[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Re: anti-anonymity proposals
jim
jim at well.com
Tue Nov 19 18:37:37 UTC 2013
Certainly. I agree.
On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 09:54 -0800, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:
> I'd rather that anyone who is going to be dismissive of my concerns
> call me The Rachel Who Shall Not Be Named, TRWSNBN for short, rather
> than a cozy little insider nickname. I am not part of your Noisebridge
> anymore, jim, and so it does not make sense for you to number me
> within its system.
>
> On Nov 18, 2013 3:29 PM, "jim" <jim at well.com> wrote:
>
> My recollection is that Rachel Hospodar
> has referred to herself as Rachel 2.0. If
> I'm mistaken, I apologize if that's what
> she wants.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 15:05 -0800, Rachel McConnell wrote:
> > <headdesk/>
> >
> > Jim, just because I call myself Rachel1.0, does NOT MEAN
> Rachel Hospodar
> > is Rachel 2.0! She gets to decide herself what she wants to
> be called.
> > Jeez.
> >
> > On 11/18/13 1:26 PM, jim wrote:
> > >
> > > Rachel 2.0 is correct. I have dismissed her.
> > > I stand by my claim that she seems to have no
> > > idea what I've said, and because of my feeling
> > > I believe there is no point for me to engage
> > > discussion. It seems to me she is not open to
> > > my wrong thoughts or my right ones.
> > >
> > > As to that I replied to her privately, I
> > > prefaced my reply explaining that I did not
> > > want to burden the list: my wish to terminate
> > > discussion with her had no bearing on the
> > > other discussions in the thread.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 12:56 -0800, rachel lyra hospodar
> wrote:
> > >> Here is an example of jim being dismissive on this
> thread. He sent it
> > >> to me privately and I was ignoring it. Full email incl
> below.
> > >>
> > >>> It seems to me that you have no idea what I've said.
> This is my last
> > >> reply to you.
> > >>
> > >> I have done my best to read his emails and articulate why
> my ideas are
> > >> so different than his, why his very words were so wildly
> > >> inappropriate. Given that Jim has previously hired me for
> work,
> > >> invited me to his house, and subsequently been a
> reluctant part of a
> > >> public discussion with me about Bad Touch And Respecting
> Boundaries, I
> > >> was perhaps expecting my viewpoint to be relevant.
> > >>
> > >> The problem i see is that jim believes he is being
> misunderstood, when
> > >> in fact he is often being understood very well. I think
> he is
> > >> conflating his intention with his language and with his
> impact. They
> > >> are three very separate things. I repeatedly see him
> writing that he
> > >> is being misunderstood, and repeatedly read in his
> writing that he
> > >> believes others are overreacting and ignoring what he is
> writing.
> > >>
> > >> I think that many people have a cognitive block around
> accepting that
> > >> the impact of their words or actions was very different
> than intended,
> > >> or that their stated intention is often directly
> contravened by their
> > >> words and actions.
> > >>
> > >> Without the willingness to admit one's own need to
> change, there is no
> > >> real way to engage with people who have a problem with
> your behavior.
> > >>
> > >> R.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >> From: "jim" <jim at systemateka.com>
> > >> Date: Nov 16, 2013 3:48 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity
> proposals
> > >> To: "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com>
> > >> Cc:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> (replying personally so's not to burden
> > >>> the list)
> > >>>
> > >>> It seems to me that you have no idea of what
> > >>> I've said. This is my last reply to you.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 14:42 -0800, rachel lyra hospodar
> wrote:
> > >>>> Responses Inline. God save us all.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Nov 15, 2013 8:36 PM, "jim" <jim at systemateka.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> There are so many problems with what you
> > >>>>>> have written that I honestly believe you need to hire
> someone
> > >> to
> > >>>> help
> > >>>>>> you grok what the fuck.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I continue to believe you would benefit from seeking
> professional
> > >> help
> > >>>> on this matter.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> strong community. My view is that people have run
> > >>>>> to the community prematurely, to their own detriment.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Have you thought to try, instead of defending your
> opinions, to
> > >> query
> > >>>> & seek to understand why people have felt that it is
> best to act
> > >> this
> > >>>> way?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I came to Noisebridge and found a huge community of
> > >> technically
> > >>>>>> engaged wonderful hacker friends who bent over
> backwards to
> > >> teach
> > >>>> me
> > >>>>>> how to work in hardware, with zero social
> expectations or
> > >>>> assholery.
> > >>>>> JS: me, too.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> That place is gone.
> > >>>>> JS: I'm not sure, there are lots of very fine
> > >>>>> people still at noisebridge.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I AM quite sure, thankyouverymuch, because the
> experiences I have
> > >> had
> > >>>> at Noisebridge over the last 2 years are so wildly
> different than
> > >> the
> > >>>> previous two. Perhaps if instead of dismissing this
> point of view
> > >> you
> > >>>> were to examine it and seek to understand why someone
> might hold
> > >> it,
> > >>>> you would be able to become less confused about why
> people are
> > >>>> FREAKING THE FUCK OUT about things like BEING GRABBED
> OR
> > >> ASSAULTED.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> Perhaps 2169 will continue but a community where the
> old hands
> > >>>> present
> > >>>>>> think assault should be dealt with in isolation,
> > >>>>> JS: assault should not be dealt with in isolation.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> and the old hands absent feel entitled to weigh in
> against
> > >> reform
> > >>>>>> measures aimed at REDUCING INCIDENCES OF ASSAULT
> without
> > >>>> constructive
> > >>>>>> input, is no place I want to support.
> > >>>>> JS: I'm against formality in general; I'm for
> > >>>>> collaboration, affection, acceptance, mutual
> > >>>>> support; I think having policies is a dangerous
> > >>>>> practice, partly because the fact of the policy
> > >>>>> substitutes for understanding and action
> > >>>>> appropriate to situations, partly because the
> > >>>>> policy may, unfortunately, be seen as a
> > >>>>> substitute for one's own action and one's own
> > >>>>> sense of self-worth.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Instead of undermining the efforts of people seeking to
> SECURE
> > >> THEIR
> > >>>> PERSONAL SAFETY you could try to work towards building
> the kind of
> > >>>> understanding you say should be used instead of
> policies... then
> > >>>> perhaps there wouldn't be so many people seeking to
> establish
> > >>>> policies.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> R.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> R.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Nov 15, 2013 2:29 PM, "Snail"
> <snailtsunami at gmail.com>
> > >> 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??
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> And that people should just punch people or
> deal with
> > >> it
> > >>>> on
> > >>>>>> their own? Is this really what you're
> suggesting?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 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!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 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 being! Don't let what
> Jim says
> > >>>> dissuade
> > >>>>>> you from reporting harassment or assault or
> pointing
> > >> out
> > >>>>>> creepers! 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 - 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,
> 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
> > >>>>>> everyone.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Also, women really appreciate being called
> women and
> > >> not
> > >>>>>> "females". Do you go around saying "the
> males" when
> > >>>> referring
> > >>>>>> to men? Probably not.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Angry forever,
> > >>>>>> Snail
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> -Snailssnailssnailssnailssnailssnailssnails
> > >>>>>> ............. _ at y
> > >>>>>> http://obamaischeckingyouremail.tumblr.com/
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > >>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > >>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > >
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list