21 Apr
2015
21 Apr
'15
10:52 a.m.
Ok. I will write her back and tell her that because not every person who
enters the doors of the Omni is able to occupy a place of absolutely pure
ideological perfection, we will not be addressing these issues in any
meaningful way.
N
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Ryan <yandoryn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's not just one person or one situation. And
it's not always in an
aggressive way. And it's not just an issue of not caring (although I have
experienced that). It's an issue of feasibility.
I've heard snowball arguments. I know that Material Print Machine tries
their hardest to be chemically sensitive but cannot function without some
volatile chemicals that can cause problems.
If we got some serious ventilation going on, maybe we'd be able to deal
with CCL and sudo. But the 3D printers could be an issue.
And the few times I've tried to broach this subject, I have hit hard
walls. I've also had a lot of support. But I've also heard a lot of people
basically say "it'd be too hard to care about such a small minority."
I just think that anyone who is going to be dealing with this at the Omni
needs to know that not everyone is on board and that they're going to hear
some really insensitive stuff. From people you might not expect. My request
to have the Omni ban simply *spraying of perfume in the space* left me in
tears about ready to leave the space because of reactions like this from
many members.
I did have a specific issue with one member who I try not to interact with
now, who followed me out and proceeded to become aggressive and tell me I
can't survive in the real world, but that was handled for the most part.
That's not the issue, though.
I don't know. My brain isn't really functioning well (brain fog yay) but I
think anyone dealing with accessibility at the Omni, especially things
people are less versed in than physical (which is bad enough to deal with)
should be well aware that while some people may be totally on board, there
are some people who are solidly against.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Laura Turiano <scylla(a)riseup.net> wrote:
I would like to know who said that, Ryan, so
that we can have a
conversation with them about their attitude.
Laura
On 4/19/15 8:09 PM, Ryan wrote:
The consistent reaction I've gotten from the community at large is "We
don't actually care about people with chemical sensitivities and would
actively block any attempts to make the space more accessible to those with
respiratory problems who are 'asking too much.'"
So, it might be best to be honest with her, rather than pretend like
the Omni is actually going to actively work to be accessible.
Sorry if this sounds pessimistic, but eh.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 8:06 PM, niki <niki.shelley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello friends,
Someone came in today who was very concerned with our efforts to make
our space truly accessible - she was particularly concerned with building
improvements and the impact on those with chemical sensitivities. She was
also concerned with the sound system at today's event as there were some
issues w/it that made it difficult for people to hear.
She asked us to not use any materials that will inhibit those with
chemical sensitivities from accessing the space and to create communication
around our accessibility and needs.
She asked to see our plan for how we will do this. We don't have this
scoped out currently and I'm wondering if someone would be willing to take
on the task of researching this issue and making recommendations to the
building Working Group as well as drawing up a basic outline for providing
greater accessibility.
Can someone volunteer for this?
xo
N
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss(a)lists.omnicommons.org
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
building mailing
listbuilding@lists.omnicommons.orghttps://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/building