Nick Farr's 30c3 Jake Appelbaum story of abuse and harassment
What exactly did he plagiarize, and where is the documentation of that? If it&#x27;s about giving credit where credit is due, I don&#x27;t see how just destroying Appelbaum as a &quot;plagiarist&quot; really helps there.<p>I guess my problem is: even assuming all charges are true, the way this is done, and the way it&#x27;s nodded off by people in the name of being decent (less questions asked = more decent?), while others dismiss it as some SJW stunt or conspiracy or whatever, is just a horrible precedent to me. This all out attack on the totality of a person, this &quot;creating facts on the ground&quot;, and this binary dichotomy of &quot;only one party can ever be in the wrong&quot;, the extreme polarization.<p>For what it&#x27;s worth, I know how being gas-lighted feels, I know how it is to see someone go from friendly to snarling with utmost hatred back to friendly. I don&#x27;t feel like sharing all that, but that&#x27;s kind of how I know a bit about sociopathy and narcissism to begin with, I had to learn.<p>But that&#x27;s also why that website kind of struck me as kind of weird, since it talks about sociopathy yet seems not only kind of devoid of compassion, but also reckless, seeing how the destruction of Appelbaum seems to be intended to be total and forever. As in, just because he&#x27;s no good as a &quot;community leader&quot;, who cares what happens to the human being - he didn&#x27;t care either, he started it after all. No fair judge and no psychologist worth crap would talk like that, and that&#x27;s why such things should be left to both ultimately.<p>Even sociopaths are people, even after having been clinically diagnosed. Human rights apply even to those who don&#x27;t afford them to others. This is a principle that is more important than anything else. EVEN if you have to disarm a person, set boundaries, and so on, there is never a point where they&#x27;re just fair game for <i>anything</i>. You know how free speech is about protecting the speech you despise? Same goes for human rights. Believing in due process for the innocent is easy, believing in due process of a serial killer, now that&#x27;s where it starts to become more adult, and there is <i>no</i> crime so atrocious the perpetrator loses their status as human being. We know this is hard to grasp for many people, but when &quot;hackers&quot; start forgetting that as well, that&#x27;s troubling.<p>So I am really not liking this whole thing as it stands, and am also not liking this dichotomy of &quot;either you believe it or don&#x27;t&quot;, since I&#x27;d still have all the above questions or objections even granting every claim is 100% true.<p>And the shaming of people who reserve judgement or ask for any evidence, or more substance in general, in light of such a huge, all out attack, also sucks. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, people can &quot;command&quot; their personal friends to &quot;not question, just hug&quot; when that&#x27;s all they can take (and I don&#x27;t mean that snarkily, honestly), but that&#x27;s not something a society or justice can operate on. His character has been effectively assassinated, no matter what comes of this most people who saw that may never see the follow-up, and we can&#x27;t even ask <i>questions</i>? You can&#x27;t take abuse seriously and then say &quot;nothing you do to an abuser is ever abuse&quot;, that&#x27;s not justice.