[Noisebridge-discuss] misogynist loser visiting noisebridge

Johny Radio 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.

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 
for them!

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, 
location, 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 
my projects.

>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 mailing list