[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
jim at systemateka.com
Sun Nov 17 11:00:42 UTC 2013
On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 17:33 -0800, Rachel McConnell wrote:
> Jim, you are wrong. Others have explained why in awesome ways so I
> won't restate how; I will just note, they are right and you are wrong.
Okay, here's a bit of a case study. Please
glance through and let me know what seems
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
JS: not at all helpful, inaccurate by my recollection
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??
JS: VALID. I guess it kind of reads that way; certainly
not what I was trying to depict (a quick brush-by in a
crowded subway station or similar). I've rescinded the
interpretation in previous emails.
And that people should just punch people or deal with it on their own?
Is this really what you're suggesting?
JS: ABSOLUTELY NOT, NEVER SUGGESTED THIS.
Jim, you ... I don't even. 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. Because the amount of education you need about what
the experiences of others are like, about what a 'community' might BE or
BE FOR or WHO might want to use it FOR WHAT or HOW.... and the idea
that you could tell someone else not to talk to the community so THEY
don't feel disempowered is deeply structurally flawed.... that I just
JS: incoherent, not to the point; I sympathize given
the shock of reading what I wrote, but hardly awesome.
Perhaps 2169 will continue but a community where the old hands present
think assault should 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: VALID to some degree, original can be so interpreted,
I'm very sorry to admit (and have previously in this thread).
ISOLATION WAS NOT INTENDED, as I've written previously.
from Danny O:
On the planet I live on, my friends *are* my community, and violence
of any kind within that community is unacceptable to me. The whole
*point* is to be able to turn to the community as a whole, so that
people who are otherwise diminished in power can expect the support of
JS: VALID. I believe I've previously so acknowledged.
Again, I did not intend to promote violence, clearly,
and (pretty unclearly) did not wish to promote isolation,
as I've previously written.
anybody else wanting to point out how recent policies seem to actually
target houseless people and recent victims of sexual harassment which
had in most cases been perpetrated by known, well-liked and generally
moneyed individuals? because there's some weird conflations going on in
the list that don't match the experiences of people i've spoken to in
person over the last couple of months who are being essentially muscled
out of the space for "making people uncomfortable" by bringing up sexual
harassment and assault and by confronting perpetrators.
JS: Can't see how this applies to what I wrote.
+1 +9000 <CR> wtf, jim?!
JS: light on specifics, but I see the alarm.
from Jeffrey CF:
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
JS: VALID first part but only vaguely applies to my writing;
I never wrote nor intended that individual incidents have no
bearing on ...the community.... There's no reason to think that
I think this.
from Danny O:
Well, respondingly seriously to this -- I think there's a *lot* of
narratives going on,
JS: a thoughtful posting
Jim: what the fuck?
I would like you to pause and think on a few things for a moment.
First, if I am in a position where I am being harassed, confronting my
harasser is not always a safe thing for me to do. Throwing a punch
might get me stabbed. Hell, telling someone to stop catcalling at me
might get me stabbed. Second, I'd like to point out that while
Noisebridge is pretty bad at throwing out harassers (see Danny's
comments above), it's great about kicking out people who have thrown
punches. Fighting back is more likely to get me kicked out of the space
than the person who harassed me. If you claim that it's my
responsibility to be able to defend myself, then the only responsible
course of action is for me to only go to places that are safe...and that
functionally means not coming to NB.
JS: also quite thoughtful; I did acknowledge this as
a good point. Note I never suggested that someone
should haul off and slug, though certainly that idea
can validly be read into what I wrote: "I'll eagerly
Jim, you're gunning for title of most stunningly socially oblivious
person in the space, as the responses here might finally illustrate to
you. You might want to take some time to stop pulling social theories
out of your ass, and educate yourself. 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. You always seem so incredulous
and confused when people talk about harassment....
JS: insulting and inaccurate. My opinion is not a theory.
I don't believe most of the time most people ignore my postings.
No surprise, I knew the s_storm would come.
"...incredulous...confused..." is insulting and inaccurate,
though maybe not to her.
if someone was to punch somebody else in
the face at Noisebridge, I'd throw them out.
JS: sure, and maybe rightly, but I never suggested
that people do that; only that I'd support them
if they defended themselves.
I'll be honest that I cannot really pay attention to what you're writing
because every time I start reading all I hear is, "HUU-MAN FEE-MALES!"
JS: not to the point of what I wrote.
With all the respect I think that you are both Snail and Jim wasting
I continue to believe you would benefit from seeking professional help
on this matter.
JS: what matter?
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?
JS: well, mostly people have expressed alarm without
specifics, though some have misquoted me and some seem
not to have read the acknowledgements I've written. Seems
to me I'm defending against misquotes.
JS: and no, I have not acknowledged the larger more serious
aspects of the issue of sexual harassment, which I never
intended to take on. I kept thinking that people were
writing about the issues I'd intended, which is a mistake
on my part.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that this entire
discussion is a pretty good example of why in 2013 we need a firm,
clear, anti-harassment policy for noisebridge to take the first step for
being a truly safe environment for everyone.
JS: (sigh) OKAY, I don't think that's a good way to go.
it's my opinion.
"Here in November 2013, a man is seriously proposing that women*, many
of whom: may be smaller than many males, non-confrontational for one
reason or another, alone except for their attacker, and/or may possibly
have reasons for not wanting to engage physically with a male who has
just sexually assaulted them, hit their attacker and then silence
themselves from any community support, over an issue that will often be
called into question repeatedly as to a) whether it happened b) whether
it was "enough" to warrent a response, and c) whether the victim merely
"misinterpreted" what happened to their own body."
JS: NO, I did not propose such. As close as one can come
is to claim I don't like the pattern of running to The
Tuesday Night Meeting because I favor taking immediate
local action, but I again confess that I was egregiously
unclear and foolish in my choice of example.
...and so on...
Where are the awesome responses that will help my
understanding of whatever the matter is that you
intend to discuss (obviously my intended discussion
points were badly muddied and unclear, in that,
mea culpa for sure).
harassment is bad.
community is good.
The Tuesday Night Meeting is a Stalinist authoritarian
cabal that intends to straight-jacket noisebridge old
I now see what some have been talking about:
> I really hope you think hard about what they've said and not dismiss it
> because you are older and have more Life Experience - your Life
> Experience does not include anything like what women at NB have
> experienced and is, in this case, effectively nil.
> On 11/15/13 8:24 PM, jim wrote:
> > JS: my replies interspersed below
> > On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 14:29 -0800, Snail 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??
> > JS: You've got it correctly. That is my belief. To
> > run to a community (in the formal sense) is weakening.
> > To run to other people who are supportive is good
> > and strengthening. I.e., having a No Harassment
> > policy is toxic.
> >> And that people should just punch people or deal with it on their own?
> >> Is this really what you're suggesting?
> > JS: No, my meaning is that I will eagerly defend (support)
> > anyone (for the example, female) who slugged another who
> > had behaved egregiously and physically.
> >> 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!
> > JS: I probably don't agree, but it's a case-by-case
> > issue. It seems best to educate and accept and invite,
> > as a general rule. Certainly there are some who are
> > too disruptive to have around, but case by case....
> >> 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!
> > Exactly right!
> >> Don't let what Jim says dissuade you from reporting harassment or
> >> assault or pointing out creepers!
> > "Reporting" sucks and is toxic. Deal with it yourself,
> > you and others who support you, but not the community
> > as the term is used--do not bring a single incident up
> > at meetings or report it to some harassment nazis; do
> > ask others for help and do confront the inconsiderate
> > one, regardless of the particular action.
> >> This is not an opinion everyone here carries.
> > right
> >> Please don't ever feel like it's your fault or that you're required to
> >> punch people -
> > no one recommended punching, you'll note. I will
> > gladly defend those who defend themselves.
> >> 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.
> > right!
> >> If someone is creeping on you, they are pretty much always creeping on
> >> OTHERS, too,
> > The above is presumptive and not necessarily true.
> >> 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.
> > absolutely right!
> >> Also, women really appreciate being called women and not "females". Do
> >> you go around saying "the males" when referring to men? Probably not.
> > My first preferences are "boys" and "girls", then "guys"
> > and "gals" and "males" and "females". I dislike the terms
> > "men" and "women" because I think those terms bring along
> > a lot of toxic baggage.
> >> Angry forever,
> > too bad; try to change that so you don't grow up to be bitter.
> >> 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
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss