[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
rachel at xtreme.com
Mon Nov 18 19:22:30 UTC 2013
Jim, this makes a lot more sense to me. I don't totally agree with all
of it still but I appreciate this more nuanced understanding of your
position. I think the major sticking point for me was the "don't look
to the community for support", which you have clarified here.
I just posted a link to an article that is super articulate, in my
opinion, as to why I disagree with the concept of an "individual
incident". When you are ready to think about this again, I hope you
decide to read it.
Everyone else, please read it. Here it is again:
On 11/17/13 10:36 AM, jim wrote:
> I apologize to those who use the NB discuss list;
> I am truly sorry to have started this combat that
> has clogged the use of the list.
> [You think I'm bad, hang me: I deserve it; but do
> so for the right reasons.]
> ORIGINAL TEXT
> As to females being harassed, # 1. already stupid
> for cases of crude coppings of feels, # and reckless
> I dislike taht female turning to the # 2. opinion
> community for support; # 3. mis-statement
> I would eagerly defend any female # 4. support
> who hauled off and slugged whoever # 5. no suggestion
> copped a feel
> or to go get some friends and return # 6. seek out others
> to verbally educate the offender:
> it's dis-empowering to perceive one's # 7. I mean this
> self as a victim
> and turn to a community for support # 8. mis-statement,
> for what is an individual incident. # I meant asuthority
> There will be no way fully to # 9. I think time will
> suppress such actions taken # bear this out
> Intended message:
> Do not tolerate harassment of any kind! Fight back!
> Seek out support! Avoid feelings of fear!
> Avoid The Tuesday Night Meeting!
> 1. Stupid, stupid, foolish, and reckless me. I dashed
> this off in a pique, chose a lurid example, did not
> qualify the example, and--knowing this would cause a
> s-storm--I clicked the Send button. I'd had a quick
> feel in a crowd in mind as an example. Stupid me. I
> did not know the depth to which the topic resonated.
> I am very sorry to have bombed the list. [A]
> 2. I am not dictating anything to anyone. I'm stating
> my opinion.
> 3. Sorry for this choice of words: I meant "do not
> turn to The Tuesday Night Meeting." [B]
> 4. Fight back! (But beware escalating violence, per
> Hannah's warning re someone pulling a knife.) [C]
> 5. I do not recommend hitting or escalating
> violence. Violence is stupid. But fighting back
> is right! Do not tolerate harassment.
> 6. Seek out others. Do not isolate yourself.
> 7. Do not let fear or discouragement enter your
> feelings! Those are toxic for your own sense of
> 8. Avoid authority. Using such structures is
> dis-empowering and a haven for betrayal, despite
> any good founding intentions. [D]
> 9. I'm guessing some time in 2014 there'll be
> another instance.
> [A] I am out of touch with the evening NB crowd,
> and that's where most discussions occur.
> Insensitive? Probably, but I do not want
> harassment issues in my life: they're awful and
> disruptive. I don't want to put out fires, either.
> I'm for kindness and patience.
> [B] The Tuesday Night Meeting was established
> as a convening ground for people to bring issues
> for discussion and to allow consensus to protect
> individuals from the tyranny of the majority.
> I believe that NB has gradually changed the
> perception of The Tuesday Night Meeting and its
> denizens to a structure for bringing governing
> authority to the general community, and I think
> this is bad! We had one rule: be excellent to
> each other. There's wisdom in that, including
> the fact of only one rule.
> I think some are seeking to establish
> authority in order to facilitate addressing
> problems, and I think that's poisonous.
> [C] I've presented my foolish scenario in
> conversation to two different women, neither
> of whom gave me any but positive feedback.
> Of course, they were not part of NB
> history, and I had explained the limits of the
> scenario. One did double-take to ask me what
> I meant with respect to the hit back part.
> [D] Those who've responded to me have done
> right! Good for you, despite your inaccuracies!
> You've attacked me like white corpuscles
> surround a germ. I'd rather face a lynch mob
> than a hanging judge. Fight back is right!
> I've avoided The Tuesday Night Meetings
> not so much because they're tedious as because
> they have been too late at night. These days
> there seems a horrid authoritarian component.
> I deserve what I've gotten; I was stupid
> and careless and inconsiderate.
> I believe I have read and thought about
> your responses.
> I'm sick of all this as well as you. I
> fear that I've lost the good will of a couple
> of people for whom I care.
> I do not think I've tried to squirm out of
> my positions (I have certainly changed my mind
> in some respects, thanks to responses).
> If you think I need further scolding or
> education, have at: I will read and think. Do
> not misquote me or misconstrue my meanings.
> On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 17:33 -0800, Rachel McConnell wrote:
>> Jim, you are wrong. Others have explained why in awesome ways so I
>> won't restate how; I will just note, they are right and you are wrong.
>> I really hope you think hard about what they've said and not dismiss it
>> because you are older and have more Life Experience - your Life
>> Experience does not include anything like what women at NB have
>> experienced and is, in this case, effectively nil.
>> On 11/15/13 8:24 PM, jim wrote:
>>> JS: my replies interspersed below
>>> On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 14:29 -0800, Snail wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:13 AM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:
>>>> As to females being harassed, for cases of
>>>> crude coppings of feels, I dislike taht female
>>>> turning to the community for support; I would
>>>> eagerly defend any female who hauled off and
>>>> slugged whoever copped a feel or to go get some
>>>> friends and return to verbally educate the
>>>> offender: it's dis-empowering to perceive one's
>>>> self as a victim and turn to a community for
>>>> support for what is an individual incident.
>>>> Whoa - whoa whoa whoa - whoaaaaa...
>>>> Time out - did you really just say that women who get groped ("cases
>>>> of crude coppings of feels") should not ask the community to help them
>>>> out? And you believe that it's disempowering somehow??
>>> JS: You've got it correctly. That is my belief. To
>>> run to a community (in the formal sense) is weakening.
>>> To run to other people who are supportive is good
>>> and strengthening. I.e., having a No Harassment
>>> policy is toxic.
>>>> And that people should just punch people or deal with it on their own?
>>>> Is this really what you're suggesting?
>>> JS: No, my meaning is that I will eagerly defend (support)
>>> anyone (for the example, female) who slugged another who
>>> had behaved egregiously and physically.
>>>> There will be no way fully to suppress such
>>>> actions taken by horney and inconsiderate
>>>> personages, policies and rules and committee
>>>> resolutions aside (far, far aside, I hope).
>>>> I can't even. Here's a good way to suppress the actions of "horney" or
>>>> inconsiderate people: never let them back in Noisebridge because
>>>> that's a terrible excuse for their actions!
>>> JS: I probably don't agree, but it's a case-by-case
>>> issue. It seems best to educate and accept and invite,
>>> as a general rule. Certainly there are some who are
>>> too disruptive to have around, but case by case....
>>>> Please ask yourself if you are prone to
>>>> express yourself when you believe you have the
>>>> "high ground" and can properly scold others. I.e.,
>>>> are you living too much with anger?
>>>> With the rage of a thousand burning stars.
>>>> TO EVERYONE ELSE READING THIS - There are lots of people in the
>>>> community at large who will help you out if someone is creeping on you
>>>> or worse, whether you are "taht females" or just a plain ol' human
>>> Exactly right!
>>>> Don't let what Jim says dissuade you from reporting harassment or
>>>> assault or pointing out creepers!
>>> "Reporting" sucks and is toxic. Deal with it yourself,
>>> you and others who support you, but not the community
>>> as the term is used--do not bring a single incident up
>>> at meetings or report it to some harassment nazis; do
>>> ask others for help and do confront the inconsiderate
>>> one, regardless of the particular action.
>>>> This is not an opinion everyone here carries.
>>>> Please don't ever feel like it's your fault or that you're required to
>>>> punch people -
>>> no one recommended punching, you'll note. I will
>>> gladly defend those who defend themselves.
>>>> it's a valid and rational response to remove yourself from a dangerous
>>>> situation and try to sort things out later from a safe place rather
>>>> than confront your harasser/assaulter.
>>>> If someone is creeping on you, they are pretty much always creeping on
>>>> OTHERS, too,
>>> The above is presumptive and not necessarily true.
>>>> so you are not alone or stuck in some isolated personal incident! And
>>>> as a community we can try to make Noisebridge a safer place for
>>> absolutely right!
>>>> Also, women really appreciate being called women and not "females". Do
>>>> you go around saying "the males" when referring to men? Probably not.
>>> My first preferences are "boys" and "girls", then "guys"
>>> and "gals" and "males" and "females". I dislike the terms
>>> "men" and "women" because I think those terms bring along
>>> a lot of toxic baggage.
>>>> Angry forever,
>>> too bad; try to change that so you don't grow up to be bitter.
>>>> ............. _ at y
>>> 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