[Noisebridge-discuss] Trimmed off the board list

rachel lyra hospodar rachelyra at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 23:29:27 UTC 2014

Let's be crystal clear - I am not confused.

I have not confused 'I disagree with you' with anything else.

I am trying to communicate with you that many people hear your stance as
'your disagreements are irrelevant'.

If my tone is valid then yours is too, I see no way around it. I am
scrupulously polite in a precise correlation to whether I find myself in a
space where I feel scrupulously respected.

Perhaps instead of telling me how you do respect me, you might listen to
some advice on how to behave respectfully. I know, I haven't been behaving
perfectly.  It is an attempt to demonstrate to you the precise impact of
your historic behavior of same nature.

We can continue to have a dick jousting contest around whose opinion is
more valid but I have to warn you - i am a cyborg. mine is a strap on that
I researched heavily and had to wade through a great deal of bigotry to
get, so it will probably outlast yours.

Yes, that was a metaphor. No, it was not scrupulously respectful. The fire
metaphor was, but you didn't even respond to it so I am trying different
tactics to Hack You. I want to install this Empathy Module but I can't find
the slot. I'll just leave it on the table here, feel free to ask for
documentation if you decide you want to use it.

On Mar 26, 2014 1:06 PM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:

> It was mostly the "Father Al" cracks. Maybe I should just lighten up
> though, but that and the other stuff kind of stung.
> Just to reassure you Rachel, I am well aware of the bullshit that women
> who speak up have to put up with. I'm not trying to tone police you, but
> when I say your words hurt me I'm telling you how you've made me feel and
> that I take you just as seriously whether or not you are mocking me, so
> please don't go the mocking route.
> Again, I am sincere when I want to hear out people who disagree with me.
> It can be easy to read sarcasm or insincerity into text, so I'm saying that
> as plainly as possible. I am not paying "lip service". I have my own views
> and will probably disagree with you, but I don't want anyone to confuse "I
> disagree with you" with "you can't speak, shut up".
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM, rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> It's mean spirited to say I respect you even though I completely disagree
>> with everything you are doing, and you categorically dismiss all concerns
>> while paying them lip service?
>> It's sarcastic for me to describe things as I see them? How else will we
>> reach an understanding if you do not seek to understand my point of view? I
>> seek to understand yours as well.
>> My research indicates there is no way to discuss difficult topics without
>> seeming to be difficult to someone who disagrees with you. Without using
>> humor it comes off angry, with humor it comes off sarcastic.  This is the
>> abyss at the bottom of Tone Argument Canyon... there is categorically no
>> appropriate way to disagree while female (kind of like driving while black)
>> without being an Obnoxious Strident Person.
>> This is why it is so important to construct decision making systems that
>> accommodate the fact that people disagree, rather than to attempt to create
>> a space where nobody disagrees - I call that an echo chamber.
>> R.
>> On Mar 26, 2014 11:59 AM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Rachel, do you think your mean-spirited sarcasm is inviting to dialog?
>>> Are you interested in having a dialog?
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM, rachel lyra hospodar <
>>> rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I wonder, Al, if you have any thoughts on the ideological tension
>>>> between your statements 'community buy in is key' and 'not everyone will be
>>>> completely satisfied'
>>>> One thing 100 percent consensus neatly solves is taking the
>>>> factionalism out of who gets to have their way. Everyone does, not just
>>>> whoever is in power.
>>>> You are clearly delineating that you are in power here, Al. Is your
>>>> goal to use your power to get your way? From my point of view, that is what
>>>> you are trying to do here. This could be out of ignorance, blindness,
>>>> stubbornness, or a willfull belief that Father Al knows best.
>>>> You'll forgive me for finding the most hope in believing you to be, in
>>>> this case, ignorant and stubborn.... since I sure don't believe in a
>>>> paternalistic approach to life. I don't think Father Al knows best. I do
>>>> respect you for trying, but call me crazy optimistic for hoping for you to
>>>> grow, change.  Maybe you should try putting up signs for meth like you did
>>>> for graffiti... that worked, right?
>>>> I gotta take a break now, kids, I just admitted in public to respecting
>>>> Al.
>>>> R.
>>>> On Mar 26, 2014 11:30 AM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Madelynn and Tom articulated this better last night at the meeting,
>>>>> but I want to reiterate for people just following the list that these
>>>>> changes are not out of nowhere. We have been talking with individuals about
>>>>> how to fix Noisebridge's problems well before the election. Community
>>>>> buy-in is key. I don't want to dismiss the election results out of hand;
>>>>> it's not fair to the members who voted after being told the board would
>>>>> take an active hand at space improvements. This also doesn't mean the board
>>>>> is accountable to no one, but it does mean that not everyone will be
>>>>> completely satisfied with decisions being made (just like any group of
>>>>> people).
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:16 PM, rachel lyra hospodar <
>>>>> rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I would like to apologize, it appears I was mistaken. It seems that
>>>>>> the list was not trimmed, but that discussion of these fundamental changes
>>>>>> did not take place online any place I am able to find, follow, or see, as a
>>>>>> former board member, council member, member member, throbbing gristle
>>>>>> member.
>>>>>> Community buy in for shifts is really key, people. The bigger the
>>>>>> shift the more important this piece of the puzzle is.
>>>>>> It's never too late to work towards consensus.
>>>>>> R.
>>>>>> On Mar 26, 2014 6:08 AM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I think it's interesting that sometime in the last month or so,
>>>>>>> someone has for the first time since i was added in 2010, gone through the
>>>>>>> board email list and trimmed out former board members.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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/20140326/8f69103a/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list