[Noisebridge-discuss] I asked Charles to leave this evening
cjtang1 at asu.edu
Sat Dec 7 14:08:52 UTC 2013
I should just rename you to TomAl
On 7 December 2013 04:01, Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
> I'm seriously annoyed that I'm even in the position that I have to
> disclose this to any and all of you on this dramatic mailing list.
> This all came about because people didn't like an aquarium. If I didn't
> create a wikipage for an aquarium, none of this would have even have
> I could have sat quietly in the corner, watching movies all day long, and
> ate popcorn watching everyone yell at each other at your tuesday meetings.
> Not really meetings--rather shouting fits where no individual gets
> In fact, when people do give a SOILD argument, when rejoinder is pragmatic
> and addresses even concerns such as quad copters falling in an aquarium,
> earthquakes or ladders, we resort to poisoning the well.
> The human condition.
> We don't like Charlie's aquarium idea regardless of how much effort he put
> into the research regarding the hacking if an aquarium.
> Charlie gets support for his fish tank.
> But Charlie is (x), and other individuals who don't like Charlie for (x),
> iterate that Charlie is (x), from a group around (x), exclude Charlie for
> Repeat for any other individual.
> But, I guess that's what this social situation is about, influence right?
> The paradoxical bureaucracy/anarchy space that has been created. The
> pedagogical pigeonhole, and exclusivity you want in your space. All because
> you didn't want an aquarium, which of all things would do me and I think
> the space well.
> Tom, for a feminist, I would think you would not want to exclude
> alternative epistemologies, ways of knowing and understanding, maybe you
> would be open to new ideas. If you think feminism is just about sex or
> gender, then you are very mistaken. It's about including epistemologies,
> different ways of knowing that have been foreclosed by masculine,
> dominating and rule bound frameworks of knowledge.
> That is what you are doing, using rules and bounds to exclude my way of
> knowing, is masculinity. This entire thread IS masculine power politics.
> The political is personal. What I can contribute, what I can bring to the
> table, is being excluded. Then you label my infraction (speech based off of
> my disability), bound it to bureaucracy and demand I justify my being, or
> existence in the space.
> You're reinforcing hegemonic domination on a number of levels. I'd assume
> any feminist scholar would agree.
> *Hooper* *2001*(Charlotte, teacher of Gender politics and IR, lecturer at
> University of West England, Manly States: Masculinities, International
> Relations, and Gender Politics Columbia University Press, New York. p225-6)
> Through the examination of some of the intersections between academic
> discourse and popular culture, *some postmodern scholarship has also been
> shown to resonate with a masculinist discourse of globalization that
> promotes a new, informal, technocratic form of Anglo-American hegemonic
> masculinity*. This is an important point because it undermines some poststructuralist
> claims to be radically undermining the disciplinary power structures of
> modernity. Clearly, a number of *nonfeminist poststructuralists are
> failing to disrupt**, effectively, one of the major disciplinary power
> structures of modernity**—*that of gender difference and *gender
> inequality*. Not only are they in fact failing to challenge the gender
> order, but in the case of contributors such as Der Derian and Virilio, *their
> playfully ironic technolanguage games are **probably actually helping to
> update and reinvigorate an AngloAmerican hegemonic masculinity. What is
> being challenged,* in gender terms*, is not the overall disciplinary
> effect of modern IR discourse, but rather the specific**, arguably
> outdated, models of hegemonic masculinity that inhabit modern perspectives
> within the discipline. This challenge merely perpetuates existing
> masculinist rivalries, albeit with a new twist, and offers continuity with
> modern perspectives in IR**, *rather than the promised radical upheaval.
> This has implications not only for the unequal position of women, but
> also does little to help marginalized groups of men and subordinate
> It is this kind of exclusion of ideas, this kind of framework which binds
> us to capital, binds us to hegemony and forces us to internalize it and
> externalize it in an incredibly oppressive fashion. That is why women are
> Because this compounded technolanguage that binds together a
> socio-political matrix so strong it forces us not only to police the Other
> but police ourselves and pushes us further into masculine dominance. It's
> these utterances and discourses about it.
> It functions as a discourse under the layers of hierarchy, which construct
> the methodologies in which power becomes distributed.
> And it's alive, salient and pervasive at noisebridge.
> Al, for someone who seemed like a pragmatist. I'm unsure why you would
> even engage in the situation to begin with. The sponsor and the individual
> who threatened me and called me a faggot both approached me to deal with
> the situation. I accepted his apology, because people have problems with
> acceptance, and if I didn't accept and I decided to exclude him for it it
> would have reinforced his notions of heternormativity. Beyond that, your
> knowledge base is vacuous to any genealogy as to my experience.
> This is not an area for you to chim in on. You cannot speak for the
> marginalized other. My compliant beyond legitimate, and my reaction has
> been profusely generous given the situation. I respectfully urge you to no
> longer bring up the subject.
> David, all I asked you was what you were working on, because I had a
> genuine interest, and you were not kind to me. I came to the space alone,
> with no one and you and two other individuals where there. No individual
> showed me where anything was, what people were doing or what the space was
> even about. Prima facie, my experience was an unorganized warehouse with
> wifi and grumpy people.
> This is your culture you have here. This is why you all argue during
> I know I am really new here. But, that is NO excuse as to how this social
> situation is functioning.
> Sometimes new eyes are the brightest ones around.
> But, we're all caught up in Oedipus here.
> It's an AQUARIUM
> AND I WILL BUILD IT.
> On 7 December 2013 03:00, Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
>> "I was almost gonna ask him to leave the other day.
>> He was super disruptive and extremely annoying...
>> it felt like he was targeting me with his lack of social skills
>> while I was trying to get work done... writing code.
>> Lack of social skills. Really?
>> I didn't act like a jerk. My syntax, mannerism of speech, and all are indicative of issues pertaining to my disability.
>> Perhaps, instead of telling someone to leave, when they are clearly exhibiting pressured speech, and radical associations. Then telling them they should not come back, you could politely tell the person that their becoming elevated, over-excited, or whatever adj. you would like to use to describe whatever.
>> We don't kick people out for being anti-social, but we can if they become hyper-active.
>> There is a clear discretion problem here. And it stems from the preexisting social circles, and those attributes these individuals commonly share. It's become radically exclusive, albeit masked as an inclusive environment through chains of rules that desperately impact individuals that act or have a disability in a similar fashion as me.
>> On 7 December 2013 02:50, Tom Lowenthal <me at tomlowenthal.com> wrote:
>>> On 7 December 2013 02:11, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I recall Charles also accusing other people of being homophobic towards
>>> > him, when I had seen they said nothing even touching on the topic of
>>> > sexuality: he was just annoying them.
>>> On 7 December 2013 02:21, Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
>>> > Al,
>>> > I have met you once, and I have not done that. This is completely made
>>> Charles, I don't know about your conversations with Al. However, the
>>> first time we spoke, right after I told you that I didn't want to keep
>>> talking with you because I found you annoying and abrasive*, you
>>> response was to ask me if I was instead offended that you were gay.
>>> *I know, right: Tom calling someone annoying and abrasive, that's
>>> rich! When you get the opportunity to meet Charles, you should judge
>>> for yourself.
>>> On 7 December 2013 02:01, Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
>>> > I was called a faggot and physically threatened by another individual
>>> in the
>>> > public space.
>>> I know that I've said this already, but that sort of behavior is
>>> totally unacceptable. I would very much like to hold accountable the
>>> person who acted this way towards you.
>>> >On 7 December 2013 02:01, Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
>>> > Further, due to these triggers, I’ll invoke Title III of the ADA, as
>>> my abilities
>>> > to “function” in a fashion these individuals seek is clearly unduly
>>> > to individuals with a similar disability as to mine:
>>> If you think that Noisebridge has failed to adequately accommodate a
>>> disability of yours, perhaps you might find it more useful to specify
>>> in particular which accommodations your disability requires, and which
>>> we have failed to provide. I suspect that would work better than
>>> simply pasting a selection from the act.
>>> If you think that the ADA prohibits folks from complaining when you
>>> act like a jerk, you are mistaken.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss