4 ms·

Why wouldn't they continue with the programming, and be ready to press charges against anyone who behaves violently?

by manicdee 11y ago

idle_processor 11y ago
Liability.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - MBCook 11y ago
    But then invite anyone in the first place? This was all foreseeable. They're acting like this is coming out of nowhere.
intopieces 11y ago
Austin is located in the American state of Texas, which prides itself on gun ownership. Also, the SXSW conference has already had an instance of violence: a driver ran into a crowd of people and killed a few of them. While not intentional, I'm sure the programmers of this conference are eager to separate their brand from the idea of danger.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  "Austin is located in the American state of Texas, which prides itself on gun ownership." That doesn't really follow from the facts as a reason to be concerned about violence. Austin's crime rate is lower than that of most other major American cities, including ones such as Chicago which have heavy gun control. (As per Wikipedia, Chicago's murder rate for 2014 was 15.1, Austin's 3.5.)
  - intopieces 11y ago
    I'm not sure the crime rate statistic is relevant in the context of the flood of threats being directed at the event. We're no longer talking about 'random crime' at this point. Also, if there's going to be a threat of violence, I'd prefer that threat not to happen in a state where people have easy access to guns; I understand that many people have trust in crowd-sourced defense (ala a well-armed populace) but I like to think the police and the event security are better choice for that.
- cloverich 11y ago
  > Also, the SXSW conference has already had an instance of violence: a driver ran into a crowd of people and killed a few of them Though I can see them being overly cautious as a result, I think context is important here: that was a drunk driver running from the cops. SXSW being there was a tragic coincidence.
- mtanski 11y ago
  Don't hold things in TX / do not support things in TX. I know I get flames for that everytime, but the state of TX holds / enforces some horrible views.
bsder 11y ago
Because they would likely be subject to a boycott by the neckbeards. And the neckbeards spend WAY more money than the feminazis at SXSW. SXSW was stupid to not forsee that giving an online flamewar a physical presence was a bad idea. There is also the fact that concealed carry of weaponry is legal in Texas. And, again, if SXSW explicitly banned concealed handguns at their events, they will provoke a boycott by a very loud, obnoxious group of social warriors who have lots of crossover with neckbeards.

Why wouldn't they continue with the programming, and be ready to press charges against anyone who behaves violently?

idle_processor 11y ago

Liability.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- MBCook 11y ago
  But then invite anyone in the first place? This was all foreseeable. They're acting like this is coming out of nowhere.

intopieces 11y ago

Austin is located in the American state of Texas, which prides itself on gun ownership. Also, the SXSW conference has already had an instance of violence: a driver ran into a crowd of people and killed a few of them. While not intentional, I'm sure the programmers of this conference are eager to separate their brand from the idea of danger.

13thLetter 11y ago
"Austin is located in the American state of Texas, which prides itself on gun ownership." That doesn't really follow from the facts as a reason to be concerned about violence. Austin's crime rate is lower than that of most other major American cities, including ones such as Chicago which have heavy gun control. (As per Wikipedia, Chicago's murder rate for 2014 was 15.1, Austin's 3.5.)
- intopieces 11y ago
  I'm not sure the crime rate statistic is relevant in the context of the flood of threats being directed at the event. We're no longer talking about 'random crime' at this point. Also, if there's going to be a threat of violence, I'd prefer that threat not to happen in a state where people have easy access to guns; I understand that many people have trust in crowd-sourced defense (ala a well-armed populace) but I like to think the police and the event security are better choice for that.
cloverich 11y ago
> Also, the SXSW conference has already had an instance of violence: a driver ran into a crowd of people and killed a few of them Though I can see them being overly cautious as a result, I think context is important here: that was a drunk driver running from the cops. SXSW being there was a tragic coincidence.
mtanski 11y ago
Don't hold things in TX / do not support things in TX. I know I get flames for that everytime, but the state of TX holds / enforces some horrible views.

bsder 11y ago

Because they would likely be subject to a boycott by the neckbeards. And the neckbeards spend WAY more money than the feminazis at SXSW. SXSW was stupid to not forsee that giving an online flamewar a physical presence was a bad idea. There is also the fact that concealed carry of weaponry is legal in Texas. And, again, if SXSW explicitly banned concealed handguns at their events, they will provoke a boycott by a very loud, obnoxious group of social warriors who have lots of crossover with neckbeards.