[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight
setient at gmail.com
Wed Feb 26 03:29:41 UTC 2014
On Feb 25, 2014 7:23 PM, "Jim Gleason" <jim at opiate.org> wrote:
> Perhaps, instead of constantly reacting to these kind of issues, by
> delving into the minutia of who harassed who and what degree that
> harassment reached, one might want to consider a step back for a moment and
> truly examine whether your ideas actually fit with the concept of what you
> believe Noisebridge is all about. After that's squared away you need to
> take a look at what other people believe Noisebridge is all about.
> Perhaps you will find that what you thought was what you wanted really
> doesn't fit in with what the majority of the other members and the
> community at large want (and continue to shape and mold into a physical
> representation of those thoughts and beliefs).
> there is neither shame or blame should you find that your ideas just
> really don't fit. Shit happens, and just because your wants and beliefs no
> longer seem to fit doesn't make you, or noisebridge evil, bad, wrong, or
> right.....it simply means that its not the right fit. And perhaps you
> should stop trying to jam a round peg through a square hole.
> Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
> But, goodness is fragile. Moreover, exclusion is not the answer for our
> problems. Inquisitions to rid ourselves of alternatives forecloses
> opportunity for us all.
> And movements fail. . . .
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss