Hacker News Reader

Comment by kodapoda | Hacker News Reader

You can go out to hundreds of bars in Berlin without any door policy whatsoever. Legendary bars, cool bars, gay bars, etc. It's not like the whole of Berlin is segregated.

But this approach just wouldn't benefit some popular dance clubs. Without a solid door policy clubs would be stuffed with people who come there for wrong reasons. To pick up girls, to get drunk, to visit an attraction for the sake of a visit (not because they enjoy techno music), to get into a fight, etc etc. Have you ever been to a poorly managed club? They don't have a community, don't focus on a holistic clubbing experience, have many people with really bad vibes. Would you want to stay there for a night and the next day (night time + day time raves)?

> underground cliques

Let's be honest, techno is not underground in Berlin, these clubs are a massive tourist attraction. Berghain is not a 50 person dive bar in SOMA.

View on HN

So your argument is that it's a popular tourist attraction so instead of capitalizing on it by say opening a second, moving to a bigger space, having more events, selling tickets in advance or charging higher prices they instead openly and famously discriminate based on physical appearance?

In Germany. Let me guess, they look at your ID to check your name and nationality first. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I bet I'm not.

Btw, KitKatClub doesn't do that and they're equally famous.

I am reminded that we are on a tech forum :) Do they need to capitalize, scale, open franchise clubs all over the world? Techno clubs are not about that at their best.

Door policy is discrimination only in the sense that the very few people at the door have to make a swift judgment on whether your group will fit in. Can this be upsetting? Sure!

> In Germany. Let me guess, they look at your ID to check your name and nationality first.

By this logic liquor stores in the US also discriminate based on person's nationality since they check the ID.

KitKatClub has a strict dress code policy for their sex-oriented events.

Kitkatklub dress code is wacky. They're insanely serious about it but it's easy to conform to. It's a costume party.

As to the other point, you can separate the process to avoid the kind of blanket discrimination I think we can all agree is unethical. I bet they don't make the slightest effort. It's probably one guy that checks your ID and says yes/no and one guy that takes money. It could be 3 instead of 2 to avoid, just to be crazy, saying no to all the Jewish names, but it's not.

Next time I'm in Berlin, I'll try to remember to take a clicker with me and stand outside the place. I bet you'll start to notice a few interesting patterns that America has quite a few laws against. I've only heard them to be extremely proud of their bias so I'd be surprised if you didn't start seeing just classic discrimination because that's what humans appear to naturally do unless they work really really hard at it or have some structures to prevent it.

You could approach visiting Berghain the same way you do with KitKatClub. I don't recommend it, but you could. Treat it as a costume party - match the expectations, dress up appropriately, come with a friendly group.

If the community and friendly feel is the selling point, then no you can not really scale that way and simultaneously keep the community and relationships. You have to choose between the two.

As if Berghain is still a community venue, as opposed to a bunch of ur-capitalist hustlers selling the idea of community to lost and naive souls.

Community and scale do not mix. If the founders truly cared about community they would have wound the place up in about 2010 and done something new.

But once people experience a bit of success greed inevitably takes over…

I see your point, but a community venue and constantly wounding up and starting anew also don't mix. It's an unfortunate outcome of the scale and the system we live in. If Berghain was a XII century monastery in an inaccessible place it could have maintained a community venue for centuries. A large club in the techno capital of the world has to resort to a different approach if it wants to maintain at least some level of continuity, status, and quality for its community.

But it excludes arbitrary people from the community for arbitrary and superficial reasons.

Why is this so hard to understand?

This is an exaggeration. All communities have something that make them a community, and not just an everchanging group of random people. Is being into techno a random or superficial reason for being a part of the techno community? Is looking and being friendly a superficial reason for being a part of an intentionally accepting community? This is the same argument people use in many other contexts where inclusion is conflated with having no rules and preferences. Should gay sex parties admit large groups of drunk aggressive lads just because gay parties are supposed to be inclusive? This approach ends up compromising the community itself, it really doesn't benefit the cause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com