[Noisebridge-discuss] that's all folks
dannydsml at gmail.com
Tue May 13 21:22:51 UTC 2014
Yes let's marginalize those already marginalized even more because who the
fuck has time to help those bums right? Noisebridge could of been a great
place for relearning and finding value in all people who wanted to be there
but instead it became a house of have and have not with the haves snorting
down their noses. Not one of those who feels they have the right to the
place ever looked to help others who came there at first because they felt
excited to be accepted and to find a way to earn and change the world they
lived in only to come to realize they weren't wanted. Many of them felt
they had been lied to and in a way Noisebridge is one big lie about
changing the world and what it really has become is a place of self
congratulatory patting on the backs while reinventing the wheel again. Even
though I haven't been there in a year I've been following the posts and
reading about what's happening and from what I've seen it's gotten even
worse. We are doomed because every effort to make changes turns into some
petty fight for exclusive rights to have a say in what goes on.
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Josh Juran <jjuran at gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I truly believe that the space began to seriously unravel when the
> community erected associate membership rules, access policies and
> bureaucratic harassment doctrines as a substitute for true excellence.
> > Me too.
> I would have disagreed if instead of "when" you'd written "because".
> Associate membership, members' hours, and even the entry keypad were
> reactions to Noisebridge being occupied by people whose presence materially
> reduced its utility and subjectively but palpably detracted from its
> ambiance. I suspect that, if we had attempted no corrective action, the
> space would have begun to unravel in any case. I'm asserting that the
> access policies were not the cause of the unraveling, but an effect of it.
> I think our biggest fault lay in failing to respond promptly and
> decisively. Instead of unifying as a community to face an unprecedented
> threat, we lapsed into bickering and infighting. I don't see the
> disagreements as being interpersonal so much as between competing
> ideologies, e.g. lock-down-the-space pragmatism vs.
> locks-only-encourage-breakins idealism. Although passive-aggressive
> vigilante sabotage masquerading as do-ocracy didn't do us any favors.
> There's no going back. Noisebridge needs to say who and what it is now,
> in a way that communicates to the people who will be a part of it.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss