4 ms·

> There are some good reasons to escalate a situation. I'm not of the belief that a noise disturbance is one of them. This mislocates the point of escalation.

> There are some good reasons to escalate a situation. I'm not of the belief that a noise disturbance is one of them. This mislocates the point of escalation. The first point of escalation occurs when you arrive and the resident doesn't say the words "I'm sorry about that" followed immediately by turning the music down. The second more serious point of escalation (if there happens to be one) occurs when the police arrive and the same thing happens. In both cases the epicenter of escalation is within the person who won't turn their music down when lawfully required. Everyone else has behaved reasonably and within the law and so can't meaningfully be said to have escalated the situation.

sneak 6y ago
No, having armed people show up to force them to turn down the music (by first threatening violence with their armed presence, and then applying actual violence if that doesn't work) is the point of escalation. Armed law enforcement is not a reasonable response to loud music, full stop. I've actually written about this very issue before: https://sneak.berlin/20200628/the-problem-with-police-in-america/ https://sneak.berlin/20200628/the-problem-with-police-in-ame...
- dionidium 6y ago
  I actually do think people should take your point seriously, even as I disagree with your conclusions. When you make a law you are always doing it with the implied violence you highlight. The law itself is an escalation, in a sense. If someone refuses to follow the law, then society has to ask itself what it's willing to do about it. If nothing, then the law is meaningless. To make the law is to decide that you're willing to enforce consequences for violating the law. And furthermore (and probably much more important, in the long run) you're willing to enforce even harsher punishments on those who refuse to accept sanctions for violating the law. A society should be careful not to have too many laws; on an individual level one should understand clearly what it means to want something to be illegal (and what it means to refuse to obey the law, should you find yourself in a situation where you might be tempted to do that).

sneak 6y ago

No, having armed people show up to force them to turn down the music (by first threatening violence with their armed presence, and then applying actual violence if that doesn't work) is the point of escalation. Armed law enforcement is not a reasonable response to loud music, full stop. I've actually written about this very issue before: https://sneak.berlin/20200628/the-problem-with-police-in-america/ https://sneak.berlin/20200628/the-problem-with-police-in-ame...

dionidium 6y ago
I actually do think people should take your point seriously, even as I disagree with your conclusions. When you make a law you are always doing it with the implied violence you highlight. The law itself is an escalation, in a sense. If someone refuses to follow the law, then society has to ask itself what it's willing to do about it. If nothing, then the law is meaningless. To make the law is to decide that you're willing to enforce consequences for violating the law. And furthermore (and probably much more important, in the long run) you're willing to enforce even harsher punishments on those who refuse to accept sanctions for violating the law. A society should be careful not to have too many laws; on an individual level one should understand clearly what it means to want something to be illegal (and what it means to refuse to obey the law, should you find yourself in a situation where you might be tempted to do that).