> I had used peace to beat the thugs around the head.
Oh no, you did not. You used the full power and latent savagery of a crowd. It might have turned out very differently (but made a better story to tell much later on).
And the girlfriend is not a peace seeker. She did not help defuse the situation at all.
By leaving the party and/or leaving things at that (and getting support from security/police/etc if things escalate).
She shouldn't get back to her friend/boyfriend asking him to `fix` things caveman style. That's a very bad line of thinking and will usually get anyone close to her into troubles. It's like dating a walking grenade. Try not to.
No, the thugs in the aforementioned story do that.
The incident was already over. The girlfriend was asking for revenge (not justice) and the guy described in the article how he had to react « as a man ». That's escalation.
Now if you are caught in the middle of such situations there a number of methods you can try to defuse the situation: http://lifehacker.com/ive-worked-bar-security-heres-how-to-t... (I know it's from lifehacker but the article has really good tips. Ignore the pictures).
He didn't do anything that should couldn't have done herself. Not everyone would think to try what he did but if she had done it, it would have been more likely to have turned out okay.
Yes, that would have been even better. It would be nice if every person had the resolve to react like this.
"She didn't do anything to defuse the situation" implies that she could have handled the situation better. As per the story she was shocked, intimidated, and looking for somebody to help her. It's not her duty to "defuse the situation". She was not the one escalating it in the first place.
No, no. I don't think or know if she could have reacted differently when the aggression happened. That's another part of the story.
The 'not defusing the situation' is about how she came back to someone asking to 'fix it'. That's when escalation happened. That someone being under the influence of drugs at that moment made another bad move by 'trying something' which escalated the situation one more step.
Don't play stupid in that kind of situation: a knife can be pulled out really fast and the thugs could have left the place the same way but with one seriously wounded person. And for what ? For seeking revenge by shaming of fighting the guys (that was a possibility on the mind of the author, he states getting beaten happened once and he turned out okay, whatever) for damage already done.
But what he did was not get them into a brawl. He simply challenged them publicly. This is the very purpose of free speech!
I also object to the characterisation of the crowd as a mob. Democracy and mob rule are the same words (etymologically), we simply pick which one we use based on whether we like the application. This was unquestionably mob rule for ethical purposes, aka democracy. I don't think the tyranny of the majority can be applied to the defense of attendees asked to leave a party for assaulting a guest.
> But what he did was not get them into a brawl. He simply challenged them publicly. This is the very purpose of free speech!
That's precisely what he did. Challenging people publicly is a very aggressive move. He escalated the situation by using more intimidation and if the thugs had retaliated it would have been a very different story.
He got lucky, that's all. People pulling that kind of stunt under influence generally end up beaten down in a corner.
Did nobody else notice the author claimed to be on acid at the time? That is an awfully vivid recollection of events for someone out of their mind on LSD. I highly doubt he remembers the event as clearly as he presents it, and it really begs the question as to how much of this story he fabricated. I don't see the purpose to publishing this story other than as an exercise in virtue signalling.
Are you actually familiar with the effects of LSD? At least at lower doses its extremely non impairing compared to a few shots of vodka.
It may however have boosted the author's perception of unity with the crowd, as a mild empathogen.
But the author would have to be on godly doses to dissociate with reality entirely, and at that point their trip will not be anything as normal as a confrontation at an event.
The author of the article doubted his faculties enough to mention his hesitation to act due to impairment. My familiarity with the effects of ingesting the substance is irrelevant.
Your perception of your abilities often has little to do with your actual abilities, otherwise the loudest most confident people would always be the most qualified ;)
For instance, one of the side effects of weed is paranoia, which can manifest as self doubt. It doesn't change your abilities, it just adds self doubt.
29 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 58.3 ms ] threadOh no, you did not. You used the full power and latent savagery of a crowd. It might have turned out very differently (but made a better story to tell much later on).
And the girlfriend is not a peace seeker. She did not help defuse the situation at all.
She shouldn't get back to her friend/boyfriend asking him to `fix` things caveman style. That's a very bad line of thinking and will usually get anyone close to her into troubles. It's like dating a walking grenade. Try not to.
The incident was already over. The girlfriend was asking for revenge (not justice) and the guy described in the article how he had to react « as a man ». That's escalation.
Now if you are caught in the middle of such situations there a number of methods you can try to defuse the situation: http://lifehacker.com/ive-worked-bar-security-heres-how-to-t... (I know it's from lifehacker but the article has really good tips. Ignore the pictures).
"She didn't do anything to defuse the situation" implies that she could have handled the situation better. As per the story she was shocked, intimidated, and looking for somebody to help her. It's not her duty to "defuse the situation". She was not the one escalating it in the first place.
The 'not defusing the situation' is about how she came back to someone asking to 'fix it'. That's when escalation happened. That someone being under the influence of drugs at that moment made another bad move by 'trying something' which escalated the situation one more step.
Don't play stupid in that kind of situation: a knife can be pulled out really fast and the thugs could have left the place the same way but with one seriously wounded person. And for what ? For seeking revenge by shaming of fighting the guys (that was a possibility on the mind of the author, he states getting beaten happened once and he turned out okay, whatever) for damage already done.
I would certainly not try to get strangers into a bigger brawl.
I also object to the characterisation of the crowd as a mob. Democracy and mob rule are the same words (etymologically), we simply pick which one we use based on whether we like the application. This was unquestionably mob rule for ethical purposes, aka democracy. I don't think the tyranny of the majority can be applied to the defense of attendees asked to leave a party for assaulting a guest.
What about the characterisation of the other group as "violent thugs"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose
That's precisely what he did. Challenging people publicly is a very aggressive move. He escalated the situation by using more intimidation and if the thugs had retaliated it would have been a very different story.
He got lucky, that's all. People pulling that kind of stunt under influence generally end up beaten down in a corner.
It may however have boosted the author's perception of unity with the crowd, as a mild empathogen.
But the author would have to be on godly doses to dissociate with reality entirely, and at that point their trip will not be anything as normal as a confrontation at an event.
For instance, one of the side effects of weed is paranoia, which can manifest as self doubt. It doesn't change your abilities, it just adds self doubt.