# How is "you got to go" enforced?



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

In a thread on the Hobo code, it came up that there were instances that the group would decide that an individual would have to "go", and when I asked about how this is accomplished, it was described as a group thing. 

By what means does the group compel the offending individual to "go", and what is done if they refuse to leave?

Also, in those instances where there is not clear group consensus, what happens? 

Does the "group thing" dynamic generally render reasonable conclusions? Is there risk that the group's powers of ejection could be misused, or rendered against the merely unpopular rather than an actual offender?

What are some of the behaviors that would lead to this ejection?


----------



## Deleted member 125 (Feb 21, 2017)

what to do when somebody comes around who makes you or somebody you are with uncomfortable or is generally not wanted around? thats really the question?

if they refuse to leave? you and who you are with leave, or you get the person to leave.

if its not a clear group consensus? either you and whoever else also doesnt want that person around leave, or the person and whoever else agrees with them leaves.

"reasonable conclusions" when dealing with somebody who has refused to leave you and other people alone? yea i think the kind of person who doesnt listen when told to leave people alone is not entitled to any kind of jury trial at that point. and the "groups power of ejection" as you put it is basically people not willing to be around assholes for whatever reason or not.

what behaviors lead to somebody being un wanted around other people? oh i dont know, maybe they fart to loud.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

cantcureherpes said:


> what to do when somebody comes around who makes you or somebody you are with uncomfortable or is generally not wanted around? thats really the question?
> 
> if they refuse to leave? you and who you are with leave, or you get the person to leave.
> 
> ...



In my case, I own the land could just have the police remove someone who would not leave.

What I'm asking is, how does the group "get the person to leave"? (Or in your other example, what if both sides refuse to leave?)

Who decides what is assholery? In some groups, even needless verbal hostility is considered assholery, in some it is part of the culture. 

I realize not everyone is a natural teacher and I'm sorry if my questions bother you. I'm hoping there will also be contribution to the thread by someone who might see why someone would want to understand more about these things.


----------



## Kim Chee (Feb 21, 2017)

It has always been easy for me as I didn't have land. When I didn't want somebody around me it was me who left. No explanation needed.

When I start developing recently purchased land it will all probably change and I'll have to do what you're doing and make plans for what is eventually inevitable.

If somebody has to go hopefully they can just do it on their own with minimal prodding. How about I help you load your stuff and give you a ride into town?

If they are making trouble, being counterproductive, breaking things, or making others uncomfortable and they just don't get that the welcome mat has been pulled...maybe the cops should come out before somebody gets smacked in the head with a shovel.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

Kim Chee said:


> It has always been easy for me as I didn't have land. When I didn't want somebody around me it was me who left. No explanation needed.
> 
> When I start developing recently purchased land it will all probably change and I'll have to do what you're doing and make plans for what is eventually inevitable.
> 
> ...



I think your response is very reasonable, to leave (unless in your latter example, that you have the land).

I apologize if my question was unclear. In another thread, a premise was put forward that if there were a group in a location (squat, etc), and an individual violated the code, it would be "time for them to go" or words to that effect. 

Suppose there is a location of 8 people, and one of them violates the hobo code such as to provoke the "they gotta go" response. Will a group resort to violence (or destructive acts on equipment, etc) if necessary?

I've heard stories (no idea if true) of people's trailers at Slab City being burned out by the "locals" , but Slab City appears to be a very special ecosystem, perhaps distinct in some ways from the road in general? 

If you were in a group, and the entire group wanted a particular person out, by what means would it be done? (This can be what you'd do, what you've seen done, what you've been told is effective, etc).


----------



## Deleted member 125 (Feb 21, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> In my case, I own the land could just have the police remove someone who would not leave.
> 
> What I'm asking is, how does the group "get the person to leave"? (Or in your other example, what if both sides refuse to leave?)
> 
> ...



you are right i dont think of myself as a natural teacher.

what you are basically asking is "how to not be around people that you dont want around". its simple, you leave, they leave, or a fight happens. unfortunetly not everyone owns their land or is willing to call the police to handle every little bump in the road. who decides what is assholery? its not like theres a meeting, its pretty clear for any reasonable person to realize if somebody is being a asshole and is no longer wanted around.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

cantcureherpes said:


> you are right i dont think of myself as a natural teacher.
> 
> what you are basically asking is "how to not be around people that you dont want around". its simple, you leave, they leave, or a fight happens. unfortunetly not everyone owns their land or is willing to call the police to handle every little bump in the road. who decides what is assholery? its not like theres a meeting, its pretty clear for any reasonable person to realize if somebody is being a asshole and is no longer wanted around.



I'm sorry, I don't believe your reduction of my question is correct. Perhaps I should've linked to the original thread to explain better. 

I'm wanting to learn about a more defined instance than "how to not be around people that you don't want to be around", that is a much broader idea.

I'm looking at more learning about how the "its time for [that person] to go" is brought about. I'm understanding your algorithm, in that instance "that person has to go", a fight happens? Are they warned first that violence will ensue if they don't depart? If others in the group objected to using violence, would that make a difference?

I wouldn't really call this "every little bump in the road", it's an instance where your own response indicates there is some possibility for violence. I generally think an instance like that would warrant the police. 

I think reasonable minds can differ, and I'm not sure people (especially in groups and during conflict) are always reasonable. However, by what you're describing, it sounds like the unwanted person is somehow intuitively determined as an asshole by the group. What if not everyone is able to make those determinations without thought and discussion?


----------



## Deleted member 125 (Feb 21, 2017)

i cant belevee im still humoring this. i think you are taking the hobo code as some kind of definitive how to on how to act, its more of a "dont be a asshole" guide line made by bo's for bo's that unfortunetly still applies today because people dont act right.


AnOldHope said:


> I wouldn't really call this "every little bump in the road", it's an instance where your own response indicates there is some possibility for violence. I generally think an instance like that would warrant the police.


generally calling the police in terms of what you apparently want to know is ill advised. you really want the law to get involved in a disagreement between a group of people who are most likely guilty of doing illegal things? public intox/tresspassing/possible un related warrants. people not agreeing with each other is a pretty common thing. this isnt even a travel thing. if some dude came up to you and a friend sat down and made himself comfortable out of nowhere and yer friend told you that said person is a thief would you want to debate with the person or just tell them to leave? well i think youd have a philosophical conversation with them to the point of them wanting to leave on their own, so thats a plus for you.



AnOldHope said:


> I think reasonable minds can differ, and I'm not sure people (especially in groups and during conflict) are always reasonable. However, by what you're describing, it sounds like the unwanted person is somehow intuitively determined as an asshole by the group. What if not everyone is able to make those determinations without thought and discussion?


like i said, its not like people sit down and have a vote about it, if somebody doesnt want somebody else around, then somebody has to leave. its as simple as that. but the next time im with a group of people and one of us disagrees on whether or not we want somebody around ill suggest a drawn out discussion instead of just leaving or them leaving.

i realize im most likely coming off as a asshole, but its pretty common sense day to day stuff. leave, or they leave. if im with people who disagree and im the asshole, then im leaving. period. simple as that.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

You don't have to "humor" this, you're an adult and can participate as you will, and take responsibility for that choice.

If you read the thread, I hadn't introduced calling the police to the instance I was asking about, but when I was asked what I would do in my situation, which is different and would have a different answer. You seem to be conflating a lot of what was said and missing details that do make a difference.

Moreover, this is less about what I would do, but about what actually happens. I understand you need and want to make things simple, and from your perspective and life experience the outcome might be. Not everyone has that. 

I'm more interested in understanding how the dynamic actually emerges in those instances where a group in a squat has determined a person unwanted (not necessarily within the construct of any formally stated "Code", but in the broader sense of traveler culture) and how they are compelled to leave, the premise that was inferred in the other thread and that Matt mentioned should have its own thread. I'm not advocating what should be done, I'm asking what happens in that instance (which is very different than what I'd do on my own land). 

I appreciate you wanting to help (or humor, whichever helps you say it in a way you can feel okay with), but I think my question would benefit from someone with natural teaching aptitude, particularly to understand the nuances of the question being asked.


----------



## Deleted member 125 (Feb 21, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> You don't have to "humor" this, you're an adult and can participate as you will, and take responsibility for that choice.



at no point did i deny responsibility for humoring you. yer absolutly right, its my call whether or not i want to answer the same question 3 times while you reword the question. i also dont think im missing details, you seem to not understand that the basic answer to all of yer questions is either you leave, or they leave, whether or not it gets physical depends on the situation. but yer right, ill leave the question to be answered further by somebody who has a natural teaching aptitude who can better understand the nuances asking somebody to leave.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

cantcureherpes said:


> at no point did i deny responsibility for humoring you. yer absolutly right, its my call whether or not i want to answer the same question 3 times while you reword the question. i also dont think im missing details, you seem to not understand that the basic answer to all of yer questions is either you leave, or they leave, whether or not it gets physical depends on the situation. but yer right, ill leave the question to be answered further by somebody who has a natural teaching aptitude who can better understand the nuances asking somebody to leave.



Well, you said "I can't believe I'm still", but your call. Its not the same question, you continually reduce a more refined question to something kind of simplistic. I'm sorry you can't get the distinction between what I'm asking and the more generalized case, I'm hoping someone will. 

I'm saying that if the group wants them to leave, and they don't, what happens? I've clarified a few times, at this point I think you just need things to be simple, perhaps simpler than they are. I get that the best answer you can give is "either this that or the other", but its so simplistic as to not actually be useful. It's rather like answering a set theory question with "um, it will be an element or not?"

To be more clear for any that might see the thread eventually, what happens when the group wants them to leave, and they do not wish to? How does "time for [them] to go" play out in those instances (with the understanding there may be many answers, but of particular use would be empirically observed examples).


----------



## Deleted member 125 (Feb 21, 2017)

i hope you get a answer that satisfies yer never ending need for knowledge, but i think ive about exhausted my usefulness in this thread.


----------



## Grubblin (Feb 21, 2017)

I leave. I don't call the cops. People have enough problems in life without me calling the cops bc they're being an asshole. The only way to make sure that you don't get into this type of situation, if you own the land, is to not invite people on the land in the first place. 

Since you own the land, perhaps a more political solution to the situation would be to invite them to spend the night elsewhere on the property.

Inviting people onto the property for even a night invites a certain amount of liability on yourself, the landowner. It's hard enough to deny liability on a person who is trespassing on your land. I would imagine that it's almost impossible to deny liability if they can prove that you invited them there.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

Grubblin said:


> I leave. I don't call the cops. People have enough problems in life without me calling the cops bc they're being an asshole. The only way to make sure that you don't get into this type of situation, if you own the land, is to not invite people on the land in the first place.
> 
> Since you own the land, perhaps a more political solution to the situation would be to invite them to spend the night elsewhere on the property.
> 
> Inviting people onto the property for even a night invites a certain amount of liability on yourself, the landowner. It's hard enough to deny liability on a person who is trespassing on your land. I would imagine that it's almost impossible to deny liability if they can prove that you invited them there.



I'm very sorry, I thought I had explained better. 

I'm not asking about my situation or what would happen with someone on my land. If they refused to leave if asked, I'd let the cops handle that. That was never my question, and I'm very sorry if I phrased it poorly. 

In a different thread (that was not about me or my land) the premise was put forward that under certain conditions in a squat or other group context, some behavior would result in a situation described as "time for [person in question] to go". 

I'm seeking to learn more culturally about how traveler culture convinces the offending person to go and what is done when they will not. I'm finding in some instances (admittedly a low enough sample population for only very low-confidence inferences) that instead of that person going, the person offended with go (phrased more as "time for me/us to go". I find that reasonable and would likely do the same.

But my question is about those instances where the group expels an individual who does not want to leave. How does it progress and what are the dynamics involved?

I will again note that I'm not asking about my situation, it was someone else who asked me what I would do, so I answered, but I'm in a very different situation. 

I hope that makes more sense.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

Grubblin said:


> Inviting people onto the property for even a night invites a certain amount of liability on yourself, the landowner. It's hard enough to deny liability on a person who is trespassing on your land. I would imagine that it's almost impossible to deny liability if they can prove that you invited them there.



Liability is a very broad area, and fortunately my assets are low enough in value to be protected by both homestead law and the differential between the fees for filing a tort claim and the recoverable value of anything I own. 

As to "deny liability", that depends largely on whether you mean liability for a tort claim (negligence?) if they should be injured on the property or something similar, but the mere act of inviting someone as a guest I would find unlikely to establish sufficient bailment as to create any more exposure than the general duties of care associated with the property. 

I'm not sure what that has to do with the cultural study of travelers and their experience on the road, though.


----------



## Grubblin (Feb 21, 2017)

Then I misunderstood the post. I don't know how to answer the question of how to make people leave BC I always leave when I see things going from bad to worse. I try to make an excuse so that anyone who wants to leave with me can do so. Something along the lines of "I need something to eat, anyone else want to go?". It gives them the chance to go with me or stay put. That way if it's only me that thinks the person is being an asshole I don't ruin the whole gathering. I'll stand my ground when threatened and I have to but I'd rather remove myself (and whoever else wants to go) from the situation than to try to make someone who is already confrontational try to go away. 

Funny thing is a couple of times it's the asshole that wanted to go with me so I took him (yes, it was a guy both times). Even funnier thing is that once they were away from the group they bitched about 5 minutes to me about the situation and then they were completely cool. Sometimes people just need a reset especially if they think a group is against them. I think it allowed them to save face without admitting their assholery. Nothing worse than feeling persecuted when you already feel marginalized. I know that's not what you're looking for, so good luck finding your info.

I don't know anything about the hobo code, I'm only trying to make my way through life one hour at a time.


----------



## Kim Chee (Feb 21, 2017)

When I mentioned cop calling it was if you were the landowner and if a physical altercation could not be avoided. Understand this as dude has been told to go, been told that the cops are on the way even. There's lots of other places to be, take your shit and git if you've made yourself somehow unwelcome.

Not for a couple bo's trying to settle an argument.
Not because somebody stole your girl.
Not because there is some small problem in camp.
Not because you like calling the fucking cops.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

Grubblin said:


> Then I misunderstood the post. I don't know how to answer the question of how to make people leave BC I always leave when I see things going from bad to worse. I try to make an excuse so that anyone who wants to leave with me can do so. Something along the lines of "I need something to eat, anyone else want to go?". It gives them the chance to go with me or stay put. That way if it's only me that thinks the person is being an asshole I don't ruin the whole gathering. I'll stand my ground when threatened and I have to but I'd rather remove myself (and whoever else wants to go) from the situation than to try to make someone who is already confrontational try to go away.
> 
> Funny thing is a couple of times it's the asshole that wanted to go with me so I took him (yes, it was a guy both times). Even funnier thing is that once they were away from the group they bitched about 5 minutes to me about the situation and then they were completely cool. Sometimes people just need a reset especially if they think a group is against them. I think it allowed them to save face without admitting their assholery. Nothing worse than feeling persecuted when you already feel marginalized. I know that's not what you're looking for, so good luck finding your info.
> 
> I don't know anything about the hobo code, I'm only trying to make my way through life one hour at a time.



I think the fact that you leave before the inciting event is probably wise, if I were not in my home I would do the same.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

Kim Chee said:


> When I mentioned cop calling it was if you were the landowner and if a physical altercation could not be avoided. Understand this as dude has been told to go, been told that the cops are on the way even. There's lots of other places to be, take your shit and git if you've made yourself somehow unwelcome.
> 
> Not for a couple bo's trying to settle an argument.
> Not because somebody stole your girl.
> ...



So far its sounding like most would not compel the other to leave, but would themselves leave . This seems to be a useful advantage of the traveler lifestyle, you have no need or want to defend any particular piece of ground, so you can just leave. 

Perhaps there is no existing (or at least common) dynamic of a group expelling someone who would not leave, it sounds like most or all of the group would move on (when this originally came up I had wondered if the group simply moves on without the offending individual). 

Are there favorable locations such that travelers may feel the need to defend them, at least for the night? In those instances, would a noxious individual be more likely to be responded to with a coherent group response to expel them?


----------



## Kim Chee (Feb 21, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> ...Are there favorable locations such that travelers may feel the need to defend them, at least for the night? In those instances, would a noxious individual be more likely to be responded to with a coherent group response to expel them?



This is probably more relevant to homebum camps and squatting situations neither of which have I experienced.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

Kim Chee said:


> This is probably more relevant to homebum camps and squatting situations neither of which have I experienced.



That makes sense.


----------



## Deleted member 125 (Feb 21, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> I think the fact that you leave before the inciting event is probably wise, if I were not in my home I would do the same.


so i guess you could say that leaving is a good answer to yer question afterall? its strange that was my answer the entire time i must of missed the subtle nuance once again.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

cantcureherpes said:


> so i guess you could say that leaving is a good answer to yer question afterall? its strange that was my answer the entire time i must of missed the subtle nuance once again.



Sigh, no, but I will explain again, since at this point you are not just missing the nuance but the basic logical structure, but since you don't seem to be able to follow through on not "humoring" me, I'll explain again.

My question was regarding the specific case of those instances where a group wanted to expel someone from a squat, expressed in the other thread as "time for them to go", meaning they would somehow be made to leave. I was interested in how that situation would play out.

The different situation of the offended leaving (as opposed to the offender) seems to be the more common alternative scenario, but is not logically within the scope of my question, which clearly speaks to those instances where the group does not wish to leave and wants the offender to go ("time for us to go", which is very different from "time for them" to go. I'm honestly sorry (and a little bewildered that you really can't comprehend the difference between those two things.

So, an apt reader would be able to understand that the answer to my question was "most often they are not made to leave, and 'time for them to go' is not as likely a situation as 'time for us to go'", but that needed to be answered by somehow who understood the difference. You continue not to.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

So, to get back on topic and avoid the needlessly personal, is there anyone who has experience or knowledge in those instances expressed as "time for [troublesome person] to go" (as opposed to the now well-examined but different case of "time for [us] to go", which is apparently more common but not what I'm asking about? 

Has anyone here ever observed (without naming names) an instance where a group compelled someone to leave due to their behavior, and how did it progress?


----------



## Deleted member 125 (Feb 21, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> I think the fact that you leave before the inciting event is probably wise, if I were not in my home I would do the same.





AnOldHope said:


> Sigh, no, but I will explain again, since at this point you are not just missing the nuance but the basic logical structure, but since you don't seem to be able to follow through on not "humoring" me, I'll explain again.
> 
> My question was regarding the specific case of those instances where a group wanted to expel someone from a squat, expressed in the other thread as "time for them to go", meaning they would somehow be made to leave. I was interested in how that situation would play out.
> 
> ...



my not humoring you was based on me not knowing if you are trolling at this point especially since you quoted and agreed with a answer that i gave (and also got a great reaponse by you about how it wasnt what you wanted). because imo, hot damn man, yer killing it. i guess im not a apt reader enough to read yer quote, quote it, then attempt to understand what you mean, because every new time you post you add more stuff into the bag which at this point is a 5 pound bag with 10 pounds in it.



AnOldHope said:


> So, to get back on topic and avoid the needlessly personal, is there anyone who has experience or knowledge in those instances expressed as "time for [troublesome person] to go" (as opposed to the now well-examined but different case of "time for [us] to go", which is apparently more common but not what I'm asking about?
> 
> Has anyone here ever observed (without naming names) an instance where a group compelled someone to leave due to their behavior, and how did it progress?



i dont think replying to yer thread is off topic. ive genuinely answered yer questions to the best of my ability. in the most simple way i could. im sorry im not as of a apt reader as you are. i dont mean to offend you by my apparent inability to discern the difference between answering a question simply and twisting words over and over again making things over complicated. 

but my point still stands, i replied saying that leaving, or asking them to leave were 2 options. you seem so caught up on whether or not what party leaves, which to me is strange. because it seems that the simple answer is still the same. somebody leaves.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

cantcureherpes said:


> my not humoring you was based on me not knowing if you are trolling at this point especially since you quoted and agreed with a answer that i gave (and also got a great reaponse by you about how it wasnt what you wanted). because imo, hot damn man, yer killing it. i guess im not a apt reader enough to read yer quote, quote it, then attempt to understand what you mean, because every new time you post you add more stuff into the bag which at this point is a 5 pound bag with 10 pounds in it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, but in those instances where the offender is compelled to leave, how are they made to leave? 

It may not interest you, it interests me. Your closing paragraph shows you don't understand what you claim to understand. I'm sorry, there is little be learned from you.

Part of responsibility in life is follow through, but you don't seem to be able to follow through on your premise that this is not a useful line of inquiry. If you think its not, don't respond to it. That's an adult skill. That you persist shows there is something personal here, and on your end, nothing more. 

I'm going to direct my attentions to someone that might have other insights, I hope whatever happened to you that makes you like this gets better for you. I have nothing against you personally, you just don't have what I seek.

I'll wait until someone responds who might better connect with the question.


----------



## tacopirate (Feb 21, 2017)

Definitely relevant to squats. In Detroit squats it was always a group decision, but the politics of such can be tricky. Violence was often chosen in that culture. Never, ever were the police intentionally called.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

tacopirate said:


> Definitely relevant to squats. In Detroit squats it was always a group decision, but the politics of such can be tricky. Violence was often chosen in that culture. Never, ever were the police intentionally called.



In some hierarchical systems, a group wanting to expel a same-species member will surreptitiously communicate and organize, and choose a coordinated time to violently engage the offender. Is this similar to the politics you mention?


----------



## Deleted member 125 (Feb 21, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> Right, but in those instances where the offender is compelled to leave, how are they made to leave?
> 
> It may not interest you, it interests me. Your closing paragraph shows you don't understand what you claim to understand. I'm sorry, there is little be learned from you.
> 
> ...



how is somebody made to leave? ...

part of responsibility in life is to follow through? like i said, i dont know if yer a joke or just dont understand a simple answer to what i thought was a simple question. and implying that i dont posses the "adult skill" of not responding comes off as pretty damn condescending. me persisting is nothing personal, its me responding to a question you asked. 

assuming something happend to me to make me this way is also a awfully condescending thing to say especially coming from someone who admits they know nothing about what they are asking about. you seem like somebody looking to gather data on some unknown species or something. its at best strange and at worst borderline offensive that you are treating this thread like some kind of case study on what people do when in a certain situation.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

cantcureherpes said:


> how is somebody made to leave? ...
> 
> part of responsibility in life is to follow through? like i said, i dont know if yer a joke or just dont understand a simple answer to what i thought was a simple question. and implying that i dont posses the "adult skill" of not responding comes off as pretty damn condescending. me persisting is nothing personal, its me responding to a question you asked.
> 
> assuming something happend to me to make me this way is also a awfully condescending thing to say especially coming from someone who admits they know nothing about what they are asking about. you seem like somebody looking to gather data on some unknown species or something. its at best strange and at worst borderline offensive that you are treating this thread like some kind of case study on what people do when in a certain situation.



Dealing with what you think of as condescension is also a skill.

That you are "borderline" offended by someone asking about something they don't know about (which in, in some schools of thought, is actually considered a good thing to ask questions about) continues to confirm that you are taking this very personally.

It's an interesting response to see amidst a culture that self identifies as free thinking, independent, accepting differences, etc.

In any case, there are others who see it differently, and I'm learning from them. I'm sorry that bothers you and that your reaction is this intense, but that reflects on you, not me.

Are you going to be okay? Do you need to "win" this somehow? You can win. You win.

I'd like to speak with others now. Can you be okay with that?


----------



## tacopirate (Feb 21, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> In some hierarchical systems, a group wanting to expel a same-species member will surreptitiously communicate and organize, and choose a coordinated time to violently engage the offender. Is this similar to the politics you mention?



Yes, this is exactly what I meant. Isn't this fairly common with gorillas? It seems like I read that once before. The coordinated violence was quite common in the squats I've been in. I noticed that it often wasn't spoken, but certainly prevalent. I think that humans have the ability to "plant seeds" more so than any other species, so it can often lead to manipulative behavior towards others. Deserved or not.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

tacopirate said:


> Yes, this is exactly what I meant. Isn't this fairly common with gorillas? It seems like I read that once before. The coordinated violence was quite common in the squats I've been in. I noticed that it often wasn't spoken, but certainly prevalent. I think that humans have the ability to "plant seeds" more so than any other species, so it can often lead to manipulative behavior towards others. Deserved or not.



I'm not sufficiently versed in primatology to know, but I suppose it makes sense. If it has progressed to the point where violence arises, the group has the best chance if it acts in coordination.

Is the offender offered some kind of clear explicit warning that if they do not depart, it will escalate to violence? (I'm sure every situation is a bit different, but on average)?

I should note that I would not consider this to be a sign of violent proclivity among squatters, since those occupying a place lawfully engage in all kinds of violence (domestic, etc). I imagine overall that people without permanent housing are not more prone to violence than those with opulent houses. Phil Spector shot some lady in the face in his mansion.


----------



## Deleted member 125 (Feb 21, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> Dealing with what you think of as condescension is also a skill.
> 
> That you are "borderline" offended by someone asking about something they don't know about (which in, in some schools of thought, is actually considered a good thing to ask questions about) continues to confirm that you are taking this very personally.
> 
> ...



being "borderline" offended by somebody who wants to know the ins and outs and personal experiences of others without wanting to give anything back is a pretty normal response when somebody smells bullshit. 

im glad you are learning from others. thats whats up, and no it doesnt bother me in the least. but thats a interesting thing to bring up out of nowhere.

see now yer just baiting a response, which is derailing yer own thread. asking if im going to be ok and telling me i can win a arguement that youv now made up. like i said, i was answering yer question and using yer own quotes to show that yer question had been answered before, although i guess it did lack the subtle nuance.

you are more then free to speak to others hell i encourage it.

"It's an interesting response to see amidst a culture that self identifies as free thinking, independent, accepting differences, etc." its not that of a interesting response when you consider how you come off as someone who like i said is treating this conversation like somebody wanting to poke and prod without giving anything back.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

cantcureherpes said:


> being "borderline" offended by somebody who wants to know the ins and outs and personal experiences of others without wanting to give anything back is a pretty normal response when somebody smells bullshit.
> 
> im glad you are learning from others. thats whats up, and no it doesnt bother me in the least. but thats a interesting thing to bring up out of nowhere.
> 
> ...



Ok, that's nice, thank you.


----------



## tacopirate (Feb 21, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> I'm not sufficiently versed in primatology to know, but I suppose it makes sense. If it has progressed to the point where violence arises, the group has the best chance if it acts in coordination.
> 
> Is the offender offered some kind of clear explicit warning that if they do not depart, it will escalate to violence? (I'm sure every situation is a bit different, but on average)?
> 
> I should note that I would not consider this to be a sign of violent proclivity among squatters, since those occupying a place lawfully engage in all kinds of violence (domestic, etc). I imagine overall that people without permanent housing are not more prone to violence than those with opulent houses. Phil Spector shot some lady in the face in his mansion.



I wouldn't say that squatters are more violent than anyone else either. Squatter is such a broad term at any rate - there are always different types of people in any situation. Lord knows I've seen much worse behavior in "civilized" folk than squatters. Transients are often incorrectly referred to as heathens because they don't abide by some societal norms. Even the word transient is indicative of "not fitting in." But, I think it is a bit more common to see "outlaw" types to want to handle things on their own and not involve outside authority. I'm guilty of living by the no snitch mentality to an extreme. Perhaps it's unhealthy, but I will not ever call the police. Antisocial, maybe. Wrong, I think not. Then again, one always trying to comprehend behavior is doomed to it.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

tacopirate said:


> I wouldn't say that squatters are more violent than anyone else either. Squatter is such a broad term at any rate - there are always different types of people in any situation. Lord knows I've seen much worse behavior in "civilized" folk than squatters. Transients are often incorrectly referred to as heathens because they don't abide by some societal norms. Even the word transient is indicative of "not fitting in." But, I think it is a bit more common to see "outlaw" types to want to handle things on their own and not involve outside authority. I'm guilty of living by the no snitch mentality to an extreme. Perhaps it's unhealthy, but I will not ever call the police. Antisocial, maybe. Wrong, I think not. Then again, one always trying to comprehend behavior is doomed to it.



The Law Enforcement construct in the United States is often very hard on those not ensconced in conventional wealth. I can understand where a trepidation about involving law enforcement would emerge, as it does in many static communities where the populations are not really afforded fair treatment under the law.


----------



## Grubblin (Feb 21, 2017)

tacopirate said:


> I wouldn't say that squatters are more violent than anyone else either. Squatter is such a broad term at any rate - there are always different types of people in any situation. Lord knows I've seen much worse behavior in "civilized" folk than squatters. Transients are often incorrectly referred to as heathens because they don't abide by some societal norms. Even the word transient is indicative of "not fitting in." But, I think it is a bit more common to see "outlaw" types to want to handle things on their own and not involve outside authority. I'm guilty of living by the no snitch mentality to an extreme. Perhaps it's unhealthy, but I will not ever call the police. Antisocial, maybe. Wrong, I think not. Then again, one always trying to comprehend behavior is doomed to it.[/QUOTE
> 
> Antisocial you may be but the no snitch mentality is the only way to live and let live. Good post.


----------



## tacopirate (Feb 21, 2017)

Interesting stuff, for sure. I was once diagnosed with ODD....
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/oppositional-defiant-disorder#1


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

tacopirate said:


> Interesting stuff, for sure. I was once diagnosed with ODD....
> http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/oppositional-defiant-disorder#1



If its okay for me as the OP to broaden the topic of the thread (also serving for that not to need to be another thread), may I ask for elaboration on the categorical no-snitch policy?

If you were assaulted in public from behind, were knocked unconscious and robbed (not seeing your attacker), but there were several witnesses, would you want them to provide a description of your attackers to the police? (Assume you are physically incapacitated and cannot pursue individual independent response).

If you observed someone being attacked by a group who then fled (assume the group is too large or violently effective for you to engage them yourself), would you give their description to the police? What if the victim asked you to? (Assume the victim was attacked from behind and cannot identify their attacker). 

If you witnessed a sexual assault, which later resulted in arrest and prosecution, and you were called to testify in court, would you? 

If you saw multiple heavily armed assailants attacking someone in a remote area, and you did not have the firepower to defend that person yourself, would you call the police (presumably after getting yourself to safety)? 

Are there any circumstances you can imagine under which you would contact the police?


----------



## Kim Chee (Feb 21, 2017)

In order to remain on topic I'm asking that you start a new thread if it isn't about "How is you got to go enforced?"


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

Kim Chee said:


> In order to remain on topic I'm asking that you start a new thread if it isn't about "How is you got to go enforced?"



If that's preferred, no problem, will do.


----------



## tacopirate (Feb 21, 2017)

A valid series of questions. I often refer to said policy as a misnomer because of what you just proposed. Honestly, I would not ever call the police. I don't trust the police to do anything. If I were unable to physically stop something horrible at the time, I would make up for it later. I have certain computer skills that allow for that. Perhaps I have the vigilante mentality? But, do the police have the ability to stop anything either? Sure, a gunman hell-bent on taking lives could be stopped... at the cost of how many other lives? Again, and maybe it is a flaw, but what can the police offer that I cannot? I have a humanist attitude. My solution is to outsmart bad folks, I suppose.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

tacopirate said:


> A valid series of questions. I often refer to said policy as a misnomer because of what you just proposed. Honestly, I would not ever call the police. I don't trust the police to do anything. If I were unable to physically stop something horrible at the time, I would make up for it later. I have certain computer skills that allow for that. Perhaps I have the vigilante mentality? But, do the police have the ability to stop anything either? Sure, a gunman hell-bent on taking lives could be stopped... at the cost of how many other lives? Again, and maybe it is a flaw, but what can the police offer that I cannot? I have a humanist attitude. My solution is to outsmart bad folks, I suppose.



So with computer skills, you would avenge the victim by some later maneuver against the attackers? Your skills are sufficient you could locate and somehow harm them?

What about in the case of a sex assault victim, who may want access to a rape kit or her right to face her accuser in court, but you would have to tell the truth about what you saw to the police. Would you decline?

I have scene some instances where police involvement, particular with the associated forensic capacity, has served to identify and in some instances successful stop sexual predators.

Given these computer skills that you have to locate and respond to wrongdoers, do you exercise that? There are many rapes, molestations, etc, that go unpunished. If your informational acumen allows you to identify them and retaliate, do you?

EDIT: I'm sorry, Taco, a mod has said this would be better as a separate thread, I'll respond there if need, thanks.


----------



## tacopirate (Feb 21, 2017)

Fair enough.


----------



## travmhid (Feb 21, 2017)

To answer the original question: People go or they're made to go; this has been my experience. Most people intuitively understand this, and if a group is telling them to fuck off then they do... 'cause in a 5v1 fight they're not gonna win. I've never seen an actual vote take place, it's more that people talk amongst themselves and arrive at that conclusion. The way humans do.

If you're in a group and they tell you to leave, you fucking leave. Because of course you do--what else would you do? What are you, a masochist? You like getting your ass kicked? 'cause that's how you get your ass kicked.

A broader point: Okay, first thing you have to know is that the Hobo Code isn't real. That's just stuff people talk about on the internet. It's not a real thing that you'll ever actually encounter, just like there isn't a hobo court outside of some old timers trying to roleplay in Britt or whatever. Likewise, hobo signals/language? Nobody uses that. It's just something travel blogs like to spam. I say this because with all the questions about how we do things/arrive at decisions/enforce our decisions, you seem to have overestimated the extent to which travelers are special types of humans who interact with other humans in their own unique way.

We're a subculture, sure, but we're not *that* much of a subculture. It's not even really safe to call us a subculture, as being a hobo is more of a lifestyle which is divided up into subcultures. In either case, we're not like Trekkies who speak Klingon or Tolkien fans who all learn Elvish. There is no Council of Eldrond. For all of that you should look into the Rainbow crowd, that's where you'll find the closest things to secret handshakes and group decision matrices. But outside of Rainbow-type groups, to the extent that 'Hobo culture' is a thing it consists of unwritten rules that one learns on the road. Rules like... 'Don't try to hitch on the same ramp as someone else--wait your turn.' It's probably not written down in a book someplace, it's just a) fucking obvious, and b) something you learn 'cause the first time you try it, the other hitcher is gonna tell you to fuck off.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 21, 2017)

travmhid said:


> To answer the original question: People go or they're made to go; this has been my experience. Most people intuitively understand this, and if a group is telling them to fuck off then they do... 'cause in a 5v1 fight they're not gonna win. I've never seen an actual vote take place, it's more that people talk amongst themselves and arrive at that conclusion. The way humans do.
> 
> If you're in a group and they tell you to leave, you fucking leave. Because of course you do--what else would you do? What are you, a masochist? You like getting your ass kicked? 'cause that's how you get your ass kicked.
> 
> ...



So it sounds like as a group consensus forms via less overt (but still effective) means, a warning of sorts is delivered, and it is naturally understood violence will follow (ass kicking) if the offended does not leave. 

So there is not formalized coherence in the group, but sufficient instinctive cooperation to project sufficient strength that the offender is most often compelled to leave for fear of violence (unless the offended decide they'll just leave). 

Yeah, Jesus, I wouldn't want to be around for one of those Sci-Fi Con dustups where they play Magic: The Gathering by Juarez rules.


----------



## travmhid (Feb 21, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> So it sounds like as a group consensus forms via less overt (but still effective) means, a warning of sorts is delivered, and it is naturally understood violence will follow (ass kicking) if the offended does not leave.



That summary sounds fairly robotic but you're not typing in all caps à la /r/totallynotrobots, so you must be writing your masters thesis. 



> So there is not formalized coherence in the group, but sufficient instinctive cooperation to project sufficient strength that the offender is most often compelled to leave for fear of violence (unless the offended decide they'll just leave).



Yes. Or, if you prefer: under ideal game-theoretical conditions the aggrieved party will execute a cost-benefit analysis, the result of which will lead said party towards a rapid exit lest they experience a zerosum outcome.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 22, 2017)

travmhid said:


> That summary sounds fairly robotic but you're not typing in all caps à la /r/totallynotrobots, so you must be writing your masters thesis.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Or, if you prefer: under ideal game-theoretical conditions the aggrieved party will execute a cost-benefit analysis, the result of which will lead said party towards a rapid exit lest they experience a zerosum outcome.



No, I don't expect to have to defend my conclusions to committee, thankfully. 

It is interesting to know that the mechanism isn't really particularly different among travelers than to the general population. 

I'm reading up on the "Rainbow kids" you reference. It's going to be hard to approach without bias because the name makes me think of the Care Bears but with folding knives and hallucinogens.


----------



## travmhid (Feb 22, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> Care Bears but with folding knives and hallucinogens.



Well you're not wrong. Just beware these bears, 'cause while cuddly at first glance they can be cunty and dangerous; especially in packs. 



> It is interesting to know that the mechanism isn't really particularly different among travelers than to the general population.



Remember, we're people too. If you want weirdness, you've usually gotta join a commune or a clan.


----------



## kecleon (Feb 22, 2017)

In squats it happens sometimes usually it's all civil like for example Bob sorry but everyone voted you need to leave we'll be cool about it if you are. Most people aren't going to face off against 10,20,30 other people....

Some people.Make a scene but still leave.. Otherwise you get a mega asshole and you drag them out throw their stuff to the street. 

Ive never seen anything go beyond that most people aren't full insane sit in a corner with a knife slashing the air or something... and if they are you can spot it before you let them in.

You can't have a plan for every single possibility in life you just need to use common sense.. if you don't have any then find some people who do.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 22, 2017)

charmander said:


> In squats it happens sometimes usually it's all civil like for example Bob sorry but everyone voted you need to leave we'll be cool about it if you are. Most people aren't going to face off against 10,20,30 other people....
> 
> Some people.Make a scene but still leave.. Otherwise you get a mega asshole and you drag them out throw their stuff to the street.
> 
> ...



This wasn't to have some sort of prepared response to the situation, as my situation is completely different, some effort was made to explain that earlier but may have gotten lost in the noise.

Often when someone wants to learn something, its not for the immediate "so I will know what to do in that situation". I can understand why that utilitarian inquiry would come to mind, but in this case, the purpose is not "what if x so I know what to y". 

It's more "why does x happen in system z" as an examination of a culture. 

So, you've provided some new information that offsets earlier observations. Sometimes a "vote" of sorts does occur? (Perhaps not with parliamentary formalism, I imagine in a group with experience together, the exchange could take place with a series of looks and expressions). 

It is interesting to hear that (at least in some cases) the violence is expulsive but not really punitive. It sounds like it's just to physically get the person out, rather than intent to harm for it's own sake. 

Common sense is an interesting idea, I see it used a lot. Usually I find it translates to "I don't understand why everyone doesn't have the same experiences, interpretations, and assumptions I do." Stated as such, it is a true statement.


----------



## kecleon (Feb 22, 2017)

Fair enough then.. but you can see how it gets confusing when as you get answers you bring a lot of things up you didn't mention in the first post.. It makes it seem like that's why you wanted to know, but you didn't ask it in a direct way so didn't get the answer you wanted even though the question was answered. If you're not actually looking for an answer and just are broadly examining it then it would probably be better to say that at first so people don't think you're trying to figure something specific out..

But in reply I've seen completely formal votes and more like what you described. It depends what you sign up to.. some are run by control freaks with tons of rules. I've been in squats that are like cleaner with more structure than the military and then like the complete opposite also.

I think what you were originally asking was about the hobo code so like a group of people traveling or just making camp together or even stumbling across each other which is a lot different. 

I think you're way more likeky to get in a fight over anything in that scenario because it's more kind of high highs but low lows like maybe you didn't eat for a while and didn't get any sleep then you'll get wound up real easy. Rather than a kind of security and steadier food sleep mood that you can get from a squat...


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 22, 2017)

charmander said:


> Fair enough then.. but you can see how it gets confusing when as you get answers you bring a lot of things up you didn't mention in the first post.. It makes it seem like that's why you wanted to know, but you didn't ask it in a direct way so didn't get the answer you wanted even though the question was answered. If you're not actually looking for an answer and just are broadly examining it then it would probably be better to say that at first so people don't think you're trying to figure something specific out..
> 
> But in reply I've seen completely formal votes and more like what you described. It depends what you sign up to.. some are run by control freaks with tons of rules. I've been in squats that are like cleaner with more structure than the military and then like the complete opposite also.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I realize analytic questions aren't everyone's cup of tea, but the complexity of some things (and certainly human behavior) is such that a given line of thought benefits from subsequent questions that examine the next level of complexity in that system. They aren't really about "something else", but something interactive, interdependent, etc. I am recognizing some people are not comfortable exchanging information that way, and I like the power of the internet (and in most instances, life) for people to choose what they want to engage with or not. 

The "control freak/tons of rules" crowd, they would be more likely to have some sort of long term holding of a particular squat, almost like "homebums" (if I'm using that correctly)? I can see where a very different thing would emerge than what you references in your second to last paragraph.

Your last paragraph I think raises something critically important. People (and most organisms, I'd think), will understandably be less hostile when their needs are met (unless the needs are emotional/social, etc and other things are in play). That having sufficient food, rest, and security would reduce hostility.

I suppose I won't raise it here (it seems more suitable for another board), but it would be interesting to hear opinions about whether the "control freak/tons of rules" groups serve to provide for those in the squat (meaning do they attempt to justify their authority by yielding benefits of their management structure to those who are subjected to the rules). It's politically and philosophically problematic (and kind of shitty), but I wonder if they are trying to sell the idea that their rules create a better living place and they will in turn give food, security, whatever, in exchange for adherence to their authority, essentially an unstated scarcity despotism.


----------



## kecleon (Feb 22, 2017)

I know they weren't about something else from your view but was saying how it appears if you don't explain first. Your posts would all have made more sense if you said you just wantrd to examine it broadly and weren't asking for any reason other than curiosity.

But yeah in my limited experience theyre more established squats with power water everything all sorted with building owners consent and support of comminity etc. But no not occupied by homebums more like activisty and student as well as people who work regular or irregular jobs but are also like activisty or hold non "normal" opinions on the world. Most you have to get in through a process like youre not just going to turn up and be like I know jonny. Some do a lot of stuff for the community and I heard about squats doing workshops and all kinds of shit. Maybe it's a case where they're in a strong position so they can demand people follow a lot of rules. And if you're into that their rules do create a better living space (for you) and if you're not no one forces you to live there.


----------



## AnOldHope (Feb 22, 2017)

charmander said:


> I know they weren't about something else from your view but was saying how it appears if you don't explain first. Your posts would all have made more sense if you said you just wantrd to examine it broadly and weren't asking for any reason other than curiosity.
> 
> But yeah in my limited experience theyre more established squats with power water everything all sorted with building owners consent and support of comminity etc. But no not occupied by homebums more like activisty and student as well as people who work regular or irregular jobs but are also like activisty or hold non "normal" opinions on the world. Most you have to get in through a process like youre not just going to turn up and be like I know jonny. Some do a lot of stuff for the community and I heard about squats doing workshops and all kinds of shit. Maybe it's a case where they're in a strong position so they can demand people follow a lot of rules. And if you're into that their rules do create a better living space (for you) and if you're not no one forces you to live there.



I'm sorry, I'm kind of from a different place, where curiosity is enough reason, and complex things are examined broadly (although narrower scope is often useful in application). I'll put something my sig that I like to examine things broadly. 

I see, so what you're describing is more like a social program, much more structured then the kind of squat most might experience. They are often religious?

Thank you for your help, I will pursue information on what you're describing on a board more centered to that.


----------



## kecleon (Feb 22, 2017)

None I've ever seen are at all religious or cult like. i wouldn't say social program either in my words. There's still like undertones of rebellion, anarchy, etc it's just like imagine a bunch of 20 year olds started a squat 10 or 15 or 20 years ago then they got older and it just lasted for better or worse rules creep in and it becomes more "grown up" I guess.

I don't actually know the history I'm just saying that as an example to give the feeling..


----------



## Beegod Santana (Feb 27, 2017)

Fucking A people! It's called a "green light." It's enforced by people knowing that if your ass gets lit and you don't boogie outta town bad things are gonna happen.


----------

