicted by the victim who claimed that nothing bad was happening, and the witnesses misunderstood the situation) is not verified evidence. There is plenty of witness and victim testimony for UFO abductions, but that is not verifiable evidence. Now I don't claim that he wasn't a dick, because there actually is un-contradictory evidence for that. The more extravagant claims made are the ones which are lacking evidence.

So verifiable evidence? Sure, in theory. Verified, or practical to verify at this point in time with the information given? No.

Profile

Matthew Garrett

About Matthew

Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Google. Member of the Free Software Foundation board of directors. Ex-biologist. @mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer.

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags