[Noisebridge-discuss] misogynist loser visiting noisebridge
johnyradio at gmail.com
Mon Dec 23 23:27:50 UTC 2013
My comments are not meant to insult the awesome people who created
Noisebridge, i'm grateful to everyone who started the place, i'm
grateful i've had nb to hack at. So, nobody should take critiques
Also, it's a long email, so anybody feel free to skip it.
ALL IS NOT WELL
People cannot say "Noisebridge is great because lookit all the amazing
people you meet there!" It's true, I have met amazing people at nb, who
like me came looking for an awesome hackerspace. Because that's the
advertising. And like me, they are disappointed by the dysfunctional
infrastructure. So the dysfunctional infrastructure cannot take credit
for the awesome people. They go away because of the dysfunctional
If there's anybody who feels nb is just great as it is, they are
non-hackers currently sleeping in Church, or making a mess in the
kitchen, or using nb as a homebase for illicit activities. So it's great
Any actual hackers who fell nb is perfect as-is, there are countless
people, i mean i talk to an endless stream of people including founding
members, people in other hacker spaces, visitor who feel nb is quite
seriously messed up. Are they all wrong?
We can't just keep doing the same old and expect anything to improve.
On 12/23/2013 1:09:50 PM, "Danny O'Brien" <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
>The best way to understand this is to ask yourself how many rules does
>Noisebridge have? If someone asserts that you can or can't do
>something at Noisebridge (until recently), the general answer was
>there's no *rule* stopping you, but you should try and think about
>what people's reactions would be.
If everyone thought about how their actions affected other people, the
earth would not be on the verge of global crisis. Unfortunately, many
people don't care, and some of the inconsiderate people keep coming to
nb. So that anarchist/libertarian theory does work in reality.
Anarchy applied to an immature community does not magically create
utopia. It just lays bare common resources for the wolves to exploit or
destroy. The reality of nb demonstrates that. Anarchy only works when
the people involved have the maturity for it, and when they have common
Anarchy would work in a noisebridge WITHOUT an open-door policy, because
then you're talking about a closed, self-policing community, where every
participant has been accepted unanimously by all existing participants.
But, [open-door] + [anarchy] = [disaster]. These two aspects of
noisebridge are at odds. Especially in the middle of a skid-row kind of
area-- there are knifings, shootings, crackheads, meth-heads, ex-cons,
gang-bangers right outside. As longhair Joe once said, "location,
Users can only understand how their actions will affect others by what
others tell them. What people have always told me is "member shelves are
for members only". That's why they're called "Member Shelves"-- if not,
let's stop calling them member shelves, and stop telling people they are
for members only. Let's remove the tarp, remove the door, take down the
camera, and say "These are other people's projects, but go ahead, do
what ever you want." What do you think the result would be?
Currently, member shelves seem to be one of the few aspects of nb which
is respected, suggesting that telling people what's cool and what's not
cool actually works.
But some Members are dead set against telling people what's cool and
what's not cool. Their theory is that left to their own devices, without
any guidelines or orientation, people will magically treat each other
fairly and respectfully. The reality of nb disproves this fantasy.
New people are not going to ask themselves, "how many rules does
noisebridge have?" and other intellectual meanderings. They are going to
ask "what's cool here, and what not cool here?" If no one gives them a
clear answer, they'll do whatever the f they please. Lack of clarity
makes nb is a MAGNET for inconsiderate people.
>A disagreement doesn't mean that there isn't a particular agreement in
Wrong. A disagreement by definition means lack of agreement. There's
agreement to have shelves, sure. The agreement to have shelves does not
speak to who may use the shelves and for what purpose. Your claim that
"member shelves" are not actually for members-- this is the first time
i've ever heard that.
That said, i agree with you that instead of member shelves, we should
have "Project Shelves" intended for everyone. Currently, i have to hide
>You're probably right that complexities should be communicated,
Do i take that to mean you agree to a new-user orientation process?
>The tarps and so forth are, I think, mainly a result of Rayc having
>moved the entire hacker shelves one night in a fit of enthusiasm, and
>then having to cope with the criticisms of that action.
I think you're incorrect, the location of the shelves, the tarp, the
door, the camera. I believe these all came into being over many months
with the support of multiple people, not in one night, and not just
Rayc. Besides, if there are no rules, then good on Rayc.
What criticisms? Before that, multiple people were lamenting issues with
the shelves. I know i'm not the only person who supports some kind of
protected storage for projects (for everybody). Rayc enthusiasm is
awesome and positive, and he takes action. Nb could use more of that
kind of energy, and less of people saying why nb is great in theory,
even tho it's not in reality. Thank you Rayc for actually DOING
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss