commit: 82ebf55e4a2b970747b76e042945db381a4f9b12
parent 65c2bc0e67520ee6a456d511b2949e68200ce674
Author: Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 15:45:16 +0200
The forbidden topics
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 166 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/content/blog/The-forbidden-topics.md b/content/blog/The-forbidden-topics.md
@@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
+---
+title: The forbidden topics
+date: 2023-09-29
+---
+
+There are forbidden topics in the hacker community. One is sternly reprimanded
+for bringing them up, by their peers, their leaders, and the community at large.
+In private, one can expect threats and intimidation; in public, outcry and
+censorship. The forbidden topics are enforced by the moderators of our spaces,
+taken off of forums, purged from chat rooms, and cleaned up from GitHub issues
+and mailing lists; the ban-hammers fall swiftly and resolutely. My last article
+to touch these subjects was removed from Hacker News by the moderators within 30
+minutes and landed several death threats in my inbox. The forbidden topics, when
+raised, are met with a resounding, aggressive dismissal and unconditional
+condemnation.
+
+[0]: https://drewdevault.com/2023/09/17/Hyprland-toxicity.html
+
+Some years ago, the hacker community possessed near-unanimous praise for the
+ideals of free speech; the hacker position was generally that of what we would
+now understand as "radical" free speech, which is to say the kind of "shout
+'fire' in a crowded movie theater" radical, but more specifically the kind that
+tolerates hate speech. The popular refrain went, "I disapprove of what you say,
+but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Many hackers hold this as
+a virtue to this day. I once held this as a virtue for myself.
+
+However, this was a kind of free speech which was unconsciously contingent on
+being used for speech with which the listener was comfortable. The hacker
+community at this time was largely homogeneous, and as such most of the speech
+we were exposed to was of the comfortable sort. As the world evolved around us,
+and more people found their voice, this homogeneity began to break down. Critics
+of radical free speech, victims of hate speech, and marginalized people of
+all kinds began to appear in hacker communities. The things they had to say were
+not comfortable.
+
+The free speech absolutists among the old guard, faced with this discomfort,
+developed a tendency to defend hate speech and demean speech that challenged
+them. They were not the target of the hate, so it did not make them personally
+uncomfortable, and defending it would maintain the pretense of defending free
+speech, of stalwartly holding the line on a treasured part of their personal
+hacker ethic. Speech which challenged their preconceptions and challenged their
+power structures was not so easily acceptable. The pretense is dropped and they
+lash out in anger, calling for the speakers to be excluded from our communities.
+
+Some of the once-forbidden topics are becoming less so. There are carefully
+chalked-out spaces where we can talk about them, provided they are not too
+challenging, such as LGBTQ identities or the struggles of women in our spaces.
+Such discussions are subject to careful management by our leaders and
+moderators, to the extent necessary to preserve power structures. Those who
+speak on these topics are permitted to do so relatively free of retaliation
+provided that they speak from a perspective of humility, a voice that "knows its
+place". Any speech which suggests that the listener may find themselves subject
+to a non-majority-conforming person in a position of power, or even that of a
+peer, will have crossed the line; one must speak as a victim seeking the pity
+and grace of your superiors to be permitted space to air your grievances.
+
+Similarly, space is made for opposition to progressive speech, again moderated
+only insofar as it is necessary to maintain power structures. Some kinds of
+overt hate speech may rouse a response from our leaders, but those who employ a
+more subtle approach are permitted their voice. Thus, both progressive speech
+and hate speech are permitted within a carefully regulated framework of power
+preservation.
+
+Some topics, however, remain strictly forbidden.
+
+Our community has persistent and pervasive problems of a particular sort which
+we are not allowed to talk about: sexual harassment and assault. Men who
+assault, harass, and even rape women in our spaces, are protected. A culture of
+silence is enforced, and those who call out rape, sexual assault, or harassment,
+those who criticise they who enable and protect these behaviors, are punished,
+swiftly and aggressively.
+
+Men are terrified of these kinds of allegations. It seems like a life sentence:
+social ostracization, limited work opportunities, ruined relationships. We may
+have events in our past that weigh on our conscience; was she too drunk, did she
+clearly consent, did she regret it in the morning? Some of us have events in our
+past that we try not to think about, because if we think too hard, we might
+realize that we crossed the line. This fills men with guilt and uncertainty, but
+also fear. We know the consequences if our doubts became known.
+
+So we lash out in this fear. We close ranks. We demand the most stringent
+standards of evidence to prove anything, evidence that we know is not likely to
+be there. We refuse to believe that our friends were not the men we thought they
+were, or to confront that we might not be ourselves. We demand due process under
+the law, we say they should have gone to the police, that they can't make
+accusations of such gravity without hard proof. Think of the alleged
+perpetrator; we can't ruin their lives over frivolous accusations.
+
+For victims, the only recourse permitted by society is to suffer in silence.
+Should they speak, victims are subject to similar persecutions: they are
+ostracized, struggle to work, and lose their relationships. They have to manage
+the consequences of a traumatic experience with support resources which are
+absent or inadequate. Their trauma is disbelieved, their speech is punished, and
+their assailants walk free among us as equals while they are subject to
+retaliatory harassment or worse.
+
+Victims have no recourse which will satisfy men. Reporting a crime is traumatic,
+especially one of this nature. I have heard many stories of disbelief from the
+authorities, disbelief in the face of overwhelming evidence. They were told it
+was their fault. They were told they should have been in a different place, or
+wearing something else, or should have simply been a different person. It's
+their fault, not the aggressor's. It's about what they, the victim, should
+have done differently, never mind what the perpetrator should have done
+differently. It's estimated that less than 1% of rapes end with the rapist in
+jail[^1] -- the remainder go unreported, unprosecuted or fail after years of
+traumatic legal proceedings for the victims. The legal system does not provide
+justice: it exacerbates harm. A hacker will demand this process is completed
+before they will seek justice, or allow justice to be sought. Until then, we
+will demand silence, and retaliate if our demands are not met.
+
+[^1]: [Criminal Justice System statistics, RAINN](https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system)
+
+The strict standards of evidence required by the justice system are there
+because of the state monopoly on violence: a guilty verdict in a crime will lead
+to the imprisonment of the accused. We have no such recourse available in
+private, accordingly there is no need to hold ourselves to such standards. Our
+job is not to punish the accused, but rather to keep our communities safe. We
+can establish the need to take action to whatever standard *we* believe is
+sufficient, and by setting these standards as strict as the courts we will fail
+to resolve over 99% of the situations with which we are faced -- a standard
+which is clearly not sufficient to address the problem. I'm behind you if you
+want to improve the justice system in this regard, but not if you set this as a
+blocker to seeking any justice at all. What kind of hacker puts their faith in
+authority?
+
+I find the state of affairs detestable. The hypocrisy of the free speech
+absolutist who demands censorship of challenging topics. The fact that the
+famous hacker curiosity can suddenly dry up if satisfying it would question our
+biases and preconceptions. The complicity of our moderators in censoring
+progressive voices in the defense of decorum and the status quo. The duplicitous
+characterization of "polite" hate speech as acceptable in our communities. Our
+failure to acknowledge our own shortcomings, our fear of seeing the "other" in a
+position of power, and the socially enforced ignorance of the "other" that
+naturally leads to failing to curtail discrimination and harassment in our
+communities. The ridiculously high standard of evidence we require from victims,
+who simply ask for our *belief* at a minimum, before we'll consider doing
+anything about their grievance, if we could even be convinced in the first
+place.
+
+Meanwhile, the problems that these forbidden topics seek to discuss are present
+in our community. That includes the "polite" problems, such as the conspicuous
+lack of diversity in our positions of power, which may be discussed and
+commiserated only until someone suggests doing something about it; and also the
+impolite problems up to and including the protection of the perpetrators of
+sexual harassment, sexual assault, and, yes, rape.
+
+Most hackers live under the comfortable belief that it "can't happen here", but
+it can and it does. I attended a hacker event this year where I discovered that
+some of the organizers had cooperated to make it possible for multiple known
+rapists to participate, working together to find a way to circumvent the event's
+code of conduct -- a document that they were tasked with enforcing. One of the
+victims was in attendance, believing the event to be safe. At every hacker event
+I have attended in recent memory, I have personally witnessed or heard stories
+of deeply problematic behavior and protection for its perpetrators from the
+leadership.
+
+Our community has problems, important problems, that every hacker should care
+about, and we need the bravery and humility to face them, not the cowardice to
+retaliate against those who speak up. Talk to, listen to, and believe your peers
+and their stories. Stand up for what's right, and speak out when you see
+something that isn't. Demand that your leaders and moderators do the right
+thing. Make a platform where people can safely speak about what our community
+needs to do right by them, and have the courage to listen to them and confront
+yourself.
+
+You need to be someone who will *do something about it*.
