[Noisebridge-discuss] Enlightenment & its discontents (response to Rachel, Jim, Frantisek et al)

Sat Aug 18 22:06:06 UTC 2012

But since I've already done so, I might as well elaborate on why I think
it'd be good for Noisebridge, and really any public-facing space, to adopt
an anti-harassment policy/statement.

I'm a flawed individual, like many others, and have made lots of mistakes,
especially when I was younger. Some of these mistakes were along the
lines of what would be considered harassment. Instead of receiving
negative feedback, these actions were simply ignored or even reinforced
from the people (men) around me.

I think that happens alot, all over the world, and ideas from people like
Rachel, my female friends, and my lady-partner have helped me figure
out where I've been going wrong and helped reinforce positive behaviors.

I don't think any such policy would affect the incorrigible types, but what
would? I think an anti-harassment policy would just help guide people who
may not have been brought up in the most accepting environments to
re-evaluate their attitudes and behaviors, and provide a clear framework
for them to do so.

  mike

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Mike Schachter
<mschachter at eigenminds.com> wrote:
> Also sorry for hijacking this thread... admittedly I didn't read much
> of the content
> before replying.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Mike Schachter
> <mschachter at eigenminds.com> wrote:
>> I'm really sorry to see Rachel's initial suggestion for Noisebridge to
>> adopt some sort of anti-harassment statement devolve into something
>> more drama oriented and personal.
>>
>> I'm also sorry to see so many people not support her suggestion for
>> Noisebridge to adopt any sort of anti-harassment statement. I really
>> don't see how anything negative could come of doing so.
>>
>>  mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:31 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
>> <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Tony,
>>>
>>> Thanks for working to engage in a considered way on this issue!  It's
>>> a really uncomfortable but necessary one!  Regrets for any lack of
>>> clarity around the way I read nb-discuss, some more details and some
>>> thoughts on why I shared the fact of the filtering:
>>>
>>> I use this email address for mailing lists, I belong to many.  Mailing
>>> lists are, to me, still the single most fungible and successful tool
>>> for creating online communities.  By filtering mail from certain lists
>>> to certain folders, I am able to subscribe to many high-volume lists
>>> and scores of low-volume lists without having undifferentiated chaos
>>> in my inbox.
>>>
>>> I am deeply interested in the metacognitive repercussions of the
>>> "sortability" of electronic commmunications.  For example, I have six
>>> or seven arduino and microcontroller-specific mailing lists that all
>>> sort into one shared folder.  This way, when I am working on
>>> electronics or seeking to delve into the topic further, I have one
>>> really rich place where all those email inputs are collected.  It is
>>> interesting to me the way this creates a psychologically real 'bounded
>>> space' that is functionally identical to a room full of people.  I put
>>> Michael Shiloh and the amarino toolkit list into the same room because
>>> I want to read them at the same time.
>>>
>>> I put sustainability interest groups and lists together, small
>>> business & neighborhood localization lists together, etc.  I actually
>>> send nb-discuss, nb-announce, and all of my noisebridge sublists to
>>> the same folder.  Which I read regularly.
>>>
>>> Sometimes, when someone is still getting their shit together on how to
>>> setup their list, they will put me on but then the way the emails
>>> comes in varies so much I have to make a number of different filters
>>> to keep them in the correct folder and out of in the main inbox.  Then
>>> I sometimes solve the problem by filtering all of that person's emails
>>> to the right place.  Their incompetent netiquette loses them their
>>> access to my primary inbox.  Some people go one step up the ladder and
>>> issue new email addresses for each list they are on, so they can track
>>> who shares their address and if needed remove the offenders' ability
>>> to reach them at all.  Once I set up some more stuff I might go
>>> further down this route, but for now I only do this in a few cases.
>>>
>>> I have done this here as a metacognitive hack to place these
>>> interactions with Frantisek back into the public sphere.  I am sharing
>>> that I have done it, as a way of documenting the hack and
>>> open-sourcing it.
>>>
>>>> good guys, too. This awkward discussion could lead to something
>>>> enlightening, purrr haps?
>>>
>>> That's my hypothesis, and is of course the reason I initiated and I am
>>> forcing the continuation of the conversation even though it is
>>> awkward.  I wish I thought that you had noticed this congruency,
>>> instead of this sentence reading to me as a piece of advice.  But hey,
>>> maybe it's not even advice or maybe it's advice that is not directed
>>> at me, and you are agreeing with me and stating your good opinion of
>>> my solution.
>>>
>>> I can only hope that over time support of and agreeance with the
>>> specific actions I am taking in this realm would be more often stated
>>> explicitly rather than implicitly.  It really speeds up the adoption
>>> of the technologies I am building.
>>>
>>> hey, a girl can dream, can't she?
>>>
>>> R.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Tony Longshanks LeTigre
>>> <anthonyletigre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Rachel Lyra wrote:
>>>> Frantisek emailed me privately, but I am responding publicly.
>>>>
>>>> The text of his email is included below. I've done this before....once,
>>>> twice, three times maybe? When I felt someone has sent me something
>>>> privately that should be addressed by the community at large. In such cases
>>>> I don't ask permission, the same way I don't always ask permission when
>>>> borrowing things from the web for zines I make. I believe in taking what you
>>>> need, to a certain point. I accept a certain amount of "being taken from" as
>>>> "That's Life," by the same token. I'm aware when posting a private message
>>>> publicly that it is a breach of the usual protocol & therefore reserved for
>>>> certain (usually heated) occasions. I've also done it in the past knowing
>>>> (to my annoyance) that it would be dismissed as "stirring up drama," since I
>>>> know I was branded that way at a time when there was a lot of inappropriate
>>>> shit happening @ Noisebridge that I was calling people on. (I solved that
>>>> problem by making my visits to NB more sporadic & usually not staying very
>>>> long.)
>>>>
>>>> One thing I don't get, Rachel, is that you said you don't as a rule read
>>>> NB-Discuss posts, you filter them to your junk bin, is that correct? I
>>>> suppose the majority of NB-Discuss posts aren't worth your time, but it does
>>>> strike me as a little arrogant that you deign to engender (ha!) a dialogue
>>>> on a mailing list that you otherwise ignore. How do you know others aren't
>>>> starting dialogues on similarly important matters the rest of the time?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I misunderstand you. I agree with much of what you're saying & even
>>>> relate to your fierce attitude in a lot of ways. I think Frantisek & Jim are
>>>> good guys, too. This awkward discussion could lead to something
>>>> enlightening, purrr haps?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yr friendly neighborhood Tiger
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss