[Noisebridge-discuss] banning "Occupy"
embeddedlinuxguy at gmail.com
Tue Feb 14 22:16:38 UTC 2012
Fact: a number of annoying non-hackers are semi-living at the space,
and have stated to me their belief they are entitled to do this
because of Occupy. I have invited some of these folks to tonight's
meeting so they can get on the same page as the rest of Noisebridge.
Rachel, I would appreciate it if you could personally disabuse them of
this notion and explain the purpose of a hacker space, since you "talk
Live long and prosper.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
<rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been making suggestions on how to begin dealing, as a group, in the
> emails I have been writing. They are not prescriptive, but suggestive and
> open-ended, in the hopes of soliciting opinions, feedback, and further input
> from the community. If you didn't notice, because of the way many of us
> look for fully-baked answers to be handed out without any input, well, maybe
> you should go reread my messages and think about the ideas I put into them,
> and the directions I suggest.
> An approach to problem solving that happens on this list all the time, that
> I see you modeling here, is sort of problematic. You are stating a
> prescriptive solution to a communal problem, and then creating a conceptual
> framework where what you have proposed is a communal solution. Individuals
> who make proposals should be ready to have their ideas incorporated into a
> giant meta-idea that is made by synthesizing EVERYONE's ideas, not just one
> person's...unless there is natural and automatic support for that one idea.
> You know what's harder than having an idea? Working out an idea that
> everyone agrees to. You know what would create the sense of community
> support you are seeking? Working out an idea that everyone agrees to.
> This particular idea is actually, to my mind, counterproductive, because it
> creates a false sense of permanent solution to a problem that is in fact
> perennial. Also, it creates guidelines that we are committing to
> selectively follow. Like the sit/lie law. Which is lame.
> Also the occupy website team meets at noisebridge, and anyone who doesn't
> like it can go suck an egg.
> Love you jake!
> On Feb 14, 2012 1:10 PM, "Jake" <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>> I look forward to hearing your suggestions on ways of dealing with the
>> I still think my idea is great but i am disappointed that more people
>> don't understand how it works. If people belong at noisebridge they will
>> not be at all discouraged by our policy of No Occupy Allowed.
>> What's the first rule of fight club? Same thing with occupy. If you meet
>> buddha on the road, kill him. If someone comes to noisebridge and says
>> they're "from occupy" kill them. If they are there to hack, instead of
>> killing them you can encourage them to drop the "occupy" tagline because we
>> have trauma associated with that.
>> You said yourself that we need to meet these challenges with hackerlike
>> creativity. I think that if everyone who is being a dick is also
>> identifying as being "from occupy" then a simple solution is to "ban
>> and that is step one toward uniting out community to back each other up
>> onto a mutually-agreed concept.
>>> Jake, I think this suggestion stinks. I am surprised you even made it.
>>> guy was being a jerk, which is already not allowed. Why attempt to bar a
>>> highly relevant political movement, which you support, instead of just
>>> telling dicks to stop being dicks?
>>> I think a lot of what people are seeking in these various conflict
>>> situations, is a sense of the community backing you up.
>>> It backs you up when someone is being lousy, regardless of whether they
>>> from Free School or Occupy or whatever scruffy group of people find us
>>> next. Banning Free School wouldn't have saved us from Occupy, and
>>> Occupy wouldn't save us from assholes. It would save us from helping save
>>> the world from capitalism. If it helps we can set up a page on the
>>> website about noisebridge, and not being lame. Then if you need backup
>>> against dicks from occupy, you can show them a page on their own website
>>> saying not to be dicks.
>>> On Feb 13, 2012 4:20 PM, "Kelly" <hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think that occupiers who want to hack things should check in
>>> the Hackupy group: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Hackupy who
>>> to have the potential to do occupy work excellently. Do we have
>>> contact person for that contingent?
>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 16:17, Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com>
>>> > If you ban occupiers don't they just camp wherever you banned
>>> them from?
>>> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>> >> There have been a few over-the-top assholes staking their
>>> claim to be at
>>> >> noisebridge lately, who are saying that they are welcome
>>> because they are
>>> >> "occupy"
>>> >> I propose that we ban Occupy from noisebridge. That way,
>>> assholes who use
>>> >> physical intimidation against people questioning why they're
>>> >> Noisebridge will have one less "reason" besides puffing
>>> themselves up like
>>> >> a rooster.
>>> >> Please don't troll in response to this post. Yes I do
>>> understand that we
>>> >> have met many excellent hackers through occupy, but those
>>> people are smart
>>> >> enough to wink when asked if we should "ban occupy" from
>>> >> Do you have a story to share about an asshole claiming to be
>>> from "occupy"
>>> >> who is trying to occupy noisebridge in a bad way?
>>> >> -jake
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss