[hackerspaces] Leadership abusing powers. Bullying. Extraordinary General Meetings.
peter
phm at riseup.net
Mon Feb 23 05:36:43 CET 2015
On 22/02/15 04:11, justin corwin wrote:
> Look, Peter, this is a great example of the larger issue I feel is at
> play here. I'm gonna belabor the point a little, and I apologize for
> that, but it seems necessary for clarity.
>
> The initial "it" thing is fairly innocuous. In fact, it's not entirely
> clear you even were referring to a person as an "it" or to the
> cleaning service, independent of any person. I'll admit the initial
> objection seemed nitpicky to me, an unproductive jab. Who cares about
> you maybe using an impersonal reference for a person? But then you dig
> your heels in and spend ages arguing with anyone who posts in that
> thread in an escalating attempt to be "right".
>
> Someone later makes the fairly bland assertion that you should use the
> pronouns that people prefer, out of basic respect for others. Fine,
> not even applicable, since you haven't talked to the cleaner
> personally(I assume)! But you feel compelled to object even to that,
> claiming you don't have time to keep track of people's pronouns or ask
> for them.
>
> And then this quote. In which you say you're going to ignore the
> request not to use "it" for people, because you think it's
> funny(presumably it's funny because it upsets people?). Anyone who
> doesn't or is personally offended is required to come to you and be
> shown just how superior your sense of humor is to theirs. And if they
> can somehow prove to you it isn't funny to them, regardless of your no
> doubt amazing explanation, you'll stop. you promise.
>
errr. no. But not time to explain this right now.
> First of all, this is all amazingly disingenuous. I in now And even if
> it were all sincere, you're essentially saying that things that are
> funny to you are more important than respecting others requests.
>
> But more importantly, it's all so unnecessary. Why were you still
> arguing about this in the first place, three emails later? It's such a
> pointless argument about a tiny objection that can't possibly have
> been something you cared that much about. If you had just said "sure
> fine whatever", the whole issue goes away. And I see that pattern
> happening over and over again, both in the LHS threads, and even here
> now. There are people in the LHS thread complaining that when they ask
> you to stop contacting them, they get more messages instead.
>
I like philosophy/logic/reasoning/rhetoric/critical thinking. I think
it's good to practise these skills, and fun to do in it's own right.
If they don't, why did they keep replying?
They did not ask me to stop contacting them. If they didn't reply to me,
I wouldn't have replied back! (duh)
> So I don't think it's anything in particular. It's not the actions, or
> a specific email. It's that you have a pattern, and so they've become
> unwilling to extend you the benefit of the doubt. Everything is
> interpreted as negatively as possible, because you never ever back off
> or compromise. I'm willing to bet that's what they're talking about
> IRL as well. You probably got some people who felt trapped in a
> conversation because you refused to shut up, and ignored every obvious
> sign they wanted the interaction to be over.
haha. Yes. that's why they kept replying! They were trapped because I
kept mistaking them wanting the last word for them wanted to continue
the conversation!
BTW: A few people did say 'please don't talk to me' and so I didn't. No
problem.
>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:06 PM, peter <phm at riseup.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org>
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> Justin Corwin
> outlawpoet at gmail.com <mailto:outlawpoet at gmail.com>
> http://programmaticconquest.tumblr.com
> http://outlawpoet.tumblr.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150223/5652c9c1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list