> The entire premise of the article rests on the context that most coverage about Woodstock 99 are exactly those things you're criticizing it for not being.
I mean, fair enough if you want to say that the author wants to talk about something other than those issues, but they do call them out and talk about them as real, like the sexual assault part:
"Tragically, following the festival, there were also reportedly allegations of rape. And while I didn’t personally witness anything as serious as those accusations, I don’t find them at all hard to believe, given the tenor of the event by the end of the weekend. You couldn’t go more than five minutes without seeing a topless woman being fondled by a random stranger."
Then literally the next sentence plays it off almost as if this was said just to say he's not denying it, only to brush it off instead:
"With all of that said, even after hell had broken loose, there were still some beautiful moments during the concert’s last day"
It's almost like saying, it was crazy, and a lot of people got hurt, but you know what? I had fun. And I didn't get hurt. And that's what I remember.
> The very point is that there are people who don't recall the event the way you want them to discuss it: as a sterile learning opportunity where every word they speak must be chosen to maximize the societal value they are able to impart.
I think the point of the article is he does recall the event the way everyone else does - it was basically a literal shitshow. But again, he had fun. I don't care that he doesn't want to talk about what he wants to impart, but he's writing this specifically to impart something. And what he's imparting is his nostalgia: nostalgia, that act of taking a memory out of the disposal bin, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts, and recycling it for more than it's worth.
There are so many better ways to write this article if you want to talk about something other than what the documentaries are talking about. Here's some ideas I came up with in 2 minutes:
- I found my old Woodstock '99 photos, #7 will surprise you!
- Looking back at my Woodstock experience, then and now
- Toss it up in the air like you just don't care, the best part of Woodstock '99
- What I didn't see at Woodstock '99 but everyone else did
Or you know, talk about the reason why he was there. The music? What made it great? Did he go with his first love? Friends from high school that he misses now? He could easily play to the hype by saying "well that's what other people saw, but from my vantage, this is what was going on in my life"
But by spending pretty much most of the article saying either yeah it happened, yeah it happened, and then kind of say but I had fun, implying that it wasn't really that bad. It didn't really happen. That leads down the "It's all fake news" path.
> it was crazy, and a lot of people got hurt, but you know what? I had fun. And I didn't get hurt. And that's what I remember.
This is every time you have fun. How far away was the closest person being assaulted from you during your last joyful experience? Might have been the alley outside the restaurant. The more densely populated and/or poor the area, the closer it probably was. Festivals in particular are insanely densely populated and, in a narrow sense, "poor". There are probably robberies and assaults at every Wikipedia-scale gathering you or I have ever attended.
It's not some 17 year old's responsibility to police the wild festival, or to feel shame about it after learning after the fact that worse things happened there than they realized. Finish the sentence "he should have..." for the day things got crazy at the festival. Left the scene, and by so doing become less corrupted by the proximal sins of others? Suspected that the craziness would probably lead to serious crimes and gone around seeking them out and reporting them? Or is the important thing that he just change the way he feels about the festival now in hindsight?
I dunno what I was doing the day those bad things happened at that festival (I was in Colorado) but I was probably having a good time. And I don't regret it!
> There are probably robberies and assaults at every Wikipedia-scale gathering you or I have ever attended.
I mean, true, but when there are literal piles of flaming debris and the fun involves what other people might consider a riot, I think it's not like he didn't know what was going on.
Look at what happened with the twitchcon party thing with the open cups of alcohol and a bunch of people got drugged. Now that was just bad party planning as well, but for random attendees, I get it - they didn't know that some of the cups were spiked.
> Or is the important thing that he just change the way he feels about the festival now in hindsight?
He doesn't have to change the way he feels, but the way he presents what he feels very much sounds like denial to me. And if you're posting your feels on the internet, you have to put up with everyone else's (including mine)'s feels too. He could have just posted all the pictures on his very popular instagram and not written that he didn't see the bad things.
It would have been just as interesting, if not more, to let people draw their own conclusions based on the pictures.
> I dunno what I was doing the day those bad things happened at that festival (I was in Colorado) but I was probably having a good time. And I don't regret it!
Fair enough, but this is almost like someone saying they got married on 9/11 and that is why they had a great day so it wasn't as bad as people remember? It doesn't seem related at all if you weren't there.
> Look at what happened with the twitchcon party thing with the open cups of alcohol and a bunch of people got drugged. Now that was just bad party planning as well, but for random attendees, I get it - they didn't know that some of the cups were spiked.
That's a good example. What degree of responsibility do the innocent attendees of that twitchcon have for the misconduct that happened there? I'm not familiar with the whole story, but if it was a big thing I'm guess most weren't aware of it. It's interesting to consider how culpable, if at all, the attendees and influencers at the event were, as well as those who reported on it afterwards.
> Fair enough, but this is almost like someone saying they got married on 9/11 and that is why they had a great day so it wasn't as bad as people remember? It doesn't seem related at all if you weren't there.
For one I don't think the author ever said it "wasn't as bad as people remember". He's not making an effort to discount anybody's negative experience. He's just saying that it was indeed a bit of a shitshow and yet his 17 year old self still had a memorable and overall good time. And I think he acknowledges his own blindness to the really bad things that he learned later had happened, but he doesn't seem to take any blame upon himself for it, which to me is reasonable.
How about this example: I was at an occupy wall street protest where I learned later a lot of criminal activity was suspected to have occurred. Let's say I still see it as an overall positive experience and I don't regret having attended. Is that similar to where the author stands w.r.t. Woodstock `99?
> What degree of responsibility do the innocent attendees of that twitchcon have for the misconduct that happened there? I'm not familiar with the whole story, but if it was a big thing I'm guess most weren't aware of it. It's interesting to consider how culpable, if at all, the attendees and influencers at the event were, as well as those who reported on it afterwards.
Right, so it's actually really interesting and I'd ask that you go look up the details yourself, don't believe me obviously.
So basically the problem was, at the party, the organizers (twitch / amazon employees) took a bunch of cups, and filled them with alcohol, and set them on a table, beer pong style. Like just sitting there, open top, etc. And left them unattended.
Now - not only is this probably against some kind of alcohol serving rules or licensing problems, but it's also the opposite of what any bartender would do. Especially in Vegas or cities with a lot of clubs and people where drugging may be a problem, girls and bartenders know the rules:
1. If some stranger orders you a drink, you take the drink from the bartender, you don't let the stranger buy a drink, and bring it to you, since they might spike it on the way.
2. If a bartender pours out a drink and sets it on the bar, and the other person isn't in like visible sight of reaching out to pick it up, or looks distracted, they will watch the glass until it is retrieved, or put a coaster on top to prevent anyone from dropping something in the drink.
3. Obviously nobody is watching for people who may be showing signs of being drugged or too drunk, there's no cutoff line since it's more like a beer fridge than a bar. Bartenders are not supposed to serve you more alcohol, even if you ask for it, if they think you are too intoxicated. I think they might even be liable in some way if they don't.
Okay, so what happened here is almost exactly like what happened at Woodstock '99. Here's the parallels.
Twitch, owned by Amazon, in all its hubris and thinking about how great it was, decided for some reason that they would not hire a bartender to handle this for them. They thought they could handle it themselves. "It's just pouring out drinks, we remember this from college last year," they say. Ignorant? You bet. Evil intention? probably not. But they've never done food service, they've never run a party, especially not one with girls (only half joking here).
But overall they were violating obvious best practice that could have been found if they just contacted a professional or even did a google search. Hell, even talking to a woman would have probably brought up this problem. But they missed it.
So to put on my INTJ judicial robes for a moment, here's the punishments.
Amazon is guilty of gross negligence. They should have known better. The individual employees I think shouldn't be sued individually, and should be covered by Amazon's corporate liability insurance, which I'm sure is considerable. Also, of all the things they could have done for a party, why did they have to choose alcohol? A bunch of people objected to this, mostly women, who said it might make them feel like it's an unsafe environment with drunk people drooling around and on them.
Anyone doing spiking of drinks is criminally liable. That's obvious right? You put something in the drink, you're committing an actual crime, so that's bad. You get all the blame, and the blame of anything that happens because of it, even if you didn't do it (think like all the DUI / murder complications).
Anyone seeing something but not saying anything I think is morally liable. I'd feel terrible if I noticed something and didn't check up on it or say something. But on the other hand, I don't necessarily feel that everyone has a duty to report and fix all the crime in the city. Everyone has to also be responsible for themselves and the situations they get in.
> For one I don't think the author ever said it "wasn't as bad as people remember". He's not making an effort to discount anybody's negative experience
I agree, I'm reading into it a bit, but the way that the story is edited gives that vibe that that is the story. The medium is the message, all that.
I don't think he deserves any blame personally. I just think that 20 years after, and reflecting on all this because the news brought it up... these are about the most nothingburger conclusions or thoughts ever. Most people learn something of at least some kind of wisdom in that time. Like, I can't believe that I thought that was fun, but it was, etc. And I think that obvious lack of reflection and lesson learning isn't unique to this person, I think it's a huge percentage of an entire generation of people. Even saying "I'm amazed that I had such a great time at such a crazy and time defining event" would have been better than "I was there."
"I was there." seems like the call of the by-standard who will stand there and watch you get beaten on the street, and since they aren't doing the beating, they don't feel bad at all. But, as it is said, for evil to flourish it just takes good men to do nothing. And it's so true.
So should they both have known better? Absolutely. Were they running afoul of the law, probably (occupancy, alcohol, arson, etc) - but I'm not a lawyer. Does it look bad? Absolutely. And the legal system simply cannot take the stand that ignorance of the law means that it's not wrong. Especially when everyone knows that bartenders serve alcohol and there are rules for doing it, and schools that do it, and licenses for it. Any 25 year old would have known this. But not really any one, but one exercising common sense (in the very loose legal idea of common sense, that most people would know).
> I was at an occupy wall street protest where I learned later a lot of criminal activity was suspected to have occurred. Let's say I still see it as an overall positive experience and I don't regret having attended. Is that similar to where the author stands w.r.t. Woodstock `99?
I'd say so, but also, it depends on the criminal activity that occurred. Are we talking like trespassing as a part of protest? Or maybe living on the street? Or are we talking about arson? Sexual assault? I would judge it exactly the same. If you said "it was a beautiful effigy that was burning on the starbucks headquarters, and nothing burns like an effigy" I'd probably put you in the "what are you thinking???" camp.
The problem is not his younger self having fun. It's this article trying to normalize that crazy violent insane festival.
He had fun, ok, but why write this just to still say that yeah ppl got hurt, but I had fun.
Why? What's the purpose? Does he feel blamed for enjoying himself so he writes this as some weird unwarranted self justification?
Oh, and no, I've been to plenty of massive festivals, there were no robberies, no looting, no fires, no rapes.
Yes you have so much more eloquently found the word: normalize. That's exactly what this is. It's like pushing the window. It's asking something like "have you read the climate science that says we're NOT responsible for global warming?" or "have you listened to that doctor who drives a car paid for by a cigarette company on the dangers of smoking? it's unproven!" or "the theory of evolution is just a theory". It's things like this that different groups of people react to different ways. I used to roll my eyes. Some people are like, hm, that seems valid. The words sound big. Others are in the absolute crackpot camp, the alien probes and cattle mutilations.
Now that the crackpots are more well armed than the normal intelligent people, I'm a bit scared. They also seem to be more effective at sabotaging the government using the same tactics.
And if you ask "why was this article written" or "what purpose does this article serve" or "why is it being promoted by this particular news site" - their answer will be "just to talk about it" or "presenting the other side". When really if you assume the author doesn't have evil intentions just makes them really hard to believe through their blind ignorance of the madness around them. IE, why would anyone read this drivel, it offers nothing. If they do have evil intent, then I go back to my previous contention as to the nature of it being a dogwhistle.
I don't think the author's good-faith reflection on their experience at Woodstock '99 supports your conclusion about fake news. But telling someone the proper way to remember their experiences does seem like forcing a specific narrative.
Sorry I missed this. You are absolutely right. I personally am a child of abuse, and I have a lot of mixed reflections on it too. Things like, would I really be who I was if I wasn't in that family, etc. And I think all of us learn to deal with the situation were are given (well, or if we don't, it seems like a pretty fast decline into maybe suicide, depression, drug abuse, etc).
Now, all that being said, just because you may have a complex relationship with your abuser or your memories of the place or what happened, that doesn't make it any less wrong or more right.
What really amazes me is that there are so many "poor" people in the world that really honestly live a great happy life, even though by American standards it might be not only considered poverty but injustice. Things that really seem to add to happiness are things like strong community, strong family ties, etc. But again, just because you are one part of the survivor bias doesn't change the moral problem with the original situation in my opinion.
But to cycle back to the mixed reflections - people are stupidly complex and beautifully wonderfully diverse and brilliant in their own way. Some people (mostly in debates) try to argue "who would decide to knowingly believe a lie?", "who would do something so illogical?" but not only does it happen, it's probably the norm. My family is all still together, driving each other crazy into a cycle of codependence, which makes no sense, but doesn't make the abuse that goes on right. If anything, that complexity only make sit more dangerous.
Yeah. In the context of this article, I think the different views stem from judging the totality of the event, or some aspects of it. Do the flaws taint the whole to the point where it can't be positive?
Clearly a lot of people had a really good time.It can also be true that there were some serious flaws, that should have never happened and should not be repeated, but that doesn't negate the fun some had.
I too have had the same observation talking with incredibly poor but happy people in developing nations. I don't know how they do do it, but I think part is being thankful for what they do have opposed to fixating on what they don't have
I mean, fair enough if you want to say that the author wants to talk about something other than those issues, but they do call them out and talk about them as real, like the sexual assault part:
"Tragically, following the festival, there were also reportedly allegations of rape. And while I didn’t personally witness anything as serious as those accusations, I don’t find them at all hard to believe, given the tenor of the event by the end of the weekend. You couldn’t go more than five minutes without seeing a topless woman being fondled by a random stranger."
Then literally the next sentence plays it off almost as if this was said just to say he's not denying it, only to brush it off instead:
"With all of that said, even after hell had broken loose, there were still some beautiful moments during the concert’s last day"
It's almost like saying, it was crazy, and a lot of people got hurt, but you know what? I had fun. And I didn't get hurt. And that's what I remember.
> The very point is that there are people who don't recall the event the way you want them to discuss it: as a sterile learning opportunity where every word they speak must be chosen to maximize the societal value they are able to impart.
I think the point of the article is he does recall the event the way everyone else does - it was basically a literal shitshow. But again, he had fun. I don't care that he doesn't want to talk about what he wants to impart, but he's writing this specifically to impart something. And what he's imparting is his nostalgia: nostalgia, that act of taking a memory out of the disposal bin, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts, and recycling it for more than it's worth.
There are so many better ways to write this article if you want to talk about something other than what the documentaries are talking about. Here's some ideas I came up with in 2 minutes:
- I found my old Woodstock '99 photos, #7 will surprise you!
- Looking back at my Woodstock experience, then and now
- Toss it up in the air like you just don't care, the best part of Woodstock '99
- What I didn't see at Woodstock '99 but everyone else did
Or you know, talk about the reason why he was there. The music? What made it great? Did he go with his first love? Friends from high school that he misses now? He could easily play to the hype by saying "well that's what other people saw, but from my vantage, this is what was going on in my life"
But by spending pretty much most of the article saying either yeah it happened, yeah it happened, and then kind of say but I had fun, implying that it wasn't really that bad. It didn't really happen. That leads down the "It's all fake news" path.