ConDor 2014

Part 2/2 ((Continued from above)) The second point I would like to make is this: just because the Steampunks who faced prejudice at Westfield, also happen to be the very same Steampunks now being forced to be the butt of your poor jokes, does not mean their indignation is any less valid. They rallied to a cause, yes-- to protect themselves from prejudice by security guards who knew nothing about them and so reacted from a place of ignorance rather than knowledge. The situation is actually surprisingly similar here, however-- once again, the EXACT same Steampunks face prejudice from someone who seeks to publicly defame and ridicule them, on purpose, out of a place of ignorance rather than knowledge. However, this situation (as another commenter pointed out) is in some ways worse, as your assertion to be a member of the community you ridicule (by posting your cosplay pictures) actually indicates that you are NOT ignorant of the prejudices facing cosplayers-- in fact, you are quite aware of it ("Have at me with the comments, haters!"). Because you are engaging in hurtful behavior that you are fully aware of AS hurtful behavior, this constitutes a more direct attack on the Steampunks you target, one which they legitimately respond to in the public forum given to them, the comments section in the online "news" publication you write for. Therefore, your implied assertion that their anger with you is illegitimate because it is actually misdirected from an earlier incident against the Steampunk community, does not hold water. The third point: simply removing those comments which YOU perceive to be most controversial, does not actually fix the problem you caused, nor does issuing a half-hearted apology. As it was your misjudgment that caused the problem originally, continuing to exercise said judgment is unlikely to get the problem to go away. The other comments on the pictures are also offensive, and the most professional way to handle this going forward would be to issue a full apology ("I apologize") and inquire of the community with an open mind as to which captions they would like removed. Again, I restate, that as you were not the subject of the photographs and you were not the one thus subsequently offended, your subsequent judgment as to WHICH captions are offensive is therefore entirely insufficient. I hope you will take my comments into consideration as you move forward with your conduct around a community that has faced much media prejudice lately. As you seem, generally, to wish reconciliation with the offended parties, I trust that the insight I provided as to why the offense has occurred will help you see it from their perspective. Sincerely and in Good Faith, I.P. Animus
— March 28, 2014 9:19 p.m.

ConDor 2014

Dear Mr. Sanford, While I appreciate your attempt to reconcile with those who were offended by your comments, I think it is more than a little half-hearted and comes across as scathing and unapologetic. In the interest of fairness, I figured that perhaps you didn't realize that this is how you are coming across, and that I might make mention of how your comments continue to be offensive. And as you seem amenable to making apology to the offended parties, I can only believe that my comments will be welcome and helpful. That being said, I'd like to address a few points. The primary one being that past behavior does not excuse current or future misbehavior. Cosplayer though you may have been or may still be, this does not mean you get an all-access pass to make offensive comments in a public news article about photos you yourself took at an event you yourself chose to attend. I understand the mistake is not a solitary one-- larger and more successful "news" sources than this one (SELF magazine, to be precise) recently made just the very same "mistake" when it chose to make offensive and judgmental comments about tutus worn by Cancer Survivors in charity marathons. http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/magazine-ed… However, as you can see, this incident landed them in some hot water, as other news sources jumped on the story almost immediately in a large storm of indignation, forcing SELF to issue an apology, which read, in part: "I am personally mortified," Danziger told USA Today. "I had no idea that Monika had been through cancer. It was an error. It was a stupid mistake. We shouldn't have run the item." "Self apologized "for the association of her picture in any way other than to support her efforts to be healthy." "Of course if tutus make you run with a smile on your face or with a sense of purpose or community, then they are indeed worth wearing, for any race." This, my fellow, is an apology, one which you might care to reference in the future if you choose to try again when it comes to effectively apologizing for juvenile middle school fashion police behavior. ((Continued below))
— March 28, 2014 9:18 p.m.

Carlsbad mall security banishes steampunk group

Part 2/2: And: Apparently, at the time the mall security escorted the steampunks off the premises, there were not 40 people there in costume. 40 people were signed up to attend that day, but not everyone came. At a group photo taken at a nearby local steampunk-friendly establishment (off Westfield Property) approximately one hour later, one can clearly see exactly 27 people in attendance, a far cry from the 40 you claim. Furthermore, by the time that photo was taken, many MORE people had arrived for the event than were originally present at the Westfield mall, so considerably LESS than said 27 steampunks were ever actually on Westfield property that day. Lastly, a photograph taken of the actual incident itself and found without too much digging shows 3 security guards standing in a doorway blocking the entrance, and between 7-12 steampunks visible in the reflection on the glass doors. I faithfully performed this count myself and threw in a few extra for good faith... there were no more than 12 steampunks in the photograph of the incident, and you can see the whole group in the reflection on the doors. So if you really say you saw 40 people "surrounding the security guards", I can only imagine you were somewhere else that day, witnessing a different incident, because there is literally and physically no way you could have seen what you claim to have seen, meaning you are either not "the truth guy", or you were seeing some other group get escorted out of some mall. But again, I understand that because you and I are different people with different views and you appear to enjoy a good internet debate even to the exclusion of including actual truth in your statements, and you have already decided that you have the right of it, there is no way I could convince you that what you are claiming is actually impossible. I am sorry, my friend, but as we seem unable to communicate, I don't feel as though there's anything else I could do here besides leave the conversation, and let The Actual Truth speak for itself.
— February 15, 2014 10:57 p.m.

Carlsbad mall security banishes steampunk group

The truth guy: Again, I am sorry we seem to be having some trouble communicating. Unfortunately, I believe this is one of those instances where we will have to agree to disagree, as you seem to have already reached your conclusion, for some reason, that the steampunks were in the wrong, and you are therefore unwilling to hear anything I have to say. If this were not true, you would have seen that I have already addressed every one of your concerns/points you just brought up in the 2 part response I wrote to you, above. As such, it seems nothing I have to say is going to change your mind, or indeed is even getting read, and that's alright, because I know everyone has differing views and I have mine. Your view just so happens to include not hearing anyone else's points. All I can do is point to relevant evidence and hope you take the truth into account, as your namesake suggests. A few more points I feel I should bring up before I decide to take myself back to my corner of the internet and give you your space: I have done even more research, and found some other interesting tidbits, personal accounts, and information. Accordingly, a quote: "the mall security personnel ignored/refused multiple requests to see the [conduct] policy and speak with the security manager on duty (Mike ?)".
— February 15, 2014 10:56 p.m.

Carlsbad mall security banishes steampunk group

Part 2/2: Re: Photographing any individual on the center's property: "Photographing or videotaping any individual or entity on the Center’s property without prior consent of the subject or Center management." The grammar is again, pretty unambiguous here. It specifically states: "OR", in there. E.g., if the consent of the subject is obtained, e.g. the steampunkers said pictures were fine, then pictures were FINE. Also, I wish to bring up a little legal gem that a friend of mine found: It's called discrimination in places of public accommodation. The basics of it are this: in places that provide services to the public, even privately owned places, service is not to be denied to anyone in a discriminatory fashion. There is no "they were entitled and self-righteous and then got angry because they were told NO". This is an instance of arbitrary enforcement of laws against some people but not others on the basis of snap visual judgments about what some styles of difference mean. It is not supportive of the very climate malls purport to forward; it discriminates against individuality and it stubbornly insists in its own self-righteousness without compromise. This was not a case of steampunks blaming security guards for doing their jobs, this is a case of steampunks facing discrimination because security guards WEREN'T doing their jobs. The guards guarded against the wrong damn people.
— February 15, 2014 12:51 a.m.

Carlsbad mall security banishes steampunk group

The truth guy: Thank you for speaking up on something you feel so strongly about. While you and I disagree on many portions, I have to address something you brought up which was, regrettably, factually inaccurate. Here is the text of the CoC of Westfield Re: costumes: "The Following are not permitted on Center Property: ...wearing apparel that disguises, obscures or conceals the face, including but not limited to costumes, hoods, or masks..." While the grammatical structuring of this passage is somewhat ambiguous, an analysis of the sentence yields the meaning: that "costumes" are a reference to "apparel", so we replace it in the previous clause thus: "wearing costumes that disguise, obscure, or conceal the face" (is not allowed on center property). I understand it may be difficult to glean the meaning from these codes of conduct-- that is, in point of fact, why they are written the way they are written-- however, a grammatical analysis of the specific code of which you speak, again indicates that no member of this group was in violation of the policy because NONE OF THEM WERE WEARING ANYTHING THAT CONCEALED THE FACE. Regarding the code which states that patrons may not congregate in groups of 3 or more, as I addressed earlier, this is 1) a policy that no security guard mentioned at any time to the groups, so is considered, for the purposes of our discussion, irrelevant, and 2) if we must consider it relevant, consider it thus: it is a code not followed for everyone at the mall, because groups of 3 or more regularly shop there without harassment from security guards. Therefore, if the code was arbitrarily enforced against these steampunks, it was enforced discriminatorially, so the charge of discrimination still stands. Re: engaging in expressive activity not sponsored by the center: I think we need to look at that whole clause to better understand what is meant by "expressive activity": "Engaging in expressive activity not sponsored by the Center and/or an enterprise(s) engaged in business at the Center, without complying with the Center’s rules for such activity. This includes, without limitation, the solicitation of money or other contributions or donations, or distribution of commercial advertising or promotional material of any kind, or offering samples of items which are sold, available for sale or available in exchange for a donation or contribution." So we can clearly see, if we take this code in context, that what is meant by "expressive activity" could be more accurately defined as "soliciting" or "political" activity, or asking for donations. Expressive activity is not contextually shown to mean "expressing the self" in a way "not approved" by mall management-- and I find such an assertion truly ridiculous! If malls could determine how their patrons could and could not express, what in the hell kind of world would we live in??? Ohwaitmaybeonewherepeople getkickedoutofmalls fordressingweird.
— February 15, 2014 12:51 a.m.

Carlsbad mall security banishes steampunk group

Things like this trouble me. I understand that a security guard is there to provide security-- but for whom, and against whom? They didn't even follow their own code of conduct-- this smacks of unprofessionalism. When professionals don't even follow their own established rules, what are we left with? A bunch of people who did nothing wrong, getting kicked out because they look different... Malls are supposed to be places where you shop for the things that best express your individuality-- yet when you have TOO MUCH individuality, you're asked to leave because you're wearing a "Costume"?? It didn't even obstruct the face, look at the picture, come on, people! I am someone who wears what others might call "costumes" every day. If you argue that I can just take off the "costume" and come back to shop in their establishment, that argument falls flat with me, because that day will never come. I have my individuality, and I cherish it; it does not make me dangerous or worthy of guarding against. Their ridiculous and arbitrarily enforced policies make it essentially impossible for me to shop at their establishment. I got on the horn and wrote a complaint to the feedback email of the Westfield Mall. I feel this kind of injustice and unprofessionalism is worth being called out, and I did so. I am still waiting to hear back from Westfield, which, from the sound of things, is a normal thing. They apparently take a long time to respond. An Open Letter to Westfield Shopping Center: https://www.facebook.com/InvictusAnimusAshleyLane…
— February 12, 2014 12:36 a.m.