[Noisebridge-discuss] Hi everyone.

Sat Aug 18 23:41:36 UTC 2012

Hi Ari,
Well I took my traveles as an example of the habit which actually I have encountred in SF too. Therefore this is one of the possible explanations of the event based on cultural and habitual differences. Also in this case both protagonist knew each other quite for some time.

Ohterwise if I meet someone in USA I tend to shake hands, it is much safer :-) so you I agree with you, kissing greeting should be kind of confirmed.

Thanks for imput, I would like to stop it here for the discuss matters, I do not want to create more drama but I'm available on the email.

Sincerely,

FA

I just want to comment on this, Frantisek:

"PS I've been kissing girls on cheeks twice after my stay in
Netherland and three times after Central America, luckily it was taken
as harassment yet or at least not to my knowledge - I guess your
"incident" can be different matter, not questioning, just pointing to
different habits."

So, you've traveled to some places where people habitually kiss hello
and goodbye, especially to women. Not impressive. This is more about
bragging about your travels than engaging Rachel with what she's
actually saying.

In the US, which surrounds Noisebridge entirely, kissing strangers at
first meeting is not done without some sort of negotiation towards
permission. Also, the country doesn't even matter that much: if a
Dutch or Central American woman shies away from the kissing greeting,
or indeed anyone anywhere on the planet, the correct response is not
to kiss them anyway 'cause that's the cultural norm you have chosen to
respect for the moment. It's to respect their wishes like a grown-ass
adult.

Ari

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Frantisek Apfelbeck <algoldor at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Raquel and all,
> OK first the honest part. You wold have to be much more socially aware and
> also to be able to control your emotions in order to progress towards to the
> goals which you aim for, at least if you would move bit faster. This is how
> I see it, year and half old experiences with you in person and current
> written text.
>
> I think that your email says it all, thank you for clear wording. I made few
> comments, that is all. I'm just sorry that we can not communicate any more,
> that is bad.
>
> Frantisek emailed me privately, but I am responding publicly.  The
> text of his email is included below.  I want to be clear about my
> goals talking about this on nb-discuss.  I am not seeking private
> emotional support, advice, stirring up drama, or seeking to cause
> problems.  I am specifically seeking to have a public conversation
> about this issue, because I believe this type of conversation is like
> a portal through which we must each pass to reach the utopia where we
> can stop worrying about it.
>
>>>> I ask people before I post private messages, I think it is a good idea,
>>>> few times I did not because I send the "reply" to wrong list. This massage =
>>>> public, fine with me but you should ask first I think.
>
>
> Frantisek,
>
> I'm not angry at jim at all.  i am working to change some things i
> think are wrong with society.  Unfortunately for both jim and myself I
> am using our interaction as an example (because it is one) of the kind
> of thing that contributes to what we all agree is a problem.  My
> hypothesis is that rather than being merely symptomatic, these
> interactions are actually the substrate [1] upon which the problem is
> written, so by working to change these things, we automatically change
> the thing we all agree is a problem. My further belief is that it is
> important to change these things now, and the only way that they will
> change is through this work.
>
>>> Did you ask Jim if he is fine you using this as a "substrate"? Have you
>>> talked in dept about it with him, seeing his point of view? From what you
>>> describe it seems not to be the case. By general standards I would expect
>>> you to get agreement to post about think like this or at least make the
>>> person in the story aware that you are planing to do so. PS I've been
>>> kissing girls on cheeks twice after my stay in Netherland and three times
>>> after Central America, luckily it was taken as harassment yet or at least
>>> not to my knowledge - I guess your "incident" can be different matter, not
>>> questioning, just pointing to different habits.
>
>
> I think you are a pompous hypocrite for publicly advising L***** to
> sleep in the park instead of noisebridge, because i know that you
> spent many, many nights sleeping at noisebridge.  I personally spent
> nights hardware hacking where I saw you go to sleep in the tea room or
> on the roof and then wake up refreshed to face the next day.  You used
> to keep your toothbrush in the stairwell under the tea room.  I can no
> longer respect your opinion on matters of social interaction because
> of how hypocritical and blinded by privilege that I believe you to be.
>
>>> Yes I think in a way I'm hypocritical, working on it thou for the rest of
>>> my life I hope. Alas I still do not know the pleasure of the good night
>>> sleep at Noisebridge roof, you are wrong there, I was too worried about the
>>> leaks. Concerning countless nights at Noisebridge, I would say that there
>>> were maybe 7-10 which were my weakness. The other several (and yes several,
>>> well less than 10 within 6 months) were because I was leading classes for
>>> cooking a brewing finishing very late most of the time (2-4 am) and had to
>>> be up around 7 am. Should not do it but that is how it was. I am sure that I
>>> have spend many more nights in the park than at Noisebridge, there is no
>>> question about it (at least not for me) and I can say that they were the
>>> better ones. Anyone who tries to spend several nights at Noisebridge will
>>> find, at least I believe that it is quite pain and it is better to avoid it
>>> not mentioning the bad impact on the social status in the community as we
>>> can see here even after the years. So again I recommend anyone to do what I
>>> like to do and I have found extremely useful (and not just at SF), parks are
>>> great, beaches even better, use them if you have to rather than staying on
>>> the social places which are not "shaped" for that.
>
>
> i am not mad about that, either, although i bet you will think that i
> am on reading those words. It's a perception problem inherent to
> text-based communication, but there are also observable differences
> between behavioral standards for men vs women.  Women are expected to
> be more nice, more accommodating, more passive and socially supportive
> in interactions.  Not consciously maybe, but even for those who don't
> consciously reinforce this double standard there is as you say some
> residue:
>
>>> Woman are in majority more " more nice, more accommodating, more passive
>>> and socially supportive
> in interactions" it is a matter of fact, I wish more man were like them but
> woman just have a bigger/deeper emotional start up potential. It is just a
> human nature to use your experience to live your life and to a degree it
> means in practice prejudice. Now when I'm in Korea I can say it is quite a
> strong cup of tea quite pretty often.
>
>> Concerning the harassment thing, well that is an issue. I think that you
>> can
>> not get completely rid of it on both sides if you grew up in the
>> environment
>> where this prejudice was "exercised".
> I agree with you.  We are all brainwashed.  This is why each of us
> holds women to higher standards of niceness, and men to higher
> standards of stoic emotional control, etc.
>
>>> Again this is not brainwash, woman in general have higher social
>>> intelligence, they are more caring at least this is my profound life
>>> experience and I guess there is a research to back it up. You can try to
>>> improve this with both sexes but the predispositions for these fields are
>>> with woman. Of course to what degree is a question but I can see definitely
>>> pattern. One of the nice examples are dancing classes. Get average 50 guys
>>> and 50 girls, switch on the music and watch the dancing, the difference is
>>> truly astonishing no matter what sex is watching.
>
>
> We can work to change this.  It starts with you giving me the benefit
> of the doubt when it comes to rudeness, and/or shutting the fuck up
> about some allegedly rude comment i made years ago. You are so
> incapable of reading basic social cues that I have had to verbally
> turn down hugs from you. It wasn't harassment because you didn't press
> the issue when I said no.  I haven't made a big deal about it and am
> not mad, but I think that shit is rude [2]. I think you are rude.
> I'll be damned if I'll tolerate you sending me private messages
> telling me how inappropriate my behavior is. I am making a filter to
> shunt your messages to the same folder as nb-discuss.  You may not
> contact me for private conversation.
>
>>> I'm sorry to hear it but you just went over the border and you rejected
>>> to acknowledge. I tried to make several steps to reconcile which as I see
>>> you call "incapable of reading basic social cues that I have had to verbally
>>> turn down hugs from you" which I'm quite sorry to hear especially if I
>>> consider how directly and without background you "hit me"  meaning rudeness
>>> or in another words you lost you temper, not me. I'm rude sometimes, trying
>>> to read the clues but it doesn't always work even if you try. However I have
>>> not lost my temper with another human being and "attacking" for many, many
>>> years and I hope to keep this promise up to myself as long as I can. I would
>>> recommend you to try the same.
>
> also, this?
>>  The question is if the harassment
>> happen/someone is emotionally hurt how strictly react back.  Too much
>> intensity will create negative action which ruin to possible change, not
>> enough action keeps the issue unresolved.
> falsely presumes that I have not considered the question it poses (or
> else inherently calls out my conclusions as wrong) while also
> completely missing the point.  The interaction I described with Jim
> happened a year or more ago.  I waited a month to follow up to Jim's
> message.  I am not hurt emotionally.  I am not reacting out of anger.
> Too much intensity (and its results as stated) is a matter of opinion.
>
> *I am working to change problems that I see in our society.
> *I am speaking frankly about my feelings.
> *I do not apologize very much for the discomfort this causes you.
>
> Those are the things that I do differently from most people.  You
> don't have to like it, but I'll thank you to get out of my way.
>
>>> I think that to progress on the first * you have to be very socially
>>> aware therefore you would have to be diplomatic about second * and you
>>> certainly rule bot out by * statement number 3.
>
>>> Sincerely,
>
>>> Frantisek
>
>
> R.
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substrate
>
> [2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rude
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Frantisek Apfelbeck <algoldor at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi Rachel,
>> I'm sorry to hear about the misunderstanding with Jim. Try to consider not
>> to blow up on the issue as you for example did years ago when you have
>> been
>> re-organizing the dirty workshop and I just came there to return the tool
>> which I used and put it on the location where it belonged for last few
>> months. You said to put it somewhere else, I said it is suppose to be
>> there
>> and you just blew up directly in to me in quite a pretty rude way which
>> was
>> quite unpleasant especially because I liked you (as I still do :-). You
>> are
>> impulsive and God knows what was Jim thinking, it could be the "short
>> circuit problem" which happens to anyone from time to time and well with
>> luck you both will be able to go over it in a fine way with some time. If
>> you could take more distance in your emails on the matter and keep calm it
>> would certainly help. I am trying to exercise a rule for years, never
>> write
>> emails when I'm angry, it works great!
>>
>> Concerning the harassment thing, well that is an issue. I think that you
>> can
>> not get completely rid of it on both sides if you grew up in the
>> environment
>> where this prejudice was "exercised". I think that you would have some
>> form
>> of "harassment" present at any place where one gender is in majority, like
>> you have racism, nacism et cetera in different parts of society. I believe
>> that the education and being in touch with lots of other people who are
>> quite different is the way to go, traveling and living in another cultures
>> works great for many people. The question is if the harassment
>> happen/someone is emotionally hurt how strictly react back. Too much
>> intensity will create negative action which ruin to possible change, not
>> enough action keeps the issue unresolved. I think that skilled mediator,
>> person with really good social skills and who can keep the temper is
>> needed
>> in such case.
>>
>> Well anyway it is a huge topic, have a good time, hopefully see you next
>> year.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Frantisek Algoldor Apfelbeck
>>
>> biotechnologist&kvasir and hacker
>>
>>
>> http://www.frantisekapfelbeck.org
>>
>>
>> "There is no way to peace, peace is the way." Ghandi
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20120818/e5178f8c/attachment-0003.html>