4 ms·

What are these people supposed to do? Your solutions sounds like certain cities solution to the homeless problem...kick them out of the city. I'm pround of th

What are these people supposed to do? Your solutions sounds like certain cities solution to the homeless problem...kick them out of the city. I'm pround of the other members of your group. The mentally ill and socially inept should be shown kindness and we should lead by example. Not just kick everyone out that makes us uncomfortable.

exolymph 11y ago
I have the opposite reaction. That group sounds like one where women aren't safe. It's important to show abusive people that their behavior won't be tolerated in the spaces they want to occupy. No consequences = no change.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  That group sounds like a place where I wouldn't feel safe, or particularly welcomed. The "homeless" analogy fails, because the Meetup isn't a city; it's an optional event run by volunteers. They don't owe a particular asshole membership, and they harmed the very group by allowing him to stay. If we do want to try to stretch the analogy, with the meetup-as-a-social-gathering being our city, then the asshole was breaking one of the city's ordinances - a social rule of not being an asshole who harasses others. Homeless and homeful alike would be arrested and fined, or put in jail, if they flung bricks through the windows; someone who's breaking social norms and making others feel unsafe ought to be expelled from the group.
- taurath 11y ago
  The question is, do you completely ostracize the immature and potentially abusive people or do you socially shame them but offer them a legitimate path to being able to be in a group? Geek groups are frequently the last resort socially - its way down on the social ladder (at least when I was growing up) and people frequently are way behind on both social skills and tact. As such, they end up being a catch-all, and the last place that they can go to grow without completely removing themselves from society. Should that mean that people should feel safe? Of course - thats why you meet in public, and have other people around. Not defending this person, of course - just offering a wider perspective. I'd certainly pull this person aside frequently - if the group allowed for it constantly rather than shaming the person then I'd immediately look to leave the (now toxic) group if I couldn't convince them of the danger.
  - pyre 11y ago
    It sounds more like the group in this case had a "hands off" approach. If they talked with the individual, gave him chances to change behaviour, which he did not do, and then cut him loose that's one thing. Ignoring his bad behaviour, and just asking like if you stick your head in the ground for long enough it will go away isn't useful to anybody.
grahamburger 11y ago
There is a line somewhere between 'this person makes me uncomfortable' and 'this person is a real threat to my/our safety.' We should always show kindness, but we also need to protect ourselves and people we care about. It's a tricky balance, for sure - but I don't think we can say that we must always tolerate everyone being a part of any group regardless of their behavior.
kbenson 11y ago
I think the difference is whether the problematic behavior is actively engaged in, or passively. Being uncomfortable by being in proximity to a homeless person is your problem, as that is a passive state of theirs, but being uncomfortable with a homeless person that confronts you about how you have money and they don't is their problem, as they are actively causing the situation. As communities we deal with situations like this all the time. That's why we put criminals into jail, for forcibly separate them from the community at large (the nation) because they are actively causing problems (and to punish them), and it's not feasible to exile them anymore.
pavel_lishin 11y ago
Let's keep going with this analogy. A city has some set of just laws - assault, for example: you can't just run up to strangers and scream at them and make them feel unsafe. A meetup is a social event, and as such it has social rules, which are the equivalent of laws here. Making people feel unsafe and being an asshole is breaking those social rules. A city can fine people or put them in jail; a meetup can forbid people from attending. One key problem with this analogy is that everyone has to live somewhere, even the homeless. But not everyone needs to go to a special interest meetup. The organizers of the meetup didn't owe more to this one asshole than they did to the group, yet they made the entire group pay the cost of interacting with him.

exolymph 11y ago

I have the opposite reaction. That group sounds like one where women aren't safe. It's important to show abusive people that their behavior won't be tolerated in the spaces they want to occupy. No consequences = no change.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
That group sounds like a place where I wouldn't feel safe, or particularly welcomed. The "homeless" analogy fails, because the Meetup isn't a city; it's an optional event run by volunteers. They don't owe a particular asshole membership, and they harmed the very group by allowing him to stay. If we do want to try to stretch the analogy, with the meetup-as-a-social-gathering being our city, then the asshole was breaking one of the city's ordinances - a social rule of not being an asshole who harasses others. Homeless and homeful alike would be arrested and fined, or put in jail, if they flung bricks through the windows; someone who's breaking social norms and making others feel unsafe ought to be expelled from the group.
taurath 11y ago
The question is, do you completely ostracize the immature and potentially abusive people or do you socially shame them but offer them a legitimate path to being able to be in a group? Geek groups are frequently the last resort socially - its way down on the social ladder (at least when I was growing up) and people frequently are way behind on both social skills and tact. As such, they end up being a catch-all, and the last place that they can go to grow without completely removing themselves from society. Should that mean that people should feel safe? Of course - thats why you meet in public, and have other people around. Not defending this person, of course - just offering a wider perspective. I'd certainly pull this person aside frequently - if the group allowed for it constantly rather than shaming the person then I'd immediately look to leave the (now toxic) group if I couldn't convince them of the danger.
- pyre 11y ago
  It sounds more like the group in this case had a "hands off" approach. If they talked with the individual, gave him chances to change behaviour, which he did not do, and then cut him loose that's one thing. Ignoring his bad behaviour, and just asking like if you stick your head in the ground for long enough it will go away isn't useful to anybody.

grahamburger 11y ago

There is a line somewhere between 'this person makes me uncomfortable' and 'this person is a real threat to my/our safety.' We should always show kindness, but we also need to protect ourselves and people we care about. It's a tricky balance, for sure - but I don't think we can say that we must always tolerate everyone being a part of any group regardless of their behavior.

kbenson 11y ago

I think the difference is whether the problematic behavior is actively engaged in, or passively. Being uncomfortable by being in proximity to a homeless person is your problem, as that is a passive state of theirs, but being uncomfortable with a homeless person that confronts you about how you have money and they don't is their problem, as they are actively causing the situation. As communities we deal with situations like this all the time. That's why we put criminals into jail, for forcibly separate them from the community at large (the nation) because they are actively causing problems (and to punish them), and it's not feasible to exile them anymore.

pavel_lishin 11y ago

Let's keep going with this analogy. A city has some set of just laws - assault, for example: you can't just run up to strangers and scream at them and make them feel unsafe. A meetup is a social event, and as such it has social rules, which are the equivalent of laws here. Making people feel unsafe and being an asshole is breaking those social rules. A city can fine people or put them in jail; a meetup can forbid people from attending. One key problem with this analogy is that everyone has to live somewhere, even the homeless. But not everyone needs to go to a special interest meetup. The organizers of the meetup didn't owe more to this one asshole than they did to the group, yet they made the entire group pay the cost of interacting with him.