[Noisebridge-discuss] Community, FTP, & Problem Solving

rachel lyra hospodar rachelyra at gmail.com
Sat Jun 29 03:21:37 UTC 2013

So you agree that workshops around creeperism are of use to people besides
creepers and those who get creeped on? This would then mean that you
believe they are of use to you, do you believe that?

Cool. One way to help would be to explicitly state this publicly, focusing
away from airing your indignance and focusing instead on using your awesome
powers of community influence. We all influence the people around us, and
by being vocally supportive of an idea you help that idea to succeed.
Making dismissive comments about why an idea won't work influences others
within the community to also categorically dismiss the idea.

So, until you are explicitly vocally supportive of the idea of doing
something constructive and educational around skeeverism, and even maybe
consider participating (or heavens to betsy helping to organize), you
aren't really 'on my side of the issue'. I would also welcome constructive
comments that examine other productive ways to approach the issue, or
constructive dialogue on why the approach in question wouldn't work.

 On Jun 28, 2013 9:42 PM, "Norman" <pryankster at gmail.com> wrote:

>  I didn't mean my note to sound like an attack. I just wanted to set the
> record straight that I am on your side of the issue.
> Norman
> On 6/28/2013 6:32 PM, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:
> Hi norman,
> My assertion is that who needs to go to workshops around creeperism is
> everyone who thinks creeperism should be addressed, because then folks who
> aren't creepers can learn some things about how to help ameliorate the
> problem. The interpretation your second message here reinforces for me is
> one where you seem to believe creepers oughta be educated, and that you
> also believe workshops would be towards that end.  This leaves off any hope
> of educating concerned bystanders (that would, presumably, include you) and
> creating a non-rapey culture.  I am glad if that's not what you mean.
> That's how it reads to me.
> I empathize if you feel that you've been misrepresented. It was not a
> direct quote, but a paraphrase, because my intention was not to convey your
> thoughts. That was what you did, or attempted to (all communication being
> an approximation, after all).
> I wanted to convey the way I read, experienced, and interpreted, what had
> been written.  It is not my goal to misinterpret people. It is something
> that we all do, and hopefully work continually to do less.
> I feel like my argument with you here is the same as my recent one on-list
> with johnny radio. Some things I expect from people who are my allies:
> -accepting my feelings as valid
> -accepting that communication is a two-way street
> -accepting that your responsibility to attempt to communicate your
> feelings accurately is precisely equal to my responsibility to attempt to
> interpret them correctly.
> For me, the logical outcome of these tenets is that, if an ally of mine
> speaks in a way that convinces me they hold a certain belief, then they
> would be concerned, and seek to change the way they are speaking.  For
> others, the logical outcome of being misunderstood seems to be to argue why
> the other person was wrong for not understanding them.  Shrug.
> R.
> On Jun 28, 2013 6:14 PM, "Norman" <pryankster at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think you were trying to quote a comment I made and what you said is
>> NOT what I said. What I said is that my experience has been that the people
>> that need to go to these workshops are the people that don't show up.
>> I did not say that there is no use in having them and didn't say anything
>> about that I "believed that harassment is only the problem of skeevy
>> creepers, and those they creep on." Harassment and assault are a serious
>> problem in our society not just at Noisebridge.
>> If you are going to quote me please be correct and don't put words or
>> motives in my mouth. I am quite capable of doing that myself.
>> Norman
>> On 6/27/2013 5:49 PM, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:
>>> Thank you for caring! I got really sad about someone else's offhanded
>>> comment that if we do any realtime meetups around harrassment issues, there
>>> is no use because the people who need them won't be there...
>>> Which is to say, that person believed that harassment is only the
>>> problem of skeevy creepers, and those they creep on.
>>> I believe it's helpful for anyone who wants to demonstrate that they
>>> retain some humanity to engage with the issue.  I also believe that anyone
>>> who is interested in the problem is qualified to engage with it, and in
>>> fact the entire thrust of hackering is that you don't need anyone's
>>> permission, or to reach an educational benchmark, to begin working.
>>> R.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130628/56f21a7c/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list