4 ms·

These events tend to happen because people are escaping a crush in both directions. I'm sure everyone in the crowd was aware that it was getting dangerous. And

These events tend to happen because people are escaping a crush in both directions. I'm sure everyone in the crowd was aware that it was getting dangerous. And everyone just tried to get out and encountered other people facing the same issue, coming the other way. The cause is lack of proper crowd management because if you view the cause as just "humans are fundamentally flawed", then you are basically just accepting the deaths because we're not going to fix humans... In other words, just think it through? Nobody is endangering their own life to get closer to an amusement. Well, maybe in some other sense, like standing closer to a dangerous firework before it goes off or something. But not in the sense of being extremely uncomfortable and feeling rising panic, and then moving forward towards to get some more uncomfortable panic feeling because, welp, gotta get to the bar. Packed crowds are extremely distressing long before you get asphyxiated in them.

throwaway894345 4y ago
I'm arguing that it's selfish to push people, and this argument doesn't imply that I'm opposed to proper crowd control. I also think people shouldn't drive dangerously, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to traffic control measures or mechanisms. > In other words, just think it through? Nobody is endangering their own life to get closer to an amusement. I didn't claim people were endangering their own lives to get closer to an amusement (although that's probably true as well in some sense), I claimed that they are disregarding others' safety, which is actually probably too weak a phrasing since it suggests passivity rather than the fact of the matter: people who push (even gently) to get closer to some stage/etc actively and lethally endanger others for the sole purpose of being closer to an amusement.
- scaramanga 4y ago
  All of which is false. Nobody is in control when the crowd density reaches that point. Nobody has a choice in where they go or who they push. The crowd reached that density due to lack of crowd control. You are either ignorant, or victim blaming. Go read wikipedia about crowd collapse.
- scaramanga 4y ago
  > people who push (even gently) to get closer to some stage/etc actively and lethally endanger others for the sole purpose of being closer to an amusement. Completely false. The reason people don't die at a concert is because the organisers control the crowd density. The density is high, but not so high that death is all but inevitable (as was the density in Itaewon on saturday, which can be confirmed from photographic evidence of the scene). They have crowd barriers and security staff and it's well lit, so they can see if anyone is struggling and help them over. Even if the crowd density is relatively safe, localised disturbance (eg. someone tripping over, losing a shoe) etc can cause a dangerous situation. So even when the density is at a level considered "risky but safe", you need vigilant security staff and a space to overflow people to (space created by crowd barriers.) If the density is too high, or the measures to protect people are insufficient. It is the fault of the organisers, and that is manslaughter. This is just called "risk management", you tolerate some level of risk, so that people can do the activities that they enjoy, while allowing them to have the reasonable expectation that they won't die.

throwaway894345 4y ago

I'm arguing that it's selfish to push people, and this argument doesn't imply that I'm opposed to proper crowd control. I also think people shouldn't drive dangerously, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to traffic control measures or mechanisms. > In other words, just think it through? Nobody is endangering their own life to get closer to an amusement. I didn't claim people were endangering their own lives to get closer to an amusement (although that's probably true as well in some sense), I claimed that they are disregarding others' safety, which is actually probably too weak a phrasing since it suggests passivity rather than the fact of the matter: people who push (even gently) to get closer to some stage/etc actively and lethally endanger others for the sole purpose of being closer to an amusement.

scaramanga 4y ago
All of which is false. Nobody is in control when the crowd density reaches that point. Nobody has a choice in where they go or who they push. The crowd reached that density due to lack of crowd control. You are either ignorant, or victim blaming. Go read wikipedia about crowd collapse.
scaramanga 4y ago
> people who push (even gently) to get closer to some stage/etc actively and lethally endanger others for the sole purpose of being closer to an amusement. Completely false. The reason people don't die at a concert is because the organisers control the crowd density. The density is high, but not so high that death is all but inevitable (as was the density in Itaewon on saturday, which can be confirmed from photographic evidence of the scene). They have crowd barriers and security staff and it's well lit, so they can see if anyone is struggling and help them over. Even if the crowd density is relatively safe, localised disturbance (eg. someone tripping over, losing a shoe) etc can cause a dangerous situation. So even when the density is at a level considered "risky but safe", you need vigilant security staff and a space to overflow people to (space created by crowd barriers.) If the density is too high, or the measures to protect people are insufficient. It is the fault of the organisers, and that is manslaughter. This is just called "risk management", you tolerate some level of risk, so that people can do the activities that they enjoy, while allowing them to have the reasonable expectation that they won't die.