5 ms·

Well, this article is interesting because it's not the typical mindless Yes We Can article written by someone who heard that now wanting "Social Justice" (whate

by 4ad 11y ago

Well, this article is interesting because it's not the typical mindless Yes We Can article written by someone who heard that now wanting "Social Justice" (whatever that is) is the trend of the day, without understanding the dynamics of social interaction in the slightest. It's also not an article written to sound like someone in the above category wrote, but in fact is being written by someone who understand the social dynamics, and just has an agenda. In fact the article is sincere, and correctly identifies the "problem". There are many things I find abhorrent about the proposed world described in the article, but I will refer to only one of them. Btw, even if I find abhorrent this "new" world order, it's much better than the world order imposed by the Yes We Can people. > Additionally, they shall have one or more "hosts" who do not drink alcohol, and who are trained to observe and catch violations should they occur. Yeah, this casual suggestion that some sort of "police" should exist to monitor people's behavior and catch policy violations quickly is the worst thing that is currently happening to humanity in my opinion, and ultimately results in a world I don't want to be part of. The police part is bad in itself, but much worse is how casual this "final solution" is proposed, and how little people complain about it. People were bred into obedience and submission. We already lost. There's very little for me to do about this. All I can do is vote with my money, e.g. I don't go to conferences where people are not adults enough that they don't know how to live, yes, live life, without CoCs and police, even though I am one of the nice people at those conferences, not one of the "bad actors" the author mentions. Of course this doesn't affect the world in the slightest.

PieterH 11y ago
I've a large building and we've hosted many parties here. Almost always, people are great, even when drunk. Alcohol does not make good people turn bad, in my experience. Every now and then an event deteriorates. I learned that someone has to stay sober and play host. It's not about policing. It's about being available, and separating parties when there's an incident. That's all. I'll modify the text to make this clear, as the notion of policing is exactly what I'm trying to make distance from. One example: we had a party downstairs with several hundred guests. It was a Congolese wedding, so people were drinking a lot. I go to sleep, and around 2am get woken by extremely loud noises. I put on some clothes and go down, and find a battle raging in the entrance to my building. Seems two young guys (North African) had come in and were caught stealing from peoples' jackets. The crowd had caught them. One had escaped, one was still prisoner. The one that fled had come back with reinforcements, so I found about eight young men hammering on the doors of my building with a steel bed frame (don't ask me where this came from). Inside, a group held the other young man down, while he was shrieking for help, afraid they would murder him. It took only a few seconds to get this whole story from various people. I picked up the young man by his arm and dragged him out, and threw him at his friends. "You will leave now, or the police will be here," I told them. They put the bed down and left. I told the party goers, "are you utterly insane? What did you think was going to happen?" and ushered them back into the party room. It all took maybe 5 minutes. If I'd had even a small amount to drink, no way I could have done this. Now, such incidents are extreme. Yet when you have guests in your home or event, and you offer them alcohol, you have (in my mind) to look after them. No ifs or buts. Bad stuff can happen. I also learned after this night to have professional security, which is another thing that can help. Hope this helps. The host absolutely does not monitor peoples' behavior. He/she intervenes quickly when there is an issue, before it gets out of hand. Thanks for your feedback, it was helpful.
- afarrell 11y ago
  Wow. I admire your ability to take command of a situation.
aaronem 11y ago
> this casual suggestion that some sort of "police" should exist to monitor people's behavior and catch policy violations quickly is the worst thing that is currently happening to humanity What alternative do you suggest? Putting the entire weight of dealing with predators on the people they seek to victimize? I mean, you seem to be invoking Godwin's law over an example of the responsibility borne by a host to a guest -- "final solution"? Really? -- so I'm not expecting a reasonable discussion with you on this subject, but I figure I ought to ask just in case.
- whatyoucantsay 11y ago
  In theory, part of being an adult is being able to take care of yourself. This includes being aware of your personal safety, leaving when a situation becomes dangerous and calling for help in the case of an emergency. Sometimes police have to be involved, but in the vast majority of situations people can handle issues as they arise when they are at a supermarket, a public park, a bus stop, a bar or even a tech conference. Involvement of authority figures and police monitoring at every single public gathering might slightly reduce certain problems, but the price is too high.
  - aaronem 11y ago
    The only ones here talking about "authority figures" and "police monitoring" are you and the commenter to whom I originally replied. The article under discussion suggests nothing more than that a convention's hosting organization take a slightly more active role, in discharging its responsibility to its guests, than is embodied in the standard code-of-conduct model requiring a victim of sexual misconduct to complain to the organizers in order for anything to be done. If I invite two guests to my home, and while they're there I see that one of them is refusing to be politely dissuaded from making sexual suggestions that the other finds uncomfortable, then it's part of my responsibility as a host to intervene. (This isn't a hypothetical situation for me; it's actually happened.) If my organization invites N people to my convention, our responsibility is just the same: they're here because we asked them to be, so while they're my guests, we are bound to look after them. Of course, like any adults, they'll still look out for themselves to the extent they're able; it would be foolish to imagine otherwise. That's where the "polite dissuasion" part comes in. The host's responsibility begins where harassment escalates beyond that point, and all the article under discussion suggests is that hosting organizations ensure there's someone at hand, in a situation like a con hotel bar where such escalation is historically speaking most likely to occur, in order to intervene in the improbable event that it actually does. As for the nature of that intervention, the article goes into a lot of "good actor/bad actor" business which, while not without interest, IMO just clouds the basic issue. Speaking, again, as someone who's actually done it, this kind of intervention doesn't start with the police, and it would be stupid to imagine otherwise. You start with a firm, quiet word in the ear of the miscreant, on the subject of the standards you expect your guests to uphold, and with a note that those who fail to do so cease to be welcome. If that doesn't do the job, you tell your former guest he's no longer welcome and escort him out, or in the convention case have your security staff do so. If he refuses to leave, then at that point he's made himself a de jure trespasser, and if that's not enough to get the point across, then and only then is it appropriate to involve the police. Such a response is measured at every stage, and titrated from zero up to the minimum necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of a host. Those merely too dense to take a repeated hint will get the idea at step one, and curtail their misbehavior. Those who fail to do so will be removed from the situation so that they may no longer maltreat your guests. If merely escorting them off the premises will suffice, then that's all that is done; only someone thick enough not to get the idea at that point risks incurring force majeure. And nothing in the article implies otherwise. But, hey, if you want to imagine the author's talking about stationing uniformed police in every con hotel bar, to descend with flashing nightsticks upon he who makes a pass at a colleague and finds himself turned down, then go for it, I guess.

by 4ad 11y ago

PieterH 11y ago

I've a large building and we've hosted many parties here. Almost always, people are great, even when drunk. Alcohol does not make good people turn bad, in my experience. Every now and then an event deteriorates. I learned that someone has to stay sober and play host. It's not about policing. It's about being available, and separating parties when there's an incident. That's all. I'll modify the text to make this clear, as the notion of policing is exactly what I'm trying to make distance from. One example: we had a party downstairs with several hundred guests. It was a Congolese wedding, so people were drinking a lot. I go to sleep, and around 2am get woken by extremely loud noises. I put on some clothes and go down, and find a battle raging in the entrance to my building. Seems two young guys (North African) had come in and were caught stealing from peoples' jackets. The crowd had caught them. One had escaped, one was still prisoner. The one that fled had come back with reinforcements, so I found about eight young men hammering on the doors of my building with a steel bed frame (don't ask me where this came from). Inside, a group held the other young man down, while he was shrieking for help, afraid they would murder him. It took only a few seconds to get this whole story from various people. I picked up the young man by his arm and dragged him out, and threw him at his friends. "You will leave now, or the police will be here," I told them. They put the bed down and left. I told the party goers, "are you utterly insane? What did you think was going to happen?" and ushered them back into the party room. It all took maybe 5 minutes. If I'd had even a small amount to drink, no way I could have done this. Now, such incidents are extreme. Yet when you have guests in your home or event, and you offer them alcohol, you have (in my mind) to look after them. No ifs or buts. Bad stuff can happen. I also learned after this night to have professional security, which is another thing that can help. Hope this helps. The host absolutely does not monitor peoples' behavior. He/she intervenes quickly when there is an issue, before it gets out of hand. Thanks for your feedback, it was helpful.

afarrell 11y ago
Wow. I admire your ability to take command of a situation.

aaronem 11y ago

> this casual suggestion that some sort of "police" should exist to monitor people's behavior and catch policy violations quickly is the worst thing that is currently happening to humanity What alternative do you suggest? Putting the entire weight of dealing with predators on the people they seek to victimize? I mean, you seem to be invoking Godwin's law over an example of the responsibility borne by a host to a guest -- "final solution"? Really? -- so I'm not expecting a reasonable discussion with you on this subject, but I figure I ought to ask just in case.

whatyoucantsay 11y ago
In theory, part of being an adult is being able to take care of yourself. This includes being aware of your personal safety, leaving when a situation becomes dangerous and calling for help in the case of an emergency. Sometimes police have to be involved, but in the vast majority of situations people can handle issues as they arise when they are at a supermarket, a public park, a bus stop, a bar or even a tech conference. Involvement of authority figures and police monitoring at every single public gathering might slightly reduce certain problems, but the price is too high.
- aaronem 11y ago
  The only ones here talking about "authority figures" and "police monitoring" are you and the commenter to whom I originally replied. The article under discussion suggests nothing more than that a convention's hosting organization take a slightly more active role, in discharging its responsibility to its guests, than is embodied in the standard code-of-conduct model requiring a victim of sexual misconduct to complain to the organizers in order for anything to be done. If I invite two guests to my home, and while they're there I see that one of them is refusing to be politely dissuaded from making sexual suggestions that the other finds uncomfortable, then it's part of my responsibility as a host to intervene. (This isn't a hypothetical situation for me; it's actually happened.) If my organization invites N people to my convention, our responsibility is just the same: they're here because we asked them to be, so while they're my guests, we are bound to look after them. Of course, like any adults, they'll still look out for themselves to the extent they're able; it would be foolish to imagine otherwise. That's where the "polite dissuasion" part comes in. The host's responsibility begins where harassment escalates beyond that point, and all the article under discussion suggests is that hosting organizations ensure there's someone at hand, in a situation like a con hotel bar where such escalation is historically speaking most likely to occur, in order to intervene in the improbable event that it actually does. As for the nature of that intervention, the article goes into a lot of "good actor/bad actor" business which, while not without interest, IMO just clouds the basic issue. Speaking, again, as someone who's actually done it, this kind of intervention doesn't start with the police, and it would be stupid to imagine otherwise. You start with a firm, quiet word in the ear of the miscreant, on the subject of the standards you expect your guests to uphold, and with a note that those who fail to do so cease to be welcome. If that doesn't do the job, you tell your former guest he's no longer welcome and escort him out, or in the convention case have your security staff do so. If he refuses to leave, then at that point he's made himself a de jure trespasser, and if that's not enough to get the point across, then and only then is it appropriate to involve the police. Such a response is measured at every stage, and titrated from zero up to the minimum necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of a host. Those merely too dense to take a repeated hint will get the idea at step one, and curtail their misbehavior. Those who fail to do so will be removed from the situation so that they may no longer maltreat your guests. If merely escorting them off the premises will suffice, then that's all that is done; only someone thick enough not to get the idea at that point risks incurring force majeure. And nothing in the article implies otherwise. But, hey, if you want to imagine the author's talking about stationing uniformed police in every con hotel bar, to descend with flashing nightsticks upon he who makes a pass at a colleague and finds himself turned down, then go for it, I guess.