3 ms·

> although I think its principles and expense ask for criticism. ... do they though? "Ah, but in your 'leave no trace' ethos, you forgot to consider the atmos

> although I think its principles and expense ask for criticism. ... do they though? "Ah, but in your 'leave no trace' ethos, you forgot to consider the atmosphere! Ha HA! Checkmate!" "And your radical inclusion principles mean that you have to put up with billionaires at your big counterculture party!" It's just a bizarre attitude. "How dare you try and make things better if you fail do them perfectly?" Meanwhile no one would bat an eye at a monster truck rally or whatever. I realize I'm pissing into the wind here but it's weird how readily people will find reasons not to like a thing if they've already decided not to like it.

psunavy03 3y ago
> It's just a bizarre attitude. "How dare you try and make things better if you fail do them perfectly?" Standard internet purity testing these days, really.
yieldcrv 3y ago
its more so the irony that the self proclaimed radically inclusive event winds up being the most insular with high barrier of entry, the socioeconomic class of people that like to pay to be uncomfortable, have the time off, and general tone deafness that comes with like “just stay an extra day no worries bro, dont come if you cant do that! so inclusive!” irony is funny, I like burning man, we can still acknowledge the surrounding deficiencies they could drop half of the culty principles and just focus on the art festival, city creation, and the prevalence of theme camps, and 90% of the criticism would evaporate
- nwiswell 3y ago
  I agree with you. On the other hand, changing founding principles should be a very deliberate process, or else they don't mean very much. In any case I don't think the criticism is generally as well-founded as what you've laid out here. In fact I'm pretty sure that most casual observers do not realize that the exclusivity in practice stems from inclusivity in principle. Also the median income of participants was around $70k last I checked, so also the perception is pretty out of whack.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    check again > https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/burning-man-demographics-18330903.php#:~:text=A%20line%20chart%20shows%20the,%24300%2C000%20section%20at%20around%2015%25 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/burning-man-demo.... not specifically about median but over 40% report $100k-$299k, 30% below that. And even if it was $70k, for an individual that's really much higher than the national, as the national household income is $70k which is for a family of 4, taking anybody's $70k income and dividing that up for more budgeting constraints. the perception isn't out of whack, based on that quip. its fine that some people save up for that one event, its also a place of privilege that self selects who would participate despite the intention and difficulty necessary to do so, extremely ironic for the 1 festival (or whatever word that doesn't trigger burners) that leads with how inclusive it is, when its actually not more inclusive than corporate festivals, and actually pretty hard to tap into an existing camp, and more challenging to make your own new camp. If they dropped some of those cringy principles it would be less of a target.
    - nwiswell 3y ago
      Here's the actual data: https://blackrockcitycensus.org/sociodemo#demographics https://blackrockcitycensus.org/sociodemo#demographics 24.3% make more than $150k And of course participants make more than the national average. There's a huge proportion of attendees coming from the SF Bay Area (38.1% from California -- Burning Man started on Baker Beach in SF), where $150k is not particularly high. Besides that, the poorest Americans simply cannot afford to attend festivals. That doesn't have anything to do with Burning Man. Inclusivity means "everyone is welcome", it doesn't imply that you can afford the trip or time away from work. Even if the event tickets were $0, that would be the case. The org does offer reduced cost tickets to people with financial need, which is pretty much the limit of what can be done in practice. How is that ironic? Anyway: if Burning Man is associated with rich, privileged people in the popular imagination and, say, High Sierra Music Festival is not, then yes, that's out of whack. And I'm doubtful that many Americans think of even $300k as "rich"? Comfortable, yes; but not upper-class (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren make more than that). That kind of income usually comes from a salary, i.e., people in that income range still have to work. Generally the current focus of public scorn is billionaires or at least multi-millionaires, who are many orders of magnitude beyond.

psunavy03 3y ago

> It's just a bizarre attitude. "How dare you try and make things better if you fail do them perfectly?" Standard internet purity testing these days, really.

yieldcrv 3y ago

its more so the irony that the self proclaimed radically inclusive event winds up being the most insular with high barrier of entry, the socioeconomic class of people that like to pay to be uncomfortable, have the time off, and general tone deafness that comes with like “just stay an extra day no worries bro, dont come if you cant do that! so inclusive!” irony is funny, I like burning man, we can still acknowledge the surrounding deficiencies they could drop half of the culty principles and just focus on the art festival, city creation, and the prevalence of theme camps, and 90% of the criticism would evaporate

nwiswell 3y ago
I agree with you. On the other hand, changing founding principles should be a very deliberate process, or else they don't mean very much. In any case I don't think the criticism is generally as well-founded as what you've laid out here. In fact I'm pretty sure that most casual observers do not realize that the exclusivity in practice stems from inclusivity in principle. Also the median income of participants was around $70k last I checked, so also the perception is pretty out of whack.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  check again > https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/burning-man-demographics-18330903.php#:~:text=A%20line%20chart%20shows%20the,%24300%2C000%20section%20at%20around%2015%25 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/burning-man-demo.... not specifically about median but over 40% report $100k-$299k, 30% below that. And even if it was $70k, for an individual that's really much higher than the national, as the national household income is $70k which is for a family of 4, taking anybody's $70k income and dividing that up for more budgeting constraints. the perception isn't out of whack, based on that quip. its fine that some people save up for that one event, its also a place of privilege that self selects who would participate despite the intention and difficulty necessary to do so, extremely ironic for the 1 festival (or whatever word that doesn't trigger burners) that leads with how inclusive it is, when its actually not more inclusive than corporate festivals, and actually pretty hard to tap into an existing camp, and more challenging to make your own new camp. If they dropped some of those cringy principles it would be less of a target.
  - nwiswell 3y ago
    Here's the actual data: https://blackrockcitycensus.org/sociodemo#demographics https://blackrockcitycensus.org/sociodemo#demographics 24.3% make more than $150k And of course participants make more than the national average. There's a huge proportion of attendees coming from the SF Bay Area (38.1% from California -- Burning Man started on Baker Beach in SF), where $150k is not particularly high. Besides that, the poorest Americans simply cannot afford to attend festivals. That doesn't have anything to do with Burning Man. Inclusivity means "everyone is welcome", it doesn't imply that you can afford the trip or time away from work. Even if the event tickets were $0, that would be the case. The org does offer reduced cost tickets to people with financial need, which is pretty much the limit of what can be done in practice. How is that ironic? Anyway: if Burning Man is associated with rich, privileged people in the popular imagination and, say, High Sierra Music Festival is not, then yes, that's out of whack. And I'm doubtful that many Americans think of even $300k as "rich"? Comfortable, yes; but not upper-class (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren make more than that). That kind of income usually comes from a salary, i.e., people in that income range still have to work. Generally the current focus of public scorn is billionaires or at least multi-millionaires, who are many orders of magnitude beyond.