How is "you got to go" enforced?

[AnOldHope]

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

That makes sense.

 

[Deleted member 125]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

Ok, that's nice, thank you.

 

[tacopirate]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[AnOldHope]

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]

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?"