Friday, April 11, 2014

RAPE CHARGE Oh Yeah, Linking Libertarianism and Techie Transgenders is Going to Be a Lot of Fun

First we have this from (my highlights)
By the end of the evening teams had formed and work continued on through the night and into the next day, when things paused at noon for a panel discussing being trans* in tech, featuring Enne Walker, Dana McCallum, Naomi Ceder (me), Jack Aponte, and Nadia Morris and moderated by Fresh! White....Calls for hackers to gain a statehood of their own is only one step up from the libertarian streak which runs through many tech communities. They fail to connect the struggles of hackers with those of other communities, fail to understand that the persecution hackers face is only a microcosm of broader problems, that other communities have suffered this and more for generations. There are, thankfully, people within geek communities who connect their struggles with those of others, who see themselves as embedded within broader systems. 
And, then, we have this from ValleyWag:
 Respected Twitter Engineer Dana McCallum Charged With Rape

Senior Twitter engineer Dana McCallum, a well-regarded advocate for transgender and women's rights in the tech industry, was arrested in January and charged with raping her wife, according to The San Francisco Examiner.
The District Attorney's Office charged McCallum with five felonies, including three counts of spousal rape, one count of false imprisonment and one count of domestic violence on January 29th. She pleaded not guilty. McCallum was released on a $350,000 bail. The Examiner obtained court documents which said that attending AA meetings was a condition of McCallum's release...The Examiner spoke to Runfola, who said the allegations were purely based on the amount of money McCallum will receive as a Twitter employee... 
McCallum's Twitter handle is @danadanger. According to her author bio on Model View Culture, McCallum is "an advocate for women in technology and the LGBT community, Dana helped create advocacy teams at Twitter and other companies, served as a delegate on women's issues in India, and speaks regularly at events focused on women and LGBT people in tech."
Can't wait for Jeff Tucker guidance to his tuckernackies on how to look at this situation. Just how do they position themselves to remain in the good graces of the transgender community, while promoting libertarianism? Should they raise the point that libertarians are against government definitions of marriage or should that be kept hush, hush? And what about these rape charges between a married couple, should tuckernackies object? Just which wife's side should tuckernackies be on?


  1. Rw - you are putting up a straw man. I don't speak for Mr Tucker, but I can assure that nap holds in his point of view. If rape was committed, it is an act of violence. Tucker does not argue that the state should be involved in marriage. A couple of points to consider:

    If Tucker were "out" would you feel better about him? Is it that he is gay that bothers you or the fact that he is not honest about it?

    He wears a bowtie, which gives him claim to being the heir to Murray Rothbard. You would like to lay claim to being the torch bearer of Rothbard. Is that what bothers you about Tucker more than anything?

    I saw Lew Rockwell's article and I don't disagree - libertarian ism doesn't need more factions. My personal opinion is that if you want to be free, stop living in fascist SF. I did and am happy I did so. Stop associating Tucker with those idiots on Valencia who call themselves anarchists but are really just commies (if that place is still there). Tucker isn't a Castro-faring type who walks through the Mission trying to get you to buy Marxist books. He's a good anarchist who would like you to accept him for being gay. What say you?


    1. First off, I have no idea whether Tucker is gay or not. I really don't care. I know gays that are out. I know gays that are in the closet. And some that I suspect are in denial. but so what? I really don't care. I occasionally hang around with a guy in NYC that I suspect is in denial, but he is smart and funny and good company. We chase women together and the first thing aggressive women will say to him is "Are you gay?" As long as he isn't grabbing my ass but fun to be with, II have no problem with him.

      As for a straw man, you misunderstand my point. I am not suggesting that Tucker will reject his NAP views for transgenders, but that this attempted linking of libertarian views with groups such as transgenders creates all kinds of strategic problems, since transgenders aren't necessarily libertarian, it means that you are either going to have to hide your libertarian views on gvt involvement with gay marriage (or any kind of mariage) etc.

      In other words, being libertarian and being a transgender supporter are not necessarily two groups that are in sync. Liberty is about liberty, that is all. The rape charge simply brings up issues where transgenders may hold positions different than libertarians. Thus, it points to the nuttiness of the linkage. Alliances are okay, when differences with libertarian principles are recognized and those intrusions on libertarian principle are avoided as part of the alliance, but linkages is an entirely different and absurd animal

      And where the hell do you get the nutty idea that Tucker's wearing of a bowtie gives "him claim to being the heir to Murray Rothbard"? As I pointed out, Tucker hardly featured any Rothbard books at Laissez Faire.

      As for me, I am a big fan of Rothbard's, I think he was a genius, but I have never set my sights on being Rothbard's torch bearer. That's a nutty theory.Lew Rockwell, David Gordon, Walter Block, Tom Woods and Justin Raimondo, just to name those that come off the top of my head, have done a lot more to advance the thought of Rothabrd, than I ever will.

      Finally you raise the problem of factions within libertarianism. Did you forget that it is Tucker who is advancing the notion that there are two kinds of libertarians?

    2. Alright - I was largely just goofing around with those comments and pushing some buttons, but I think there's a lot more under all these issues that needs to come to the surface, and there is a lot of focus on some of the wrong points. No need to go into all of that. Let me respond to just one thing though:

      "Finally you raise the problem of factions within libertarianism. Did you forget that it is Tucker who is advancing the notion that there are two kinds of libertarians?"

      Fine - let's allow your point. Who is going to be the one to put it back together? Who is going to rise above the in-fighting and show the right way? You've got a nice podium - maybe instead of standing staunch and calling names (though "tuckernackers" is kind of funny), you could point the way forward and not drive a further wedge between libertarians of different tastes, ethical considerations and strategy. Tucker isn't going away, and he both has done and will do great things for the cause of liberty. Trying to tear him or his supporters down isn't going to do any good - I'd love to see clear and rational critiques that build vs destroy.

    3. "Who is going to be the one to put it back together?"

      How about the guy that caused the division in the first place?
      It is entirely pointless to "rise above the in-fighting" when the in-fighting will be continued by the likes of Tucker.
      Why is it always that those on the receiving end ought to take responsibility for a problem they didn't create?

      Judging by your original post and your latest response, you are defending Tucker no matter what, even making accusations against Wenzel (thus helping in the furthering of the division) and then pretending you were just "goofing around", and then have the balls to ask Wenzel to be above it and be the better man as you CONTINUE to defend Tucker, the man who created the division.

      Just who do you think you're kidding here?

  2. @rpt
    LOL. What has Tucker's personal life (if he gave you permission to put it out here) got to do with any of this?

    Changing the subject?
    The fight with Tucker is over IP and over this bizarre "brutalism" attack.
    He lost an intellectual fight he started, now his groupies pretend he's the victim of a personal attack.

  3. I wonder if she will be strip-searched and have her cavities inspected. Or is rape not as bad as paying below minimum wage?

    Where's the perp walk, where are the sensational headlines, the cybermobs digging up her personal life, as there were in the case of the Indian diplomat or the French diplomat?

    Suddenly, opposing views get into the article and the comments are judicious.

    This kind of revolting partiality gets not a word from the "nice" humanitarians, I notice.

    Which tells me they are not only not "nice" or "humanitarian," but quite the opposite: clever opportunists, who speak truth to past power and kiss ass to present power and think no one can spot the difference.

    Niceness isn't goodness or virtue, to begin with, but even "nice" isn't how I'd describe that kind of double -standard.

    Slimy is the word that comes to me.

  4. Rape is a devastating crime. Some women are badly injured. Some become pregnant. Some contract HIV. But the emotional trauma can be worse than any physical injury. I want to share this with you guys it is a really helpful stuff when it comes to incidents like this.