[hackerspaces] Leadership abusing powers. Bullying. Extraordinary General Meetings.

[Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen]

Isn't it rewarded in these communities to not promote gender-normative
behaviors?

But really the first issue you raise is a long-standing error in
modern psychology which is trying to set itself as a true science in
the same vein as physics.   In that view, you're never supposed to
raise your voice because you've "mastered your [irrational] emotions".
In that view, they'd medicate the Jews for screaming in gas chambers.
It's a type of psychosis that the Establishment has not recognized.

Marxos

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:06 PM, peter <phm at riseup.net> wrote:
>
> On 21/02/15 01:22, Brendan Halliday wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> The tone you took combined with your cherrypicked examples of your
> interpretation of 'good' behaviour set several red flags.
>
> I've been helping out and organising at many community organisations over
> the years and it's been a constant that the members that are the most toxic
> and most dangerous to the community are the ones who:
> 1. Must always have the last word. Always.
> 2. Disagree with the stated (or sometimes poorly communicated) expected
> conduct of the group
> 3. Generally agitate for their own goals (which usually do not match up with
> the organisations') while attempting to remain buddies with the rest of the
> membership.
>
> So I spent less than a minute reading your links and came across this:
>> /On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 10:23:53 AM UTC, Peter Meadows wrote:/
>>
>>     /I don't have time to go around asking everyone which pronouns they
>>     prefer!
>>
>>     I think it's funny to call people 'it'. If it upsets them, it can come
>>     and talk to me and I'll try to help it develop a sense of humour. (and
>>     if it really can't do this, I'll stop calling it 'it' in public). /
>
>
> What's wrong with this? I said that my first preference would be to try and
> explain the humour, and that it's not nasty. And if that could not be done,
> I would stop doing it.
>
>
> To me, the links you have provided have indicated that the LHS executive
> have acted very clearly and with considerable cohesion on this matter. It's
> also clear that they are familiar with the Geek Social Fallacies and do not
> wish them to rule their space.
>
> From all indications you have provided, I can't see any actions as bullying
> or seeming to be motivated by hidden reasons.
>
> If anything, you should move on and perhaps re-evaluate how you handle
> social interactions - because if you're not the unconstructive member that
> you're portraying, then you need to work on communicating it clearer.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>