> You don't "teach" your neighbors and you don't program them in a pavlovian way.
Sure you do. Punishment of bad behavior is a basic social rule. Words were exchanged. All they had to do was listen, understand and stop the bad behavior. Had they done that, things would not have escalated beyond a polite conversation. Unfortunately, people often choose overt disrespect instead. They choose to challenge the other guy to do something about it.
If anything they should be glad the punishment was as civilized as this. There are many places in this world where it could easily escalate to actual violence.
> If anything they should be glad the punishment was as civilized as this. There are many places in this world where it could easily escalate to actual violence.
Agreed. But there’s a reason that guy apparently felt no worries about closing the door in OP’s face. Perhaps the likelihood of it escalating was slim. And there’s a reason why OP didn’t knock again.
In the resolution you propose in another comment, deviance doesn’t cease. It transfers to the guy who thinks he can correct people’s behavior with technology. But I need to remind myself where I’m saying this at.
> Perhaps the likelihood of it escalating was slim.
Not as slim as he had hoped.
People feel free to close the door on others because they are used to a life without violence. Their implicit thinking is "I'm not even gonna consider what this other person wants because what's he gonna do about it? Nothing." They think there is no way they will be held accountable for their actions. That's magical thinking.
People really shouldn't ask that question. There are a lot of things that can be done about virtually any situation. People would do well not to forget that.
"What are you going to do about it?" is a challenge. It's refusal to negotiate and a direct challenge to escalate the situation. "If this matters so much to you, then you had better do something about it". Not only does it escalate, it insults the other person. They have no choice but to escalate because the alternative is to be seen as weak which costs respect, especially if the exchange happens in front of peers.
> It transfers to the guy who thinks he can correct people’s behavior with technology.
Yes. The situation has escalated. The other person can either submit or escalate even further. Perhaps into physical violence.
Hope the hacker has a gun and is able and willing to use it. You know. Just in case. Plenty of people out there willing to die over real or perceived slights.
That’s how things are done in Eastern/South hemispheres. There’s a lot of things about respect from those parts of the world that Westeners don’t understand.
It's definitely done in "civilized" societies as well. It's just a lot more indirect and delayed. Instead of punching someone, they might sue them or sabotage them somehow. It's violence all the same, just a different flavor. The violence is so thoroughly abstracted away that people don't even view it as violence proper.
The man who closed the door might’ve had a reason not to expect violence from the guy with the remote. It’s possible that the man perceives violence/respect in ways similar to how it’s done in other parts of the world and saw thought that he could get away with his slight because remote guy didn’t pass as someone capable of violence or qualified for door man’s idea of ‘respect’.
No matter the case I agree that he’s making a gross estimate. I think that he [door man] collected evidence to support his estimate about his neighbor will before this happened. I’m not here to stick up for door man but I’m certainly not going to give remote guy a pass and then philosophize about aggression as to why.
Often talks of violence come from a place of resentment. They’re fantasies. If someone who you have even a limited familiarity with slights your capacity for violence they may have been given reason to. Talk about ‘how things are done’ but only from the perspective of the brute makes me wonder if there’s any familiarity with handling brutish behavior other than by proxy.
Passive aggression is a more frequent outlet than a more managed sort. If it leads to results like the one described here it’s easy to view it as the lesser of two evils, and sure, you can argue that. But the evil persists both in the rudeness and passivity of both parties. The former is readily identified and criticized. The latter often isn’t.
It's not about me. It's about the author of TFA, the person who was hurting him and how he made him stop.
Just two people exercising their freedoms. Officially, nothing happened. It's just two guys randomly using their TV remotes at roughly the same time. If police had been called, they wouldn't have been able to do anything about it.
Yet a game was played. One turned up the volume, the other remotely turned off the TV in response. On and on it went until the volume would no longer get turned up. Victory.
Note that the neighbor never figured out who was doing it. There's no way to know what he would have done in that case. Maybe nothing. Maybe something.
I'm just saying hackers should probably think twice before liberally applying their boundless ingenuity to social problems like these. It can work wonders. It can also escalate things so far beyond their control that it's not even funny. They could easily end up on the receiving end of some serious conditioning of their own.
> But there’s a reason that guy apparently felt no worries about closing the door in OP’s face. Perhaps the likelihood of it escalating was slim. And there’s a reason why OP didn’t knock again.
Most likely because they’re entitled westerner who grew up with laws that protect against physical violence, but not mental abuse.
Humans are more complex than that. If they become aware that someone is applying such conditioning, they will defy it.
For the same reason corporal punishment doesn't work even on an average intelligence child. They quickly figure out that probability of getting punished again is not 100% and even if, that's just cost of doing business - sometimes it's worth it.
It's not complex at all. It's just violence. People are doing things you don't want them to do, so you do something to make them stop. Pretty standard.
If they can muster defiance, it's only because you weren't violent enough. If someone is defiant enough to play probability games with you, just punish them 100% of the time instead, even if they did nothing. He was probably doing it some other time where you didn't catch him, so it's warranted.
There's always someone willing to escalate things further. Things will escalate until someone discovers their limits and backs down. Consequences range from being quietly hated, to being ostracized, to being actively fucked with, to being beaten up, to being straight up killed.
Smart people don't fuck around and find out. They check their behavior so that they don't step on other people's toes for no reason. Violence very often comes with instructions on how to avoid it. Don't do this, and I won't do that. All they have to do is listen and follow the instructions.
The outcome where the obnoxious neighbor learns his lesson and stops his bad behavior is the good ending. The behavior stops, the situation de-escalates and peace is restored. If they keep up their defiance, things will only keep escalating further. Somebody could get hurt.
> Your position just means every disagreement comes down to a physical fight.
> Is that how you want to live?
The threat of violence is always present. It's just that in "civilized" societies it's often indirect and abstracted. People don't usually get violent, they pay lawyers to complain to the courts which have the power to order police to commit measured amounts of violence on their behalf if necessary.
When negotiation fails and police is unlikely to help, people quickly revert to taking matters into their own hands.
Of course they do. Some of the smartest people out there are habitual risk takers. We wouldn't have organised crime if it weren't for people smart enough to not get caught or killed early on.
Your method doesn't take into account that the person you're targeting also has a brain and they will use it against you and also that they have as much power as you do.
Overall you're describing a power fantasy, not reality.
Sure you do. Punishment of bad behavior is a basic social rule. Words were exchanged. All they had to do was listen, understand and stop the bad behavior. Had they done that, things would not have escalated beyond a polite conversation. Unfortunately, people often choose overt disrespect instead. They choose to challenge the other guy to do something about it.
If anything they should be glad the punishment was as civilized as this. There are many places in this world where it could easily escalate to actual violence.