More like being total assholes to everyone else in the area.
It was VERY loud, way above “reasonable” and went on quite late. The second year made me assume they did it on purpose.
It was VERY loud, way above “reasonable” and went on quite late. The second year made me assume they did it on purpose.
Or at least allow people who want to the fucking possibility to do it once a year?
Or should no one party loudly, ever, lest they annoy someone in the neighborhood?
I have neighbors that have large, late parties on major holidays. Being where I am, they run until 3am or so. That happens 4-5 times a year (different people). And we're talking apartment buildings, touch or above/below each other, not some US suburban neighbor, where the neighbor's house is 200ft or more from your house.
Still I could not care less. Close the windows, wear some ear plugs, and sleep.
Now, if someone did it consistently, in weekdays, and for a longer period, sure...
Where I'm from, about 3-4 times a year, people in the area will go ape wild on fireworks until the wee hours of the morning. It's not legal from both a safety and noise standpoint, but they do it responsibly, so who cares? They won't bust out the high-flying rockets unless we've had rain, they do it in their various mowed fields, they do it sober, etc.
So the only real complaint would be that it goes on until 2-3am. With a baby the last few years and agitated dogs, it's not exactly "fun" for us, but... I can live a few nights of the year with interrupted sleep while my neighbors have a grand time celebrating.
It would be one thing if their celebrations caused conflict or extremely dangerous situations—one could argue shooting fireworks qualifies—but my personal risk analysis of their behavior doesn't leave me concerned. Nobody is driving home drunk, getting into fights, etc.
So who cares?
I'm sure someone in this world may be inclined to complain about odor when I smoke meats a few times a year (I don't think any sorts live around me though), but I would expect the same kind of consideration that I extend others when they very seldomly and gently encroach on my comfort.
I guess what I'm getting at is this: it seems that the parent poster is the self-centered one. I acknowledge that I don't understand their situation, but I find it exceedingly difficult to fathom a scenario in which a single night a year is severely detrimental to their own well-being.
Let them have fun, ffs! What kind of party pooper is so self involved to do this sort of passive aggressive attack? I'm sorry, parent, but I think maybe you're the bad neighbor.
The party went off and it most certainly was very very loud. The place was one or two buildings down from me and I could hear it till ... rather late. The meaningful thing, how ever, was they _had_ sent out a letter beforehand ... which was pretty courteous in my view. I guess no one complained (or the English are just so very polite...) and the party did not get shut down.
The parent comment did not state anything like this... so I think his response was quite reasonable. A one off thing that gets out of hand...ok, you can let that slide in the interests of getting along. But to do it again without any sort of heads-up or something of the sort is definitely a motivator for setting some boundaries. Perhaps people complained and the party thrower got defensive and so did it again out of spite. I infer from the language used they're in America, so 'freedom!' and all that crap....
So the reason your comment is getting downvoted is quite understandable; I suggest you try to really place yourself in the actual 'shoes' of the parent poster and try to think of what they might have left unstated. The passive aggressive nature of the response is certainly something to point out, but then again, America is awash in guns. And if I am right about America, then areas in America are quite varied (I am American) and so social/cultural norms are different as well as urban/suburban/rural settings from place to place. There are lots of variables here to consider that have been left out, it seems.
I'm being downvoted because I suggested that parent put on their grown-up pants and deal with the nuisance 1 out of 365 nights of the year.
Were the partiers rude? Yes. Were they a nuisance? Yes.
Should parent feel "proud" to passive-aggressively threaten the partiers with the force of the institutional monopoly on violence?
Uh, no.
They didn't try to talk to their neighbor. They wanted to enact vengeance. (That is, after all, the whole point of this thread.) And they are proud of their escalation without attempting any other means of resolution.
So if parent doesn't want to allow a neighbor to indulge and encroach 1 of 365 nights, okay. That's their prerogative. I disagree and think it's childish, but fine.
But they removed the humanity from the situation and with absolute cowardice anonymously threatened the neighbors the third year based on the unfounded presumption that it was intentionally antagonistic, I guess?
While I understand that much of Hacker News may not want to be bothered by the noise—and thusly my suggestion to grin and bear it is grounds for downvoting—I absolutely struggle to see why they view an attempt at human-touch resolution is inferior to threatening the police on someone.
I'm sure I'll be downvoted for this comment, as well. The trend to avoid real human interaction in favor of tattling to Uncle Sam is accelerating, so I imagine my voice is unsettling.
I appreciate your response, however. I tend to get downvoted without reply or explanation, and presumably because they disagree and not because it is out of context for the discussion, as stated in the rules. But these comments are in violation of the rules, so I'll stop talking about it, now.
Thank you again for your thoughtful reply!
As someone else said, they could have “kept the humanity” (as you state it) by either keeping it down, and warning all ahead of time (you know, keep respect) themselves in the first place.
PS others downvoting you is their “passive aggressive” way to say they don’t agree with you, and you think less if them simply because they didn’t reply instead.
I do not dispute that the partiers should have acted more considerately. But this whataboutism does not absolve the behavior of parent, unless you suggest that one inconsiderate act should beget a like response?
And you are correct: I think less of someone who is unwilling to negotiate their opposition. I appreciate your response and willingness to challenge.
In my area, we actually have a legal right to make use of our properties without being excessively inconvenienced by others; some of it is defined by bylaws (ie. noise bylaws), and other ways as well (federal, constitution, etc.) One example: local electric company had installed a new utility pole in a location such that the wires went over someone's pool; that family couldn't reasonably enjoy their pool because of it. Utility company argued they had easement access (granted by government) and could put their poles anywhere they wanted. Court sided with family and utility company had to move the pole(s) so that the wires routed along property lines.
Besides this, doing something this disruptive to other people's lives is very disrespectful of others. Of course in some parts of the world, 'individual freedoms' seems to take priority regardless of any situation, even when it means negative consequences for others.
And when I say loud, I mean F$#@ING LOUD - I walked by their house one of those nights, and it was near outdoor-concert-level loudness. Make your ears ring in pain loud. They were down the road from us, with some other houses/obstructions blocking some of the sound, and still even with that and the windows closed, we had to turn the TV volume way up in order to properly listen to shows while this went on. I can't imagine what it must've been like for their immediate neighbours.
As someone else here stated (they had lived in Japan), they could've easily have rented out a space somewhere to do this, that wouldn't have bothered anyone. Hell, even used their own basement instead - the properties had postage stamp-sized backyards, which could accommodate 15-20, maybe 25 people comfortably; they actually would've had more space in their basement to do it.