[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
jim
jim at systemateka.com
Sat Nov 16 05:04:29 UTC 2013
JS: my replies interspersed below:
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 21:09 -0500, Ceren Ercen wrote:
> For the record, THIS is what "social awkwardness" looks like. Not
> cutesy "gosh I don't know how to talk about anything but tech" feet
> shuffling, but "well I'm gonna come up with a theory that you're just
> making victim of yourself if you complain about harassment to the
> community, instead of dealing with it alone..... perhaps you should
> tell me about your experiences, but tsk, you shouldn't be so angry,
> it's not good for you women to be angry."
JS: you can't be replying to what I wrote. I think
someone assaulting or otherwise intruding unwantedly
justifies anger.
> Jim, you're gunning for title of most stunningly socially oblivious
> person in the space, as the responses here might finally illustrate to
> you.
JS: I certainly have some difficulties with
social relations. I'm certainly to awkward
and more isolated than optimally. On the
other hand, I have periods when I hate
everybody and everything and want to be
alone and wish I had not been born, at
least not to such a lonely planet.
> You might want to take some time to stop pulling social theories out
> of your ass, and educate yourself.
JS: I have no idea what theories you mean.
I believe that people should take power for
themselves, but that's not a theory.
> Most of the time people ignore what you say in emails on social
> topics, this one was just way over the line, but that's probably
> surprised you.
JS: interesting. Some people have applauded my
emails. No, I'm not surprised that some people
have reacted as they have. I do think that
their responses do not reflect what I wrote,
let alone what I meant.
> You always seem so incredulous and confused when people talk about
> harassment....
JS: also interesting. I don't feel incredulous or
confused. I try to write clearly. I certainly
disagree with some premises of people on the NB list.
> I'll point out that back on Weise St, I asserted that a less In-Crowd
> member was uncomfortable with the hair-touching issue we had, and a
> new person faces a much higher barrier to assert "back off" warnings
> and personal space barriers, let alone reach out for help in
> discouraging the harassing party... and one of our own "founders"
> laughed it off with "well, maybe we don't need that kind of
> thin-skinned person here".
JS: there's merit on both sides. The less In-Crowd
member (I'm one of those, too) certainly deserves
and needs support. The community is stronger in
proportion to the strength of its members. Nobody
is perfect or super.... In general, I'm opposed to
the founder's point of view.
> This kind of "lol harden the fuck up" attitude is not always
> necessary, and it always screws over the new people, and the socially
> disadvantaged.
JS: I agree.
> I suspect it also poisoned the well against having a healthier
> harassment-handling culture right from the beginning.
JS: I agree with this, too, but I bet I disagree
strongly with your and others' ideas of what is
a healthy harassment culture.
>
> - Ceren E.
> (oh hey more starter fluid, WHEE)
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Jeffrey Carl Faden
> <jeffreyatw at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just thought I'd throw in my two cents and say that this sort
> of incorrectness in regards to correctly dealing with
> harassment is what fuels my ennui toward Noisebridge. The idea
> that individual incidents have no bearing on how the community
> should conduct itself is quite off-base.
>
> One of the reasons I teach my class is because I want to
> attract new people to Noisebridge (which distresses me since
> so many new students have been asking me to how to find
> members to allow them to remain in the space). I'd wager that
> half of my new students are fe^H^Hwomen, and if I can't
> guarantee that a support system will be in place for them when
> they're on their own, then I can't see why I continue teaching
> at Noisebridge in the first place.
>
> On a positive note, I am happy to see that no one has recently
> provided any pull requests for Noisebridge's anti-harassment
> policy. That must mean that we're okay with it and that it
> will continue to be upheld without incident.
>
> Jeffrey
>
> On Nov 15, 2013, at 11:13 AM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your directness. I have
> > taken time to write directly to your comments.
> >
> > I cannot see how wanting to protect tools,
> > mine or yours or those donated to Noisebridge,
> > is a bad thing; seems good to me, even
> > necessary for us all to use the space well.
> > (We have not discontinued the build-out
> > phase, so we should still be following the
> > conventions we established until we finish
> > the build-out; my guess is that no one has
> > given any thought to this; I believe we
> > should still be in build-out phase, as
> > there are many things that should be done.)
> >
> > Attendance at meetings has explicitly
> > been noted as unessential for participation:
> > people are different, with different
> > schedules and needs, and for some attendance
> > is difficult.
> > I'm one; the primary reason for my lack
> > of attendance is my need for sleep; 8 PM
> > might seem early to most people, but for me
> > it's late.
> >
> > Generally, I do not mind transients: some
> > I like, and a few I like a lot; they're
> > people, after all.
> > Thieves I dislike; drunks and hop-heads I
> > dislike a lot.
> >
> > As to harassment issues, transients have
> > suffered harassment, and I have tried to defend
> > them. Some people have been perceived as
> > non-hackers and so harassed; and them, too,
> > I've tried to defend.
> > 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.
> > 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).
> > There are other forms of female harassment
> > that are subtler: I'd like to understand the
> > specifics, because I'm much in favor of having
> > all kinds of people able to breath the same air
> > (including seeming non-hackers, homeless,
> > females, those of alternate sexual orientations,
> > old, very young, every kind of background...).
> >
> > 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?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 13:16 -0500, Ceren Ercen wrote:
> >> In This Thread:
> >>
> >>
> >> a bunch of people who don't attend meetings and don't give
> a shit
> >> about (or aren't personally affected by) the problem bitch
> about
> >> attempts to address it.
> >>
> >>
> >> (potentially flawed attempted, but uh, ATTEMPTS. you know,
> the thing
> >> where you do the work, take the criticism, and go to all
> the meetings,
> >> and write out the proposals.)
> >>
> >>
> >> None of you even halfway tried to parse that this shouldn't
> affect
> >> pseudo-anonymous membership, you just started moaning.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jim, you're particularly anti-constructive when you're not
> personally
> >> affected. The only time you give half a crap about
> transients is when
> >> they steal tools. I think I remember you trying to make a
> policy about
> >> a mini room becoming a locked supply closet for only your
> electrician
> >> stuff, when you were concerned about it. But dealing with
> serious
> >> harassment issues? They don't exist to you, you're just
> >> mister-sit-in-the-road-and-block.
> >>
> >>
> >> Frantisek, you explicitly broke the rules to sneakily live
> in NB for a
> >> significant amount of time, and then charmed your way
> around censure
> >> and banning. And you've don't feel you've lost any moral
> high-road you
> >> are trying to sling around with "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts"
> of
> >> membership and problematic presences in the space? That's
> ballsy.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - Ceren, uselessly telling people to shut up from across
> the country.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Jacob Appelbaum
> >> <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
> >> Jake:
> >>> I agree with you that members of noisebridge should not
> have
> >> to identify
> >>> themselves online in this way, and I am willing to
> >> proxy-block on your
> >>> behalf and on my own volition as well. Although i suspect
> >> there will be
> >>> plenty of other people to block it without me.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you - please do so on my behalf - we should
> not have a
> >> membership
> >> purge by shitty policy trick. It is awful enough to
> >> effectively remove
> >> anonymity from those in the space, it is even worse
> to force a
> >> status
> >> symbol or affiliation from people.
> >>
> >> All the best,
> >> Jake
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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