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

mindthegoat robert at mindthegoat.plus.com
Mon Feb 23 11:44:04 CET 2015


I'm going to regret this but..... 

"_I see that they get annoyed
when people tell them exactly why they are wrong_." 

This is exactly
the problem, you believe you are right and everyone else needs to be
educated to your way of thinking, however you are a member of a
community where all sorts of people need to work out how to get on with
each other and communicate successfully. The rules for doing this are
defined by the community as a whole and it's up to you to figure them
out and abide by them, the rules are definitely not defined by a single
member who thinks it should be done his way. If you won't do this then
it's clear that this community is not for you and you need to move on
and find a place where you do fit in. 

You are starting to remind me of
Sheldon Cooper in Big Bang Theory, except when Sheldon finds himself in
a social situation he doesn't understand, he actually takes advice from
his friends. If the plot lines had never had him doing this then the
program would not have got past the second series. 


On 23.02.2015
04:15, peter wrote: 

> On 22/02/15 05:40, Red Davies wrote: 
>> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 8:58 PM, peter <phm at riseup.net>
>>> I still don't know what they think I've done wrong.

>> You know what, I believe you. I believe you because the examples
>> quoted paint you in a worse light than the leadership you're
criticizing. If you recognized that then you wouldn't have quoted
those examples.
>> I think this is the root of the impasse. A group
of people say you
>> have a tail. You don't see the tail so you argue
with them about it
>> ad infinitum. In a touch of irony, my guess is
that this is the tail
>> they're referring to. Maybe a group of people
the other side of the
>> world telling you that you have a tail might
make you look again.
> _I see that they get annoyed when people tell
them exactly why they are wrong_.
> lBut I don't think that telling
people clearly and respectfully why they're wrong is a bad thing.
Is that what they think I've done wrong?
> I'm banned cos I said
stuff that they didn't agree with?
>> The thing that jumps out at me
more than anything from the threads you
>> link is that you're
exhausting. That sounds horrible I know so let me
>> try and break it
down. Four things:
>> 0. You are willing to die on every hill.
>> 1.
You're not willing to accept other people's points of view or
>> 2. You don't disengage when people ask you to.
>> 3. You
assume bad faith from others and expect them to consider your
comments with good faith.
>> 0. You're willing to die on every
>> When you're in an organization with a shared space everyone
has to
>> compromise - especially one the size of LHS. Compromise
doesn't mean
>> that someone convinced you of the merit of their
position. Compromise
>> explicitly means that they DIDN'T but you accept
it for the greater
>> good of your community at the expense of your own
interests. You can
>> maintain a position of disagreement and still
compromise by saying
>> something like: "I don't agree but go ahead and
X and I'll do Y.
>> Maybe next time we can work on Z together...".
Community > Self,
>> otherwise why are you there?
> This is not
relevant. I wasn't stopping them from doing anything. There was nothing
to compromise about. If they didn't like my posts, they didn't have to
read them or reply.
> 1. You're not willing to accept other people's
points of view or feelings.
> The world isn't black and white. You
seem to hold to the point that
> there is one> willing to change your
mind on things. The issue is that you seem to crave that everyone has
one opinion (your current one). Wag more, bark less. 
>> I don't know
why you think this. 
>> They didn't make any points that convinced
me that I might be wrong.
>> I change my mind all the time, when
smart people say smart things that had not occurred to me.
ding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px;
> Be a good member of the community. The "it" saga
illustrates this perfectly:
> "I like de-humanising. I think it's a
good thing.I prefer for people
> to call me 'it'."
> I have a friend
who is an MMA fighte> our logic he should be giving the gift of "feeling
alive" to everyone he meets even when they ask him not to. 
>> This is
not what was happening. I was not saying 'I like it, so you should like
it too'.
>> The reason I mentioned that I liked it was to make it
clear that I wasn't doing it nastily.
>> The argument was: I speak
in this way using these ideas and language, and you can speak how you
>> I don't dictate to others which language they should use and how
they should speak.
> "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).
> This is just insane.
> You
explicitly say that if something YOU DO to them UPSETS them then
you'll help them develop the ability to have what you do to them not>
>> No. I was being nice by offering to teach them a different way
of thinking.
>> I didn't have to be nice. I could have just said 'If
you don't like my ideas or how I present them, then don't talk to me'

>> The intellectual merit of whether "it" is a socially appropriate
construct or not is irrelevant at this point. Your respo
> ropriate. A
story: When I was in school I had an amazing friend who I still love
dearly to this day but we lost contact when we went to uni. I finally
found her a few years ago and tried to make contact. When I did she told
me: a. Thank you for your friendship, I love you and I really really
appreciated it. b. School was the hardest part of my 
>> want to
re-introduce our friendship because it will remind me of the painful
memories of that time of my life. I didn't say to her: "I didn't do
anything to you like those other bastards, let's meet up so I can help
show you why you're wrong to feel that way". Sure, there was a part of
me that wanted to (because the rejection feels unjust). No, as an
empathic human being I recognized that fighting that battle would have
caused her upset and pain. I let it go. Telling people that you can
educate them how they should be feeling is arrogance of the first
>> 2. You don't disengage when people ask you to. This is
the biggest one I think. When people don't want to talk about it anymore
then continuing to talk at them about it will just make things worse. If
someone walks away then they don't want to talk about it. If you follow
them to continue it even after they state they don't want to talk about
it that crosses a line. Yes you want to be heard, I get that but if
someone is telling you to stop and you conti
> re talking AT them but
they're not going to hear you. You won't be "heard" because the sound of
who you are at that point will be deafening them. 
> I wasn't forcing
anyone to talk. They kept replying
>> nk, and we're right, and you
must not try to tell us otherwise. now shut up'
>> 3. You assume bad
faith from others and expect them to consider your comments with good
faith. Your opening EMail said this: "I suspect this was done by a
'trustee' as revenge for me suggesting 'doorbot' should not be blaring
out loud music into the space every 5 minutes." The simplest explanation
is that someone looked at the food and dumped it before it would got
moldy. Instead of considering the possibility that someone
> er-zealous
in their cleaning (that's a problem most hackerspaces wish they had!)
you go straight to making two bad faith assertions: a. It was a trustee.
b. It was revenge. Yet on the other hand you expect people to believe
that you're not intentionally trolling when you suggest that people can
come to you for emotional correction. 
> I have good reasons for
suspecting this was the case.
> (I know roughly when it was done. I know
who was in the space at the time. I know who didn't do 
>> cleaning
up the fridge, it's odd that he didn't touch the raw chicken or other
stuff that had been in there for ages.)
>> So it's not a pure guess.

>>>> I feel very confident that I can defend all of my posts. I was not
rude or
>>>> abusive. I was not trolling. They were my genuine thoughts.
They were all
>>>> relevant to the hackspace.
>>> Instead of
defending all your posts perhaps you should re-read them?
>> _I do
this a lot._ That's how I know I can defend everything I've said.
Because I was ver
> h everything I wrote. I was well aware that people
can misunderstand things. 
> It may be the case that they annoyed
some people, but that's because some
> people find some ideas/people
> Sure, and that's going to happen.
> What would you
call someone who:
> a. Knows the behaviour they're exhibiting that
annoys people and
> continues anyways because it's how they prefer t>
that they're willing to take time out of their busy schedule to annoy
them until they understand why they shouldn't be annoyed. d. Continues
to argue the issues even after those people want to just walk away and
get on with their life. Serious question. 
>> If they didn't enjoy the
discussion, why did they keep on reading and replying?
> 5px;
border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%"> 
> My
advice to you is to "agree to disagree" and live in a separate
> orbit
for a while. The organization has asked you to disengage so
> break your
pattern and disengage. If you don't you're continuing the
> cycle and
pattern of behaviour which further cements their decision.
> Live in
that separate orbit for a while (a single rotation about Sol
> is what
they asked for) and after that period of time start from
> scratch. Time
and distance will heal the wounds on both sides and
> hopefully > r
gentleman whose nick is 'Sol' :-)
>>> Good Luck,
>>> Red
>>> Discuss mailing
>>> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150223/4bff80ea/attachment.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list