Comment by covidthrow | Hacker News Reader

Comment by covidthrow | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm with you on this: the very occasional loud fun should, in my very humble opinion, be allowed to happen without fuss.

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.

I had to deal with this sort of thing once while I was living in London. A letter was sent around, I guess up and down the street of flats (I don't know how far) which explained they were planning to have a blowout party for some significant reason and that things were likely to get very loud. There was contact info in case someone want to discuss the matter beforehand.

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 have placed myself in their shoes when I discussed huge fireworks going of near us within 200 yards until 3am several times a year. I spoke to the neighbors, analyzed the situation, and leave it alone.

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!

LOL sending a copy of a bylaw is now considered a “threat”??

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.

Yes, it is a threat to send armed agents of the State to intervene. Is it something other than that?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com