Even as someone who tends to play along with bans, this seems like a weird concept. I’m referring to those moments you walk into a club or a service one day and the people in charge say something along the lines of “you’re banned from our establishment because we learned you’re an artist that deals with controversial subject matter” or “we banned you because we heard that was you who engaged in those reckless activities that sent that one person to need care”.
We barely are able to enforce the Hague convention, so it makes me wonder what the mindset is when people try to take this on, as outside your jurisdiction, something could potentially be of any kind of context, as rules, etiquette, and protocol can differ enough between clubs and services that it’s almost as if the laws of physics can sometimes seem to differ.
One day, I witnessed a conversation between some rule enforcers and someone I know, and the suspicious rule enforcers asked why the individual so often likes to remain as low a profile as possible, and the individual responded “if I was as open about myself to everyone as everyone else is with each other, the amount of restrictions I’d have would quintuple due to the sheer amount of people who have grown a habit of hating me for no ethical reason whatsoever”, which also drags the issue of openness into the conversation.
Or… or maybe I’m wrong and/or am missing something. What’s your opinion on this practice? And what stands out to you as the last or most notable time this happened?
How often do you think this happens? Aside from one friend that got in a fight at a bar, I don’t know anyone who’s ever been banned from anywhere.
Quite often.
Does this mean you assume it happens often, or it actually happens to you often?
It happens often. It has happened to me before, but not as often as I see from other people. In nearly half of all communities where it’s common to find people complaining about being banned, the reason cited for said ban is something along the lines of the authority figures judging the banned individuals based on things they do in their personal lives. And that has intrigued me as it’s difficult to wonder how they deduce things such as whether the place they did that thing didn’t already punish them in some way, or if they’re not perceiving the correct context from what they see. I once got banned from a science fair because they thought I had been spreading misinformation during the pandemic in a forum in a completely different place.
Oh. I thought you meant in real life.
Like a business owner telling you to leave and never come back because you’re wearing the opposing candidates t shirt.
What you’re talking about is talking on the Internet.
Just like talking in real life, people can choose what they want to listen to. If they block you it’s because they don’t want to hear what you say, but you can go somewhere else that does. If they don’t want to listen, why would you want to bother talking to them anyway?
Be specific:
What would be a ‘thing’ in your weird world?
What would be a ‘ban’ in your weird world?
What would be a ‘jurisdiction’ in your weird world?
I was speaking generally because my question didn’t refer to any specific situations.
You were speaking so very generally that no meaning was left…
“Thing”, “ban”, and “jurisdiction” don’t cease to have meanings just because the most general sense of each word is used. Go look them up in a dictionary, my meaning of them isn’t narrower than what the dictionary says, and what a dictionary says should suffice for an avid user of the language.
Just taking out the trash.
What?
I thinknOP got kicked out of somewhere and is unhappy about it.
Cultivate your community or become the nazi bar. Removing people well known for being bad is a good thing. All those other reddit alternatives failed because the dregs decided to make those places their new home and no one kicked them out, so no one that could keep those sites healthy ever came into the communities. The only time it doesn’t go down this way is when there is no other alternatives.
Side note: based entirely on that single sentence i wouldn’t let your friend into any bar of mine either, anyone who says that is either way too much of a childish edgelord or an actual horrible person.
Lol a normal person would just say they value privacy. (Well, most people don’t. But a normal person who cares about privacy.)
It depends on the context of the ban.
I’m okay with ostracizing shitty people and I don’t think there needs to be empirical law defining what makes someone shitty.
If a club knows that you have “art” screaming the N word or something, ignoring that it makes you a bad person, it also very easily can be relevant to their actual business of providing a safe environment with some specific atmosphere if other patrons recognize you.
Is that an extreme version of “controversial art”? Sure. But the way you’re presenting it sure sounds like something like that is a possibility, and there are plenty of other “controversial” things you can do that similarly instigate shit.