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

Mon Feb 23 09:44:55 CET 2015

So, you claim this person from the banning thread is lying?

Dan <toxyntheco... at gmail.com>:
> "I'd suggest anyone receiving this just adds his address to spam
> filtering and don't reply. I made the mistake of requesting that he doesn't
> contact me again, resulting in me being bombarded by increasingly creepy
> messages - including demands for my skype details, that I go out for a
> coffee with him a d asking if we can become friends..."

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 8:36 PM, peter <phm at riseup.net> wrote:

>
> 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> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
>  Justin Corwin
> outlawpoet at gmail.com
> http://programmaticconquest.tumblr.com
> http://outlawpoet.tumblr.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing listDiscuss at lists.hackerspaces.orghttp://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>

-- 
Justin Corwin
outlawpoet at gmail.com
http://programmaticconquest.tumblr.com
http://outlawpoet.tumblr.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150223/43902cd5/attachment.html>