“To make a mistake and not correct it” voted Sino-Korean idiom of 2022

Side tangent- Between people up in arms that the World Cup isn't serving beer and this, is it just me or are people really starting to develop some alcohol issues?

Like, you don't need to drink to enjoy sports. And you don't need to enter a dangerous situation to party and partying and booze shouldn't be that big of a thing that it makes you do so, and partying isn't a reason to justify dangerous behavior.

Not saying anyone here is intentionally doing that or believes that, but as someone who has enjoyed drink a fair bit, that is the kind of thinking that creeps into the mind of those of us who start to develop habits/dependence that those that don't can look at pretty calmly and be like "Dude, you don't need to drink to enjoy a soccer match." And the other person starts ranting about it and demanding countries change their laws and protesting. That's a sign of a problem.

And yeah, if something is causing you to join a wave of people just to party, when there are literally perfectly good alternatives right down the block (HBC, Kyungridan), and a host of alternatives a short bus/subway ride away (Jonggak-Euljiro-Jongro is what, 15-20 from Itaewon? Shinnonhyeon 25?) and you still choose to join a dangerous human wave because you want to party and get lit, yeah that's pretty poor judgment and again, a sign of some sort of issue. Partying and having a good time is great, but you need to be able to have the sensibility to turn around in that situation and not enter.

Didn't you guys already debate these same points already?

Didn't you guys already debate these same points already?

Pretty much.

In fact, so much that there was a spin-off thread to debate safety culture in general because I think making it about Itaewon Halloween specifically kind of affected our view.

As I said, if this were AjosshiFest 2022 and that the crush happened in Dog Meat Alley, I suspect that we might have different views. Depending on the degree to which we identify with those who died, that might affect where we assign blame (for better or for worse- it works both ways in that it can cause you to be more rational but it can also cause you to become more callous).

Again, as was discussed in the other thread- No one is saying the government doesn't have responsibility. What we are saying is that individual people also have to take responsibility and that in order to create a proper safety culture, you cannot overlook that.

i can and will continue to do so. in any instance such as this (or, if you want to use another example, the mecca crush) where public facilities and large crowds are involved, the government is solely responsible for ensuring a safe environment for the public.

yes, your individual responsibility is your problem. i suppose if someone walks into a crowd crush, you could semantically argue that they are "at fault" for walking in (i'm not sure why anybody would want to do that, though). but the government is at fault for allowing that sort of hazard to occur in the first place, and the responsibility solely being placed on them is completely reasonable.

Yes, the academic paper wants to emphasize the role of government in managing things. And there is a role for government to play. No one is denying that. Again, it is that people also need to take a fair share of responsibility.

no, they don't. "people" aren't elected to manage public venues or large crowds, government officials are.

This wasn't like researching a shopping mall. This was something that was clearly visibly dangerous and people chose to enter and contribute to it. They all could have turned around.

this is just a delusional take. if people (especially a bunch of them grouped together) acted logically 100% of the time we wouldn't need government for anything.

Side note! See one of the people who survived the crush, committed suicide. A high school boy whose friend died. Very sad.

https://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2022/12/15/2022121501058.html

i can and will continue to do so. in any instance such as this (or, if you want to use another example, the mecca crush) where public facilities and large crowds are involved, the government is solely responsible for ensuring a safe environment for the public.

I disagree. I think there is a significant level of responsibility for individual people to recognize that such a situation is dangerous and to turn around. Again, this doesn't mean the government has zero responsibility, and indeed the government has the majority of the responsibility, but individuals also have a significant minority of the responsibility. This isn't an either/or.

Which do you think creates a better safety culture and outcomes- One where increased responsibility is placed on individuals to behave safely or one that puts the onus on government and largely absolves the individual?

no, they don't. "people" aren't elected to manage public venues or large crowds, government officials are.

And where do you draw these government officials from? From the public. They don't go to "Government University" and take "Government Safety 101", they are drawn from the citizens. They aren't generated out of thin air and then placed in charge. If they themselves as people don't take much individual responsibility for safety, why should we expect them to? In fact, isn't the safety culture we see in Korea one where the emphasis is put mostly on the government AND NOT the individual?

this is just a delusional take. if people (especially a bunch of them grouped together) acted logically 100% of the time we wouldn't need government for anything.

Well, then I guess the situation wasn't obviously dangerous.

You can't have it both ways- You can't say this was an obvious danger that the government should have been aware of such that individual store owners and residents had noticed the danger and that people looking at pictures and video of the crowd could tell it was dangerous and ask "Where are the authorities?"And then say "People didn't recognize it was dangerous and they don't have any responsibility for entering a dangerous situation."

Either it was an obvious danger or it wasn't.  Yeah, at some level, people need to have the self-control to see it's dangerous, turn around and miss the party.

Which do you think creates a better safety culture and outcomes- One where increased responsibility is placed on individuals to behave safely or one that puts the onus on government and largely absolves the individual?

i'm not talking about general "safety culture", i'm talking about prevention of an event which it is the local government's elected duty to prevent. and as regards that, i would much rather have the latter, as the government should be the most effective tool for preventing or managing large-scale disasters, and i prefer to see the blame appropriately placed.

And where do you draw these government officials from? From the public. They don't go to "Government University" and take "Government Safety 101", they are drawn from the citizens.

i would hope that some of the people working under them have at least gone to "traffic control university" or something of the sort.

You can't have it both ways- You can't say this was an obvious danger that the government should have been aware of such that individual store owners and residents had noticed the danger and that people looking at pictures and video of the crowd could tell it was dangerous and ask "Where are the authorities?"

when it got to the state people were asking "where are the authorities" i think its fair to say that it quite obviously was a danger, but by that point the ship had sort of sailed. it never should have reached that point to begin with.

And then say "People didn't recognize it was dangerous and they don't have any responsibility for entering a dangerous situation."

yes, your individual responsibility is your problem. i suppose if someone walks into a crowd crush, you could semantically argue that they are "at fault" for walking in (i'm not sure why anybody would want to do that, though). but the government is at fault for allowing that sort of hazard to occur in the first place, and the responsibility solely being placed on them is completely reasonable.

Either it was an obvious danger or it wasn't.[/b] 

it clearly wasn't an obvious danger to the average citizen up until the point the panic itself occured. somebody with training in crowd management or, hell, someone with a bird's-eye view would probably have a much different perspective.

government should have the expertise and resources to diagnose major issues long before random members of the public figure it out.

i'm not talking about general "safety culture", i'm talking about prevention of an event which it is the local government's elected duty to prevent. and as regards that, i would much rather have the latter, as the government should be the most effective tool for preventing or managing large-scale disasters, and i prefer to see the blame appropriately placed.

I would much rather have a safety culture that really emphasizes everyone being responsible and taking action at all levels. If you look at any organization that follows those principles, they generally have really good safety records. Those that just expect a few people in charge to take care of it generally don't.

And yes, people need to learn the lesson- When you see a situation like that, turn around and walk away.

i would hope that some of the people working under them have at least gone to "traffic control university" or something of the sort.

Yes, but under them they also have the people who went to university for economics, those who went for law, those who went for marketing, those who went for international relations, etc. etc. etc. So you have a host of experts with different agendas. Prior to the event, traffic expert may be telling you to close it down, but economics guy is telling you this is vital for the economy, and international relations/constitutional law is saying if you do a hard level of restriction, that makes you a racist.

Thinking they should have "Just listened to the traffics expert" is hindsight is 20/20 thinking. Now, that's not to say they shouldn't have taken measures, because there were signs and again, no one is saying the authorities aren't responsible and shouldn't have been able to prevent it, just that people are seeing this with the lens of after, not before, and looking for someone to blame and partially blaming the revelers feels "harsh, man".

when it got to the state people were asking "where are the authorities" i think its fair to say that it quite obviously was a danger, but by that point the ship had sort of sailed. it never should have reached that point to begin with.

Yeah, and part of that ship was businesses putting up more of a fuss days, weeks and months beforehand and limiting access. They made a few half-hearted attempts, but really they wanted the $$$$$. And part of that was when people saw it was too busy, they should have turned around, not continued pressing in, but they wanted to be part of the buzz and get their party on. They knowingly entered a dangerous situation and contributed to it, to get their party on. Now, in fairness, they don't have the same level of power and are in an unprofessional state of mind. Their error isn't one they should be liable for or wrack themselves with guilt over, but they did err and there needs to be some level of accountability and education so that people don't make that mistake again. You can't just leave it up to the government.

it clearly wasn't an obvious danger to the average citizen up until the point the panic itself occured.

Hard disagree. You can tell it is dangerous and turn around (with perhaps the station being an exception, but once you exited the station, there was still the sidewalk before you go down the alleys. People chose to continue forward because "fun times" were ahead and if they just went through it, sure it's a little dangerous, but nothing is going to happen (and don't say something bad and be a downer), you'll make it and have a blast.

People knew it was dangerous, they just went ahead anyways. Again, this doesn't absolve the authorities and the authorities deserve the majority of the blame. But if we only focus on the authorities and not also the businesses and the individual attendees, then we are not achieving the best possible result.

I would much rather have a safety culture that really emphasizes everyone being responsible and taking action at all levels. If you look at any organization that follows those principles, they generally have really good safety records. Those that just expect a few people in charge to take care of it generally don't.

And yes, people need to learn the lesson- When you see a situation like that, turn around and walk away.

Yeah, good point.  There's 158 of them that won't do it again!

Again, guaranteed that if this were AjosshiFest, people would have no problem finding fault with Dog Meat Soup places trying to make a buck and Ajosshis cramming themselves in an alley, even though it was obviously dangerous, just so they could get some dog meat soup.

Yeah, good point.  There's 158 of them that won't do it again!

Yeah, if that lesson had been taught to them before that in such a dangerous situation, you turn around and don't enter. Me and my closest circle of friends all wanted nothing to do with the place, in large part because of what a clusterf*ck it was. We made the choice to not even put ourselves in the position. With another group of friends of mine, they did decide to go there, but I urged them to enter from Noksa/Hangangjin and not Itaewon station, which they thankfully did.

Now, why was I able to do this? Because I had experienced it before and could tell it was dangerous. If I saw it from a distance, I would know it was dangerous and would try not to enter. And people need to understand that they should do it and they have a responsibility not to exacerbate a situation.

And again, this doesn't absolve authorities from the majority of blame. But you can't completely ignore everyone else's collective responsibility just to focus on a few authority figures.

Everyone here is ranting about Korean safety culture, but blaming the authorities and not putting any individual responsibility on people to be safe or for businesses to put safety ahead of profits, is like the most Korean-y thing to do when it comes to safety and it's something we all constantly complain about. But here we don't for some reason. If you want to know why, just look at the AjosshiFest example. The difference is how we personally identify with those involved.

Again, guaranteed that if this were AjosshiFest, people would have no problem finding fault with Dog Meat Soup places trying to make a buck and Ajosshis cramming themselves in an alley, even though it was obviously dangerous, just so they could get some dog meat soup.

How about a red herring festival with you in charge? Just askin'.

How about a red herring festival with you in charge? Just askin'.

Of course, the only beverage would be the kool-aid ...

And again, this doesn't absolve authorities from the majority of blame. But you can't completely ignore everyone else's collective responsibility just to focus on a few authority figures.

yes i can. again, its those authority figures elected duty to use the resources that we as taxpayers invest in them to maintain safe conditions for the public.

Everyone here is ranting about Korean safety culture,

korean safety culture isnt much worse than many parts of the states

but blaming the authorities and not putting any individual responsibility on people to be safe

i've already said and even repeated that people's individual safety is their own responsibility, but public safety is the government's responsibility. issues such as crowd crushes fall under the latter.

If you want to know why, just look at the AjosshiFest example. The difference is how we personally identify with those involved.

i've been steadfastly ignoring the ajosshifest example bc its just another instance of you strawmanning the entire board and pretending that everyone you disagree with is hangook.

How about a red herring festival with you in charge? Just askin'.

It's not a red herring.

The use of such a method is to check for bias and impartiality. If the circumstances are the same, but only the identity of those involved changes, but you have a different conclusion regarding matters, then that is an indication of bias and group-think.

That's why you put out these examples, to see if someone changes their attitude based on such identity and if they are in fact, truly being consistent.

My hypothesis is that for a significant number of posters here, there would be a greater acceptance of the premise that both businesses and individuals attending shared to some degree in the responsibility if it were "AjosshiFest" and the accident took place in 'Dog Soup Alley.' I think many people, in addition to blaming the authorities, would also feel ajosshis deciding to cram themselves into an alley just to eat dog soup was reckless, dangerous, and they contributed to it. They also would likely blame alcohol consumption. Furthermore, they would likely hold the businesses accountable to some extent for their greed and lack of action and preparation.

If you think everyone would have the exact same bridge, you are absolutely blind to your biases. There is zero chance an incident of such nature at such a venue with such a crowd would get the same reaction on here. We identify with Itaewon, the revelers, and the businesses. We don't in the other case and thus it causes us to change our views. Now, perhaps that makes us harsher and callous to what should really be done OR perhaps it makes us more dispassionate. Or maybe it's a bit in the middle.

You can still agree with both the AjosshiFest bias concept AND that the authorities should be responsible, by interpreting increased blame on individuals in such an instance as being more callous, rather than being more dispassionate.

yes i can. again, its those authority figures elected duty to use the resources that we as taxpayers invest in them to maintain safe conditions for the public.

Okay, you can. But do you think that is the most effective method to prevent future accidents and to address the problem while promoting a culture of safety?

Wouldn't a bottom-up (or at least less hierarchical) approach vs. a top-down approach be the better choice? Wouldn't that lead to better outcomes overall, especially in the long-term?

korean safety culture isnt much worse than many parts of the states

Depends on the kind of safety culture. Certainly with safety of personal property and random street violence. And both have had accidents and crowd crushes and such, but I think while Korea generally does a bit better when it comes to certain kinds of safety, the U.S. does better in other areas.

It should be noted that institutions that have a reputation for safety emphasize that safety is the responsibility of everyone, not just top management. They hold everyone accountable, from the CEO down to the janitor, the security guard and the mail sorter.

but public safety is the government's responsibility. issues such as crowd crushes fall under the latter.

Lets take a different example of how both are true- Spectator safety is the responsibility of the venue/police, yes? But spectators also have a responsibility to not do things such as pushing others, engaging in dangerous behavior, abusive behavior, etc. If a bunch of fans decide to start throwing stuff at the the players, that is on the fans, not the venue. There's a reasonable expectation of fan behavior. There are also reasonable limits on what a venue and authorities must safeguard. To be clear, again, the authorities failed with Itaewon, however, that does not absolve individual and venue responsibility.

Now some may say that not joining a mass human wave does not fall under "reasonable expectation." That is a fine debate to have. Some would say that energized, emotional and inebriated revelers simply lack the capacity to control themselves and judge in such a situation. Others would say that regardless, as adults, they have a responsibility to engage in safe behavior, that inebriation does not absolve them of that, and that such a situation was clearly dangerous, especially given that most people have used such terms as "obviously dangerous" "clearly hazardous" etc.

If it IS clearly dangerous, then yes, individuals have a responsibility not to exacerbate it. A clearly dangerous situation should not only be the responsibility of authorities. Something clearly dangerous should also be the responsibility of individuals not to engage in. Do you disagree?

TLDR
1. Individuals have a responsibility NOT to engage in clearly dangerous behavior and any failures of authorities do not absolve them of that responsibility, nor does inebriation.
2. The situation was clearly dangerous. Given that it was described as such before and during and no one has suggested that it wasn't obviously dangerous, the "clearly dangerous" standard has been met.
3. As it was a clearly dangerous situation, individuals DID choose to exacerbate it and contribute to it. While this does not absolve authorities of their responsibility, the responsibility of individual revelers cannot be ignored as well. Individuals have a responsibility NOT to engage in clearly dangerous behavior. The situation was clearly dangerous. They did engage in such behavior. Ergo, they have some level of responsibility.

The only way the above doesn't work is if you either A) Believe individuals DO NOT have a responsibility to not engage in clearly dangerous behavior or B) The situation was not clearly dangerous.

It's not a red herring.

The use of such a method is to check for bias and impartiality. If the circumstances are the same, but only the identity of those involved changes, but you have a different conclusion regarding matters, then that is an indication of bias and group-think.

That's why you put out these examples, to see if someone changes their attitude based on such identity and if they are in fact, truly being consistent.

My hypothesis is that for a significant number of posters here, there would be a greater acceptance of the premise that both businesses and individuals attending shared to some degree in the responsibility if it were "AjosshiFest" and the accident took place in 'Dog Soup Alley.' I think many people, in addition to blaming the authorities, would also feel ajosshis deciding to cram themselves into an alley just to eat dog soup was reckless, dangerous, and they contributed to it. They also would likely blame alcohol consumption. Furthermore, they would likely hold the businesses accountable to some extent for their greed and lack of action and preparation.

If you think everyone would have the exact same bridge, you are absolutely blind to your biases. There is zero chance an incident of such nature at such a venue with such a crowd would get the same reaction on here. We identify with Itaewon, the revelers, and the businesses. We don't in the other case and thus it causes us to change our views. Now, perhaps that makes us harsher and callous to what should really be done OR perhaps it makes us more dispassionate. Or maybe it's a bit in the middle.

You can still agree with both the AjosshiFest bias concept AND that the authorities should be responsible, by interpreting increased blame on individuals in such an instance as being more callous, rather than being more dispassionate.

The only bridge here is your bridge to nowhere, which is where your far-fetched examples take you.

The only bridge here is your bridge to nowhere, which is where your far-fetched examples take you.

I believe the only way to attend the red herring festival is by taking the bridge to nowhere.

子曰：「過而不改，是謂過矣。」
Kongzi said: “Mistake then not change, indeed called mistake!”