How is "you got to go" enforced?

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?"

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

AnOldHope said:

Care Bears but with folding knives and hallucinogens.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.