Deadline 2021: Re-United | October, 8th - 10th | Berlin, Germany
category: residue [glöplog]
what Scamp said.
Still on the popcorn.
This is gold, as always, when there is conspiracy-heavy bullshit on the menu. I'll just stick around to find out when we will talk about "ze jews" and "reptiloids".
This is gold, as always, when there is conspiracy-heavy bullshit on the menu. I'll just stick around to find out when we will talk about "ze jews" and "reptiloids".
One could say that the moment party organisers go beyond implementing measures mandated by local law in favour of personal beliefs is the moment they go from legal arse-covering to actively nannying their guests and friends, believing to know better what's best for them and denying them a fair bit of agency, self-determination and responsibility.
The risk may be somewhat mitigated, but to what extent is anybody's guess, and certainly not minimised, let alone zero.
This is a perfectly valid reason, of course, but it (also) boils down to personal feelings and beliefs.
Quote:
a party that is as safe as possible
Quote:
feeling safe to not potentially kill any of them
The risk may be somewhat mitigated, but to what extent is anybody's guess, and certainly not minimised, let alone zero.
Quote:
That means all orgas (and hopefully also the visitors) can sleep well at night, period.
This is a perfectly valid reason, of course, but it (also) boils down to personal feelings and beliefs.
Get vaccinated or fuck off.
Surprise, party orgas are people with personal feelings and beliefs. And if caring about your visitors is now "nannying", then be it so. I can't believe I have to justify this decision here.
Quote:
One could say that the moment party organisers go beyond implementing measures mandated by local law in favour of personal beliefs is the moment they go from legal arse-covering to actively nannying their guests and friends, believing to know better what's best for them and denying them a fair bit of agency, self-determination and responsibility.
Some discotheques don't allow the wearing of sneakers as part of their strict dress code, although this is not a requirement by local law.
What I'm getting at here is .. that an event host gets to decide the house rules, and you or me as the guests are free to either agree with them or stay away from the venue. Personally, I would not visit a disco with such a requirement, because I love my comfy sneakers and wear them 99% of the time outside. But I wouldn't accuse the disco operators to nanny their guests. Well, maybe they are but .. it's their venue / event / profession so they get to decide whatever they want (in accordance with local laws). Doesn't mean any of us have to agree with or like it.
The organizer can set up any kind of rules. If the majority of people disagrees and won't attend the event it's the end of the organizer. Simple as that.
Also, I would not feel comfortable hosting a demoparty and be responsible for it in present days, hopefully 2022 things will look different though! But to anyone attempting a party now, I salute you for putting in all the extra effort to implement or even surpass all the necessary safety precautions.
Quote:
Not sure if this was aimed at me personally, but i'll be fully cross-vaxxed by the time Deadline rolls by. But this is not the point, like, at all, you know. =)Get vaccinated or fuck off.
Quote:
No surprise there, but i was aiming at the fact that fundamentally, this isn't much different than any beliefs held about the personal relative risks of vaccination vs. infection.Surprise, party orgas are people with personal feelings and beliefs.
Quote:
You don't. Houserules and all, as SunSpire and you pointed out.And if caring about your visitors is now "nannying", then be it so. I can't believe I have to justify this decision here.
What "risks of vaccination" are you talking about?
Quote:
Off topic and still beside the point. But those risks you agree to take by putting your squiggle under some writ just before getting jabbed. Can send you a copy. =)What "risks of vaccination" are you talking about?
Not good enough. Please explain to me how the risks of receiving an approved vaccine are equatable with the risks of being infected with Covid-19. I'm willing to listen, I'll be patient.
Let's elaborate on that somewhere else.
My point was about beliefs held personally, and how little or much those align with current scientific consensus (which is constantly changing while new findings keep rolling in) doesn't matter much, especially when considering that any non-zero statistical chance for anything does mean a non-zero amount of instances on big numbers. Anyone may believe they're the one, for whatever reason, and why not.
To get back on topic (of sorts), when not "simply" complying to current local regulations, but adding stricter restrictions on top of them - in the same vein (not looking at you, fancysneakers) -, you're putting your own personal beliefs over some more or less social consensus.
Which is all fine and dandy, houserules and all, but i just felt to point this out.
My point was about beliefs held personally, and how little or much those align with current scientific consensus (which is constantly changing while new findings keep rolling in) doesn't matter much, especially when considering that any non-zero statistical chance for anything does mean a non-zero amount of instances on big numbers. Anyone may believe they're the one, for whatever reason, and why not.
To get back on topic (of sorts), when not "simply" complying to current local regulations, but adding stricter restrictions on top of them - in the same vein (not looking at you, fancysneakers) -, you're putting your own personal beliefs over some more or less social consensus.
Which is all fine and dandy, houserules and all, but i just felt to point this out.
Quote:
Anyone may believe they're the one, for whatever reason, and why not.
That is what's known as an irrational fear. A fear which is unjustified. One might even call it 'paranoia'.
The fact that the Deadline Orga's don't want any discussion on the topic is not exactly confidence inspiring. In my opinion, they are either ignorant or wilfully ignorant of the obvious ethical and legal questions. The examples of "green hair" and "sneakers" don't hold up as they have nothing to do with someones private medical information. Was this even run by a legal expert or are you just winging it?
Quote:
I'm sure one could find a handful or two of cognitive biases vaguely matching that description. Point... somewhere else. =)[That is what's known as an irrational fear. A fear which is unjustified. One might even call it 'paranoia'.
Quote:
fundamentally, this isn't much different than any beliefs held about the personal relative risks of vaccination vs. infection
Statistically though...?
Quote:
...approved vaccine
Need to correct you. Its a vaccine with an EMERGENCY approval.
Under normal circumstances, this vaccine would never have been released.
So one can say an act of desperation.
Quote:
Afaik, very much dependent on age, sex, various risk factors, which vaccine and whatnot. My (actual) point was not about teaching statistics to lottery winners, but about trusting adults to decide on their own whether to task the risk of attending a party or not - with or without vaccination. =)Quote:fundamentally, this isn't much different than any beliefs held about the personal relative risks of vaccination vs. infection
Statistically though...?
Deadline sets itself out to "reunite" the scene on the other side of a medical intervention. Discussing statistics about alleged risks and benefits, which are in high flux, and their interpretations, is moving goal posts away from that, smoke and mirrors.
fizzer sorry but you are a stuipid moron. banning people for arguing against you and at the end of your arguments you come with fuck you? what the actually fuck is going on with you crazy little left wing radicals?
Quote:
My (actual) point was not about teaching statistics to lottery winners, but about trusting adults to decide on their own whether to task the risk of attending a party or not - with or without vaccination. =)
But wouldn't it be in the organizers' understandable interest to mitigate those risks?
Quote:
Yes, of course. The question is why this mitigation would have to go beyond a some kind of current social/scientific consensus - whatever is mandated by local law, in this case.But wouldn't it be in the organizers' understandable interest to mitigate those risks?
Then you're putting your own personal spin on this, an own pretty much arbitrary interpretation of what would actually mitigate those risks, and how much.
This may or may not hold true in retrospect, but again, we're talking about a bunch of perfectly legally mature adults, both as organisers and guests.
Again, it's perfectly okay to do this as per houserules, but it's also somewhat condescending, because adults all around.
Quote:
I can't believe I have to justify this decision here.
You don't have to, though. Don't let them make you feel that you have to.
But wait, there is actually one thing you have to do - clean that bloody partymeister database!!! :D
Quote:
Was this even run by a legal expert or are you just winging it?
In this interview that was published 2 days before the final announcement for Deadline 2021, the Bundesjustizministerin, besides being an obviously awesome Scrabble word, mentions the possibility for venues/hosts to allow only vaccinated people. So I can understand why the Deadline team does not doubt the legality of this restriction.
Quote:
whatever is mandated by local law
See above, the law apparently mandates several scenarios.
