16 ms·

A Backyard Fight Club as an Alternative to Gun Violence

84 points by nadezhda18 11y ago

wtbob 11y ago
Reading the bit about a dispute over money reminded me of trial by combat, which this essentially is. That in turn got me to wondering how much gang violence is due to a lack of access to the conflict-resolution procedures common in the rest of society. If I believed that my employer has underpaid me, I'd send him a nice letter; if that failed, I'd send a less-nice letter; if that failed, I'd turn to a lawyer and eventually to the court system. But the courts don't take notice of illegal-drug-related debts (I believe), nor do they any longer enforce the laws against alienation of affection or adultery, leaving those who are such disputes to take matters into their own hands.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  Trial by combat, at least the modern understanding of it, is a myth. It was an extraordinarily rare event. People forget that it was meant to always end in death. Even if you survived combat, as the looser you were proven a liar before god and executed. Trial by combat was a threat used to prevent parties from swearing oaths casually, something useful only in extremely religious societies and totally out of place today. Letting people beat each other up over petty debts or teenage romances is never appropriate. There is a dispute resolution mechanism for criminals. It's called organized crime. The boss decides.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    I don't know about judicially sanctioned dueling, but many private duels were not actually lethal. The terms were often set to first blood, meaning first to strike a wound wins. I'm not entirely certain of whether lethal dueling should be permissible, but complete prohibition might not be in order, either.
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      A dual isn't trial by combat. Dueling was about honor, not debts, and has never been recognized by the law as a means for settling disputes. Whether in the east or west, it was basically a game for rich kids wanting to play soldier in front of the girls.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        It was once recognized in Uruguay, ostensibly: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/235374/URUGUAY-RESCINDS-LAW-ALLOWING-DISPUTES-TO-BE-SETTLED-BY-DUEL.html?pg=all http://www.deseretnews.com/article/235374/URUGUAY-RESCINDS-L...
  - chrisco255 11y ago
    We have on record examples of former US Presidents who solved their differences with duels: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-kills-charles-dickinson-in-duel http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-ki...
    - apo 11y ago
      Not to mention standing Vice President Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr–Hamilton_duel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr–Hamilton_duel
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      Those are really just honor disputes between rich kids, old kids but still kids. It's not like a court is going to dismiss a defamation action on the basis that it had already been settled during a previous duel, or award money to the winner. I don;t use the term 'rich' lightly. Worldwide, dualing has been a game for the wealthy. You had to have the right to carry the weapon, usually a sword. Lower classes were generally not allowed to duel.
  - fsloth 11y ago
    I presume you mean duel as a state sanctioned part of the judicial proceedings? Lethal (sometimes illegal) dueling had very strong traditions in europe. Quite a few markable persons perished due to this culture, including: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Galois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Galois
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      Trial by combat is a judicial proceeding to determine guilt or innocence. Even if the matter is one of property or contract, the issue at combat is which of the two parties has committed perjury. The concept is that God will step in to aid the righteous party, similar to the very different 'trial by ordeal'. Dueling is a means of resolving disputes between individuals, normally over matter of honour or defamation. Or women. There is some crossover in terms, with some courts referring to trial by combat as a dueling, but it isn't the same thing. Dueling traditions normally involve a great many steps to avoid legal repercussions The modern version of dueling is probably streetracing. Kids+honor+danger+girls+illegality+expensive toys = occasional deaths.
      - fsloth 11y ago
        "The modern version of dueling is probably streetracing." I never thought of that. Excitement, peer notoriety, girls. I agree it fits.
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > People forget that it was meant to always end in death. Even if you survived combat, as the looser you were proven a liar before god and executed. From the historical resources I've reviewed, I don't know that was always the case, although in the case of capital crimes of course that would have held. At least it some situations, it looks like it was meant to be a formalised might-makes-right. > Letting people beat each other up over petty debts or teenage romances is never appropriate. Why not? If it formalises the process and becomes a mechanism through which both parties may be reintegrated to society at large, then it seems preferable to vendetta.
- jonnathanson 11y ago
  "But the courts don't take notice of illegal-drug-related debts (I believe), nor do they any longer enforce the laws against alienation of affection or adultery, leaving those who are such disputes to take matters into their own hands." IANAL, but to the best of my understanding: 1. An agreement regarding illegal activity is not held to be a legally binding contract. Hence, people professionally engaged in illegal activities usually rely on other means of coercion in order to enforce their agreements. Violence, threat of violence, reputation, retribution, extortion, etc. 2. Criminal courts don't enforce adultery laws. Divorce courts, however, seem pretty free to take these things into at least some consideration when determining the financial resolutions of a divorce. So there are some potentially serious ramifications for adultery, even if they are indirect.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    >> 2. Criminal courts don't enforce adultery laws. US Military courts do. They take a circuitous route to get to it, but they can punish a soldier for what the civilian world calls adultery. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adultery.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adult...
    - jonnathanson 11y ago
      Fascinating. Thanks for sharing!
      - sandworm101 11y ago
        Now go back and read the news reports about he ashley-madison leak. Those with .mil or .forces.gc.ca email addresses probably had some sleepless nights, and a few long talks with commanding officers. The likelihood of promotion after that leak is slim.
- klenwell 11y ago
  That in turn got me to wondering how much gang violence is due to a lack of access to the conflict-resolution procedures common in the rest of society. This scene from Goodfellas has always stuck with me and you have just reiterated its key point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNW-HMonRoU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNW-HMonRoU What was Paulie all about? "A police department for wiseguys." It resonates with a lot of what goes on in The Wire, especially with a character like Prop Joe.
- delinka 11y ago
  I sense a [dangerous] business opportunity in underground law enforcement with courts and everything ...
eggy 11y ago
At first blush it seems like a good idea, but I think there are better ways. When I grew up in Sunset Park, Brooklyn in the 70s, we used to have impromptu boxing matches on the corner with only gloves for this very same reason. The local boy's club had Wednesday night boxing. I think the energy should be channeled into something more positive like breakdancing was a way for groups to battle when I was a kid. My father was a Golden Gloves runner up in the 50s, so it was passed down without question. The cliche of 'get the kids off the street by boxing' goes way back in film and reality. As a result of breakdancing, I also got into dance skating in the Central Park skate circle and met more people with different outlooks. Now, MMA is just one step below gladiator fights, and is very popular all over the world, urban and suburban. I just wish there were more creative outlets to leave the path to any type of violence behind.
- angersock 11y ago
  I see what you're saying, but at some level violence is--I would argue--a core part of what makes humans human, or at the very least what makes shithead teenage males shithead teenage males. Surely there is the "our group is better than your group", and that certainly is served by creative outlets like your breakdancing--however, there is also very much the "somehow or some way you have wronged me, and I demand a chance to even things out". That latter case is not really handled well by creative outlets, because it gives no visceral satisfaction. In those cases, avenging against a bully or thief or something similar, slugging it out with boxing gloves is probably the better answer. I guess it comes down to whether you want to fight human nature or safely accommodate it.
  - eggy 11y ago
    Having boxed for 2 years, and fought in the streets as a kid, I am not in denial about violence being a 'core' part of our current humanity. I think we can evolve away from it. For the record, it is about the individual for me, no groups or groupthink or tribalism as hinted at by "our group is better than your group", which I think should only be a sentiment for when we are immature and do not know better. Now in my older age, I apologize for something more readily and sooner than when I was a teenager, even if I have not convinced myself I am at all wrong. Maturity, and in my case sobriety, help me greatly to try and grow, and redirect or solve my personal or interpersonal issues in a less violent, more creative and positive manner including eliminating abusive, berating, or condescending speech. I am not 'PC' by any means, but I am more human, I think by finding compassion and empathy where I once looked as might as a last resort in a failing intellectual argument. We poison ourselves and solve nothing with negative rage, or energy. Turning upset into a personal challenge. I am but a naive fifty-something hoping to one-up myself. Fortunately, my children are already more emotionally, and intellectually mature than when I was their age, and I am this in comparison to my father. This is my 'empirical' evidence of evolving away from violence without violent substitution.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
This doesn't go far enough. The institution of dueling should be brought back as a legally valid contractual arrangement. It may be morbid, but if two people really deem the situation to be so critical, and provided that they duel in an isolated location, it could be doable. Not that it should necessarily be encouraged. But to prohibit it entirely seems counterproductive, like the hilariously unenforceable prohibitions against suicide (unless you survive, making you wish you had succeeded once facing the legal consequences).
- jon-wood 11y ago
  If someone was challenged to a duel they'd be honour bound to accept, even if they knew they were entirely innocent of whatever provoked the challenge in the first place. Someone being taken to court when innocent is inconvenient, but it can be resolved. If you're innocent but not very good with a sword that innocence isn't going to prevent potentially mortal wounds, yet refusing the challenge leaves a stain on your character.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Honour bound to accept? Sounds like a bogus concept to me. How about the honor of not engaging in violence?
    - Pinckney 11y ago
      Imagine your startup is unwelcome at VC events because you're considered a coward after declining a duel. Or if you're an employee, you're passed up for promotions on the same basis. You can think it bogus all you want, but that is small comfort if there are concrete socially-enforced ramifications for declining a duel.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Do you know of an actual instance of this happening? If it is bogus, we should be trying to eliminate socially-enforced ramifications that allow VCs to promote violence.
tamana 11y ago
Why would a scrawny angry kid prefer losing a fistfight over winning a gunfight?
- notahacker 11y ago
  Yeah, I'm all in favour of encouraging angry and violent young men to follow the Marquis of Queensberry rules, but I can't imagine many people agreeing to settle a dispute in this matter unless they thought they'd win. Even allowing for everybody thinking they're an above-average fighter, this can surely only be a partial solution.
  - sopooneo 11y ago
    Because agreeing to settle by fight proves you're not scared to fight. It shows that even if another person can beat you, they're going to have to work at it, and risk damage in the process. Loosing a fight is much better for a reputation than declining to fight. I am speaking on behalf of the thinking of kids I used to teach in a rough neighborhood. I've never lived with such dynamics myself.
    - tamana 11y ago
      Shooting someone also shows another person has to risk damage to beat you.
- rusabd 11y ago
  Honour
- EliRivers 11y ago
  Because it's not about winning. It's about demonstrating that you will defend yourself and that you're not an easy victim. That's what an honour culture is. A less lethal way of doing that means the risk of being killed is much less, with the same beneficial outcome.
- angersock 11y ago
  ...because it's a lot easier for the scrawny angry kid to use their fists than acquire a gun?
_nullandnull_ 11y ago
Thank you for posting this. Its a great example of the power of community. Its kind of sad the police are not involved in these fights. Having off duty police officers as security would allow them to interact with their community.
clebio 11y ago
Watching this, I wonder about the NY Times as a news source. I've always liked the nytimes website for it's clean look, writing style, and lack of click-bait. But watching the people in this video reminds me of all the real-life TV shows about cops, bounty hunters, home makeovers, etc. etc. How do I know these are real people? The things they say, the blocking and framing of scenes seems just-so -- it's so well made, that I doubt the authenticity. And, even if it's authentic, it's so convenient. They happened to find the one hard rolling banger that eventually comes about, and admits that his old ways were wrong and he's willing to try to do better.... I guess I like my print media ... printed.
- pgrote 11y ago
  I understand your point and noticed the same thing. Other videos the NY Times produced typically have a long form article with it forming the basis of the video. The two guys who made the documentary are not NY Times employees, but independents. https://www.linkedin.com/in/matteo-minasi-13abb418 https://www.linkedin.com/in/matteo-minasi-13abb418 https://www.linkedin.com/in/stuart-harmon-993a206 https://www.linkedin.com/in/stuart-harmon-993a206 Perhaps it was a freelance pitch and the NY Times accepted it?
gadders 11y ago
If you have a society where the chance of enforcement by authorities is low, then you develop an Honour Society. People have to retaliate or defend themselves to prevent them being taken advantage of in the future.
aedocw 11y ago
I'm always disappointed when I see violence being celebrated in our culture. I understand it's been a part of human history from the beginning but I think humanity at large has a lot to gain by being less violent. If there is going to be violence at least moving from kill-at-a-distance weapons to fists is a step in the right direction. I read a really good book on this subject[1] and realized I identified with a lot of what he had to say. Though I didn't grow up in a neighborhood where I had to fight anyone to prove myself, I certainly saw those attitudes around me (you're only a man if you're always ready to hurt another man) and it always struck me as sad. I see the same thing happening with the popularity of MMA - sure ancient cultures used to watch gladiators fight to the death, but is watching and cheering that on a good thing for any culture? [1]: Fist Stick Knife Gun: A Personal History of Violence by Geoffrey Canada
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  The urge to violence is built into our DNA. Not everyone expresses it fully, but it will always be a part of our culture. Anything that redirects that urge in pro-social ways is a good thing, in my opinion.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    The urge to violence is built into our DNA. Citation needed.
    - zepto 11y ago
      Not really. Given the prevalence of it, the burden of proof is on the claim that it is not.
      - danharaj 11y ago
        That's absurd. Yes, humans are violent. Men are especially violent. The null hypothesis isn't that it is caused by DNA of all things.
dawnbreez 11y ago
As others point out, shooting someone is an ideal route to take when the courts cannot get involved. This sounds like an interesting take on the matter.
microcolonel 11y ago
A bit silly to frame it as an "Alternative to Gun Violence". Stabbing is an alternative to gun violence, as is a deliberate collision with a car. It's funny how they manage to make everything about the guns. This is an alternative to murder or serious assault.
- wkyle 11y ago
  Considering 67.8% of murders are committed with firearms[1], it's pretty fair to frame this as an attempt to reduce gun violence. Also, this solution mainly focuses on resolving disputes in a non-lethal way that would have been traditionally resolved through murder, making guns an even more relevant focus due to the high death rate of shooting in comparison to non-firearm assault. [1] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/...
  - microcolonel 11y ago
    Fair enough, though the problem with that is that you could curb "firearm deaths" or "assault with firearms", but potentially the overall problem would remain unchanged. You would be stuck measuring the specific subset of the problem. The problem is assault or intentional homicide; so the form only matters in considering concrete solutions. What you measure afterward should be assault or intentional homicide.
wrigby 11y ago
As a JMU alum, I it was both interesting and burdensome to see the other side of the 'Burg that I was sheltered from when at school. Myself and most of my classmates were aware of the duality of Harrisonburg's culture, but to see it from this angle makes it more poignant than it was when I was at school. Whether the approach is perfect or not, the intentions appear good to me. I worry though that the yard would just be a revolving door for people that have long-running disputes. Of course, having the same two people fight each other every few months is more desirable than the more permanent alternatives.
- wyclif 11y ago
  I lived in Harrisonburg on and off from 1992-1997, punctuated by a job in Northern VA. At that time JMU was a typical cow college surrounded by farmland with poultry processing plants (Tyson, Rocco Turkey in Dayton). The whole oxycontin-heroin problem was just getting off the ground at the time. Fortunately I was pretty far removed from all the bad stuff in town, living on a farm outside of Bridgewater and running my first BBS via modem on a FreeBSD box. Now the drug problem in rural America has really gotten out of hand. There have been quite a number of meth labs, and crack and heroin have become a public health problem on the other side of the tracks.
- ejcx 11y ago
  Is it really that bad still ? I went to JMU from 2008-2014 and I remember only two shooting deaths. One in 2008 and one in 2014. I just looked it up and there were 4-5 in the time I was there, most under unusual circumstances (partying, domestic violence). I'm not sure the rest of harrisonburg really is very violent.

84 points by nadezhda18 11y ago

wtbob 11y ago

Reading the bit about a dispute over money reminded me of trial by combat, which this essentially is. That in turn got me to wondering how much gang violence is due to a lack of access to the conflict-resolution procedures common in the rest of society. If I believed that my employer has underpaid me, I'd send him a nice letter; if that failed, I'd send a less-nice letter; if that failed, I'd turn to a lawyer and eventually to the court system. But the courts don't take notice of illegal-drug-related debts (I believe), nor do they any longer enforce the laws against alienation of affection or adultery, leaving those who are such disputes to take matters into their own hands.

sandworm101 11y ago
Trial by combat, at least the modern understanding of it, is a myth. It was an extraordinarily rare event. People forget that it was meant to always end in death. Even if you survived combat, as the looser you were proven a liar before god and executed. Trial by combat was a threat used to prevent parties from swearing oaths casually, something useful only in extremely religious societies and totally out of place today. Letting people beat each other up over petty debts or teenage romances is never appropriate. There is a dispute resolution mechanism for criminals. It's called organized crime. The boss decides.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  I don't know about judicially sanctioned dueling, but many private duels were not actually lethal. The terms were often set to first blood, meaning first to strike a wound wins. I'm not entirely certain of whether lethal dueling should be permissible, but complete prohibition might not be in order, either.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    A dual isn't trial by combat. Dueling was about honor, not debts, and has never been recognized by the law as a means for settling disputes. Whether in the east or west, it was basically a game for rich kids wanting to play soldier in front of the girls.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      It was once recognized in Uruguay, ostensibly: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/235374/URUGUAY-RESCINDS-LAW-ALLOWING-DISPUTES-TO-BE-SETTLED-BY-DUEL.html?pg=all http://www.deseretnews.com/article/235374/URUGUAY-RESCINDS-L...
- chrisco255 11y ago
  We have on record examples of former US Presidents who solved their differences with duels: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-kills-charles-dickinson-in-duel http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-ki...
  - apo 11y ago
    Not to mention standing Vice President Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr–Hamilton_duel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr–Hamilton_duel
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Those are really just honor disputes between rich kids, old kids but still kids. It's not like a court is going to dismiss a defamation action on the basis that it had already been settled during a previous duel, or award money to the winner. I don;t use the term 'rich' lightly. Worldwide, dualing has been a game for the wealthy. You had to have the right to carry the weapon, usually a sword. Lower classes were generally not allowed to duel.
- fsloth 11y ago
  I presume you mean duel as a state sanctioned part of the judicial proceedings? Lethal (sometimes illegal) dueling had very strong traditions in europe. Quite a few markable persons perished due to this culture, including: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Galois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Galois
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Trial by combat is a judicial proceeding to determine guilt or innocence. Even if the matter is one of property or contract, the issue at combat is which of the two parties has committed perjury. The concept is that God will step in to aid the righteous party, similar to the very different 'trial by ordeal'. Dueling is a means of resolving disputes between individuals, normally over matter of honour or defamation. Or women. There is some crossover in terms, with some courts referring to trial by combat as a dueling, but it isn't the same thing. Dueling traditions normally involve a great many steps to avoid legal repercussions The modern version of dueling is probably streetracing. Kids+honor+danger+girls+illegality+expensive toys = occasional deaths.
    - fsloth 11y ago
      "The modern version of dueling is probably streetracing." I never thought of that. Excitement, peer notoriety, girls. I agree it fits.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > People forget that it was meant to always end in death. Even if you survived combat, as the looser you were proven a liar before god and executed. From the historical resources I've reviewed, I don't know that was always the case, although in the case of capital crimes of course that would have held. At least it some situations, it looks like it was meant to be a formalised might-makes-right. > Letting people beat each other up over petty debts or teenage romances is never appropriate. Why not? If it formalises the process and becomes a mechanism through which both parties may be reintegrated to society at large, then it seems preferable to vendetta.
jonnathanson 11y ago
"But the courts don't take notice of illegal-drug-related debts (I believe), nor do they any longer enforce the laws against alienation of affection or adultery, leaving those who are such disputes to take matters into their own hands." IANAL, but to the best of my understanding: 1. An agreement regarding illegal activity is not held to be a legally binding contract. Hence, people professionally engaged in illegal activities usually rely on other means of coercion in order to enforce their agreements. Violence, threat of violence, reputation, retribution, extortion, etc. 2. Criminal courts don't enforce adultery laws. Divorce courts, however, seem pretty free to take these things into at least some consideration when determining the financial resolutions of a divorce. So there are some potentially serious ramifications for adultery, even if they are indirect.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  >> 2. Criminal courts don't enforce adultery laws. US Military courts do. They take a circuitous route to get to it, but they can punish a soldier for what the civilian world calls adultery. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adultery.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adult...
  - jonnathanson 11y ago
    Fascinating. Thanks for sharing!
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      Now go back and read the news reports about he ashley-madison leak. Those with .mil or .forces.gc.ca email addresses probably had some sleepless nights, and a few long talks with commanding officers. The likelihood of promotion after that leak is slim.
klenwell 11y ago
That in turn got me to wondering how much gang violence is due to a lack of access to the conflict-resolution procedures common in the rest of society. This scene from Goodfellas has always stuck with me and you have just reiterated its key point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNW-HMonRoU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNW-HMonRoU What was Paulie all about? "A police department for wiseguys." It resonates with a lot of what goes on in The Wire, especially with a character like Prop Joe.
delinka 11y ago
I sense a [dangerous] business opportunity in underground law enforcement with courts and everything ...

eggy 11y ago

At first blush it seems like a good idea, but I think there are better ways. When I grew up in Sunset Park, Brooklyn in the 70s, we used to have impromptu boxing matches on the corner with only gloves for this very same reason. The local boy's club had Wednesday night boxing. I think the energy should be channeled into something more positive like breakdancing was a way for groups to battle when I was a kid. My father was a Golden Gloves runner up in the 50s, so it was passed down without question. The cliche of 'get the kids off the street by boxing' goes way back in film and reality. As a result of breakdancing, I also got into dance skating in the Central Park skate circle and met more people with different outlooks. Now, MMA is just one step below gladiator fights, and is very popular all over the world, urban and suburban. I just wish there were more creative outlets to leave the path to any type of violence behind.

angersock 11y ago
I see what you're saying, but at some level violence is--I would argue--a core part of what makes humans human, or at the very least what makes shithead teenage males shithead teenage males. Surely there is the "our group is better than your group", and that certainly is served by creative outlets like your breakdancing--however, there is also very much the "somehow or some way you have wronged me, and I demand a chance to even things out". That latter case is not really handled well by creative outlets, because it gives no visceral satisfaction. In those cases, avenging against a bully or thief or something similar, slugging it out with boxing gloves is probably the better answer. I guess it comes down to whether you want to fight human nature or safely accommodate it.
- eggy 11y ago
  Having boxed for 2 years, and fought in the streets as a kid, I am not in denial about violence being a 'core' part of our current humanity. I think we can evolve away from it. For the record, it is about the individual for me, no groups or groupthink or tribalism as hinted at by "our group is better than your group", which I think should only be a sentiment for when we are immature and do not know better. Now in my older age, I apologize for something more readily and sooner than when I was a teenager, even if I have not convinced myself I am at all wrong. Maturity, and in my case sobriety, help me greatly to try and grow, and redirect or solve my personal or interpersonal issues in a less violent, more creative and positive manner including eliminating abusive, berating, or condescending speech. I am not 'PC' by any means, but I am more human, I think by finding compassion and empathy where I once looked as might as a last resort in a failing intellectual argument. We poison ourselves and solve nothing with negative rage, or energy. Turning upset into a personal challenge. I am but a naive fifty-something hoping to one-up myself. Fortunately, my children are already more emotionally, and intellectually mature than when I was their age, and I am this in comparison to my father. This is my 'empirical' evidence of evolving away from violence without violent substitution.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

This doesn't go far enough. The institution of dueling should be brought back as a legally valid contractual arrangement. It may be morbid, but if two people really deem the situation to be so critical, and provided that they duel in an isolated location, it could be doable. Not that it should necessarily be encouraged. But to prohibit it entirely seems counterproductive, like the hilariously unenforceable prohibitions against suicide (unless you survive, making you wish you had succeeded once facing the legal consequences).

jon-wood 11y ago
If someone was challenged to a duel they'd be honour bound to accept, even if they knew they were entirely innocent of whatever provoked the challenge in the first place. Someone being taken to court when innocent is inconvenient, but it can be resolved. If you're innocent but not very good with a sword that innocence isn't going to prevent potentially mortal wounds, yet refusing the challenge leaves a stain on your character.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Honour bound to accept? Sounds like a bogus concept to me. How about the honor of not engaging in violence?
  - Pinckney 11y ago
    Imagine your startup is unwelcome at VC events because you're considered a coward after declining a duel. Or if you're an employee, you're passed up for promotions on the same basis. You can think it bogus all you want, but that is small comfort if there are concrete socially-enforced ramifications for declining a duel.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Do you know of an actual instance of this happening? If it is bogus, we should be trying to eliminate socially-enforced ramifications that allow VCs to promote violence.

tamana 11y ago

Why would a scrawny angry kid prefer losing a fistfight over winning a gunfight?

notahacker 11y ago
Yeah, I'm all in favour of encouraging angry and violent young men to follow the Marquis of Queensberry rules, but I can't imagine many people agreeing to settle a dispute in this matter unless they thought they'd win. Even allowing for everybody thinking they're an above-average fighter, this can surely only be a partial solution.
- sopooneo 11y ago
  Because agreeing to settle by fight proves you're not scared to fight. It shows that even if another person can beat you, they're going to have to work at it, and risk damage in the process. Loosing a fight is much better for a reputation than declining to fight. I am speaking on behalf of the thinking of kids I used to teach in a rough neighborhood. I've never lived with such dynamics myself.
  - tamana 11y ago
    Shooting someone also shows another person has to risk damage to beat you.
rusabd 11y ago
Honour
EliRivers 11y ago
Because it's not about winning. It's about demonstrating that you will defend yourself and that you're not an easy victim. That's what an honour culture is. A less lethal way of doing that means the risk of being killed is much less, with the same beneficial outcome.
angersock 11y ago
...because it's a lot easier for the scrawny angry kid to use their fists than acquire a gun?

_nullandnull_ 11y ago

Thank you for posting this. Its a great example of the power of community. Its kind of sad the police are not involved in these fights. Having off duty police officers as security would allow them to interact with their community.

clebio 11y ago

Watching this, I wonder about the NY Times as a news source. I've always liked the nytimes website for it's clean look, writing style, and lack of click-bait. But watching the people in this video reminds me of all the real-life TV shows about cops, bounty hunters, home makeovers, etc. etc. How do I know these are real people? The things they say, the blocking and framing of scenes seems just-so -- it's so well made, that I doubt the authenticity. And, even if it's authentic, it's so convenient. They happened to find the one hard rolling banger that eventually comes about, and admits that his old ways were wrong and he's willing to try to do better.... I guess I like my print media ... printed.

pgrote 11y ago
I understand your point and noticed the same thing. Other videos the NY Times produced typically have a long form article with it forming the basis of the video. The two guys who made the documentary are not NY Times employees, but independents. https://www.linkedin.com/in/matteo-minasi-13abb418 https://www.linkedin.com/in/matteo-minasi-13abb418 https://www.linkedin.com/in/stuart-harmon-993a206 https://www.linkedin.com/in/stuart-harmon-993a206 Perhaps it was a freelance pitch and the NY Times accepted it?

gadders 11y ago

If you have a society where the chance of enforcement by authorities is low, then you develop an Honour Society. People have to retaliate or defend themselves to prevent them being taken advantage of in the future.

aedocw 11y ago

I'm always disappointed when I see violence being celebrated in our culture. I understand it's been a part of human history from the beginning but I think humanity at large has a lot to gain by being less violent. If there is going to be violence at least moving from kill-at-a-distance weapons to fists is a step in the right direction. I read a really good book on this subject[1] and realized I identified with a lot of what he had to say. Though I didn't grow up in a neighborhood where I had to fight anyone to prove myself, I certainly saw those attitudes around me (you're only a man if you're always ready to hurt another man) and it always struck me as sad. I see the same thing happening with the popularity of MMA - sure ancient cultures used to watch gladiators fight to the death, but is watching and cheering that on a good thing for any culture? [1]: Fist Stick Knife Gun: A Personal History of Violence by Geoffrey Canada

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
The urge to violence is built into our DNA. Not everyone expresses it fully, but it will always be a part of our culture. Anything that redirects that urge in pro-social ways is a good thing, in my opinion.
- danbruc 11y ago
  The urge to violence is built into our DNA. Citation needed.
  - zepto 11y ago
    Not really. Given the prevalence of it, the burden of proof is on the claim that it is not.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      That's absurd. Yes, humans are violent. Men are especially violent. The null hypothesis isn't that it is caused by DNA of all things.

dawnbreez 11y ago

As others point out, shooting someone is an ideal route to take when the courts cannot get involved. This sounds like an interesting take on the matter.

microcolonel 11y ago

A bit silly to frame it as an "Alternative to Gun Violence". Stabbing is an alternative to gun violence, as is a deliberate collision with a car. It's funny how they manage to make everything about the guns. This is an alternative to murder or serious assault.

wkyle 11y ago
Considering 67.8% of murders are committed with firearms[1], it's pretty fair to frame this as an attempt to reduce gun violence. Also, this solution mainly focuses on resolving disputes in a non-lethal way that would have been traditionally resolved through murder, making guns an even more relevant focus due to the high death rate of shooting in comparison to non-firearm assault. [1] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/...
- microcolonel 11y ago
  Fair enough, though the problem with that is that you could curb "firearm deaths" or "assault with firearms", but potentially the overall problem would remain unchanged. You would be stuck measuring the specific subset of the problem. The problem is assault or intentional homicide; so the form only matters in considering concrete solutions. What you measure afterward should be assault or intentional homicide.

wrigby 11y ago

As a JMU alum, I it was both interesting and burdensome to see the other side of the 'Burg that I was sheltered from when at school. Myself and most of my classmates were aware of the duality of Harrisonburg's culture, but to see it from this angle makes it more poignant than it was when I was at school. Whether the approach is perfect or not, the intentions appear good to me. I worry though that the yard would just be a revolving door for people that have long-running disputes. Of course, having the same two people fight each other every few months is more desirable than the more permanent alternatives.

wyclif 11y ago
I lived in Harrisonburg on and off from 1992-1997, punctuated by a job in Northern VA. At that time JMU was a typical cow college surrounded by farmland with poultry processing plants (Tyson, Rocco Turkey in Dayton). The whole oxycontin-heroin problem was just getting off the ground at the time. Fortunately I was pretty far removed from all the bad stuff in town, living on a farm outside of Bridgewater and running my first BBS via modem on a FreeBSD box. Now the drug problem in rural America has really gotten out of hand. There have been quite a number of meth labs, and crack and heroin have become a public health problem on the other side of the tracks.
ejcx 11y ago
Is it really that bad still ? I went to JMU from 2008-2014 and I remember only two shooting deaths. One in 2008 and one in 2014. I just looked it up and there were 4-5 in the time I was there, most under unusual circumstances (partying, domestic violence). I'm not sure the rest of harrisonburg really is very violent.