I did not call for the music to be removed. I asked for the music *before the display* not to be at such a level that conversation was almost impossible. That is not intrinsic to the event.
Well, music accompanying a light show using drones (for example) is a lot easier for people with PTSD causing negative reactions to fireworks - though obviously music shouldn't be overly loud. Fireworks are perhaps a bad example when many want them banned anyway including me - wildlife is negatively affected as well as people and pets. A silent light show (which can use non-flashing/photosensitivity-friendly lights) which can then have optional music used sensitively still creates a lot of enjoyment without causing distress for wildlife, pets, or people who are distressed by the bangs.
I think of my situation as living with a chronic illness that I have the capacity to manage with help. I'm feeling a bit fuzzy in the head this morning, so I can't deal properly with the mental illness/neurodiversity point.
My commiserations. I spent yesterday with a fuzzy head (I’m currently moving from depression to hypomania) and couldn’t concentrate to get my marking done. Oddly, yesterday I was wondering if other manic depressives get a ‘fuzzy head’ and do they call it that
I did not call for the music to be removed. I asked for the music *before the display* not to be at such a level that conversation was almost impossible. That is not intrinsic to the event.
On reflection, I think I know what's irking me here. I'm giving a lived account of what's needed to enable inclusion in a particular setting, while people not currently in the excluded group are telling me why we can't have it.
I did not call for the music to be removed. I asked for the music *before the display* not to be at such a level that conversation was almost impossible. That is not intrinsic to the event.
On reflection, I think I know what's irking me here. I'm giving a lived account of what's needed to enable inclusion in a particular setting, while people not currently in the excluded group are telling me why we can't have it.
Which, it should be noted, is what happens to disabled people all the damn time.
I did not call for the music to be removed. I asked for the music *before the display* not to be at such a level that conversation was almost impossible. That is not intrinsic to the event.
On reflection, I think I know what's irking me here. I'm giving a lived account of what's needed to enable inclusion in a particular setting, while people not currently in the excluded group are telling me why we can't have it.
Which, it should be noted, is what happens to disabled people all the damn time.
I think there's a clear distinction between not wanting to share space with someone because of who they are (you don't like people from some group or other because you're some kind of bigot) and thinking that some modifications made to a particular activity to widen access to it detract from the enjoyment you get from it.
Yes, this. Very much so.
If this is the case, perhaps you can come up with some relevant examples where your enjoyment of something has been diminished by including others. We could then discuss the process around it, in the light of your personal experience.
I think there's a clear distinction between not wanting to share space with someone because of who they are (you don't like people from some group or other because you're some kind of bigot) and thinking that some modifications made to a particular activity to widen access to it detract from the enjoyment you get from it.
Yes, this. Very much so.
If this is the case, perhaps you can come up with some relevant examples where your enjoyment of something has been diminished by including others. We could then discuss the process around it, in the light of your personal experience.
As you asked:
Ship of Fools.
Well, you gave an honest answer to the question which is fair enough but we're not doing that. Got another example?
A silent light show (which can use non-flashing/photosensitivity-friendly lights) which can then have optional music used sensitively still creates a lot of enjoyment without causing distress for wildlife, pets, or people who are distressed by the bangs.
And this is a prime example. In my opinion (and I think we'll all agree that this is purely a matter of personal taste), light shows are worthless dreck. You assert that they create a lot of enjoyment, I assert that they're crap, and we're both right.
I did not call for the music to be removed. I asked for the music *before the display* not to be at such a level that conversation was almost impossible. That is not intrinsic to the event.
On reflection, I think I know what's irking me here. I'm giving a lived account of what's needed to enable inclusion in a particular setting, while people not currently in the excluded group are telling me why we can't have it.
Because we're back to the different kinds of inclusion. Pomona's example is making a firework display more inclusive by making it into something completely different. Your example is making a less invasive change - one you think isn't important to other people, but you might not be right about your assessment of the enjoyment other people get from pre-show music.
I might offer a different, but perhaps related, example. Pre-plague, I went to a lot of competitive events with my kids. The kids spend all day competing in whatever-it-is, and then there's an award ceremony with a thousand kids crammed in the same room at the end of the day.
Only it takes some time to collate the results and get the presentation ready, so there's invariably some "entertainment" for the kids at this time, and this "entertainment" invariably consisted of lots of shouting and cheering and screaming and getting the kids "amped up". This was enjoyed by the large majority of the kids.
It was not, however, compatible with my personal kid, who used to spend this time reading a book in a quiet corridor a few corners away, and asked someone to come and get them when the actual awards were starting. There's plenty of forms of entertainment that this kid would have enjoyed (most of them involving attentive listening and polite applause) but they wouldn't be as much fun for most of the other thousand kids.
This loud pre-ceremony "entertainment" seems to me to serve the same purpose as the pre-fireworks music you're complaining about. So I'm not persuaded that it's as unintrinsic as you claim.
Again, you're telling me why we can't possibly be included. Does no-one even fucking try doing it without the excessive noise? See if it's quite as terrible for everyone else without it as is being assumed?
Frankly, I am fed up to the back teeth with being unwelcome everywhere unless I want my ears blasted off. Bowling alleys, swimming pools, ice rinks, they all fucking do it. The only way I can avoid it is hardly ever to do anything fun. Someone with a massive great speaker has to blast their music into the place. It's all very well saying "don't go to places like that then" but that means sitting at home on my arse doing fuck all.
And yes, in case you haven't detected it, I'm fucking angry. I know lots of people who hate it, lots who don't care either way, and absolutely no-one who actually wants it. So no, I don't think it's intrinsic. I think a noisy minority used to getting their own way has foisted it on the rest of us.
It is inevitable that we will all disagree, but I think it's really important to not discount own voices. Also, pitting this as a us versus them seems needlessly reductive as well as exclusive.
@KarlLB has every right to want to be included. People are welcome to want events with excessive noise. It sounds like Karl would hate them for many reasons.
Any organization that wants to include or pretend to include people like Karl should also have quieter events. There is no reason to say that all people who enjoy noisy events will not also enjoy the quieter events. I know I have enjoyed prefirework music but absolutely also enjoy the quiet time to talk to my friends and family before and after. The city of Chicago, where I live, tends to have multiple official firework events in multiple locations lately and the different events are different. Some are noisier than others. That seems what we should be aiming for.*
*Minus the poor information. I am not sure how easily one could find out which firework events will have music and which will not
The city of Chicago, where I live, tends to have multiple official firework events in multiple locations lately and the different events are different. Some are noisier than others. That seems what we should be aiming for.*
But a village of 200 people with one event a year (and all the usual problems of people not wanting to organise things so the same people end up organising the same thing every year or nothing happens) might struggle a bit more to offer multiple things. Which then, I suppose, comes down to how far someone might be expected to travel to go to something that suits them, unless they're willing to organise it themselves? I concede it's easier in urban areas, but round here we essentially get what we're given, or do ourselves. Since we're very explicitly doing own voices, I'll own that a lot of my social life out here in the sticks involves doing things I might not otherwise choose (or indeed try very hard) to do. Unfortunately.
I think there's a danger of false equivalency as well.
The *preference* of one person for loud music is being held as equivalent to the *inability* of another person to bear it at all. We are comparing a possibly impaired experience for one person with complete exclusion from the experience for another.
The funny thing is it's often framed as the excluded people wanting to force everyone to accommodate them, rather than eg the loud music lover wanting to force others to accommodate him. This seems upside down, given that we're contrasting one person's preference with another's need.
This is why I'd set the intrinsicality bar rather high. Earsplitting (ie. have to shout rather than talk, normal conversation impossible) volume music - intrinsic to night clubs and rock concerts. Ice rinks, restaurants, bowling alleys- not so much.
I don't know the extent to which enforcement is possible or desirable in the leisure sector, but if inclusivity is a desire then this is the sort of consideration required.
Bearing in mind that those with a hearing impairment also find a loud background noise almost impossible to socialise in, too.
My mum - who suffers from chronic tinnitus - simply will not be able to hear me if there's music playing or other loud conversations behind us. Hearing aids don't help much either.
Arguably, at the advanced age of 50-mumble, I don't think I know anyone who wants to shout at each other across a pub table any more, and I don't know what the managers are trying to achieve with the decibel level.
Like Karl, I'm not looking to have it banned, but does it have to be in all social spaces?
Arguably, at the advanced age of 50-mumble, I don't think I know anyone who wants to shout at each other across a pub table any more, and I don't know what the managers are trying to achieve with the decibel level.
I am to a great extent in the same boat as Karl is for reasons of being neurodivergent - I can't bear loud noise and the one time I went to hear a band I liked in concert had to get those special noise reducing ear plugs so I could enjoy it.
I also don't hear or read much from anyone who finds additional noise in places like food courts or restaurants to be essential to their enjoyment and I know in the case of pubs and restaurants the science behind it is that it makes people drink more and buy more unhealthy food - so what's being characterised as 'enjoyment' is in a lot of cases just an eye on profit due to the unconscious effects the loud music has. Historically fine dining used to be a quieter experience because when the fashion was for plush interiors they damped the sound reflections a lot - modern design choices have tended to make restaurants much noisier places but that's about fashion not anything intrinsic to the experience.
Profiteering at the expense of excluding a lot of people and making activities painful for them, and where the noise level isn't an intrinsic part of what you go out for, seems a bit dubious to me.
It also makes me think of open plan offices - they're done not because most people working in them actually like or enjoy them but because they are cheap with similarly awful results for hearing imparied/neurodivergent folk and of course for everybody in pandemics unless the ventilation is top notch. You don't have to be neurodivergent to find them awful a friend with anxiety suffers badly from having to work in one too. Companies like them because they are cheap - research on them shows them to be awful for productivity and for days off sick.
I think we need to beware of saying 'people enjoy it' when what's actually going on is somebody making a choice a few people can profit from at the cost of serious impairment/exclusion to other people.
By the way, all terrain/off road wheelchairs are a thing. A young disabled fundraiser in Shetland had the Highland and Islands twitter account for a while and one of the things he posted about was him and his wheelchair and people helping with a few portable aids getting across the St Ninians Isle tombolo to visit the island. Tarmac was not pictured.
There are disability groups in Scotland which lend out that kind of thing.
I think there's a danger of false equivalency as well.
This resonates with me (no pun intended).
I'm an active part of the local mountain biking community, and we are broadly loathed by hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts. Because, when we ride on a trail, it becomes much more dangerous for everyone, in addition to possibly causing serious erosion to the wild space. So it means that it makes sense for us to carve out bike-specific recreation areas that don't impinge on other's ability to access the outdoors, and maintain them such that they can have minimal impact on the local terrain. And when we do co-exist on multi-use trails, we need to make sure we do so safely and considerately. It's inconvenient to be restricted to certain areas for some classes of riding (#gnar), but it's better than blithely ignoring the needs of others.
Finding ways to let more people get more of what they want/need is the basic reason to have civilized society, right?
I think there's a danger of false equivalency as well.
The *preference* of one person for loud music is being held as equivalent to the *inability* of another person to bear it at all. We are comparing a possibly impaired experience for one person with complete exclusion from the experience for another.
The funny thing is it's often framed as the excluded people wanting to force everyone to accommodate them, rather than eg the loud music lover wanting to force others to accommodate him. This seems upside down, given that we're contrasting one person's preference with another's need.
There are always some people who see their preference as more important than anyone else's need or preference. Selfish human nature I guess.
It's not just ONE person's preference and against another ONE's need. We are talking about groups of people. So if, for example, a majority of people like the loud music, then they are being asked to forgo their preference for the sake of inclusion of a minority. That does involve a small level of loss for them. The question is whether they feel the loss is worth it for the sake of including others, or whether they feel they have been deprived of something they enjoyed and feel resentful against those they see as having spoiled their enjoyment. They may not know or understand why the change was necessary. They may not care about the needs of those who are being included. They feel it is not fair that a majority of people have to change their behaviour/environment for the sake of a minority, because there are more of them who like it the way that it is. These things do not make them right. But if they are a majority they have power, either in the way they vote, or where they choose to spend their money or exercise influence in other ways. We need to try to get a majority on the side of inclusion of the minority, even if not part of the group. Legislation and rules are only a first step, changing hearts and minds can take longer. But I think that is still the right order, as many people will just get used to that being the way things are after it is legislated to be so.
I get the impression from talking to people that most don't care one way or the other, a few really like it, a few hate it, and a few have to get away from it.
@Leorning Cniht I can't see how a neurodivergent person or someone with PTSD being caused harm by the loud bangs of fireworks would be 'a matter of personal taste' (to say nothing of the effect on animals - rabbits can die of shock caused by loud noises). Someone eg having a PTSD-induced flashback isn't just 'not enjoying it'.
I suspect that preferences differ widely across various crowds. Very few people like it in my crowd. But then many of us are neurodivergent, and many people like me who aren't strongly dislike it. (By the way, as someone raised as the neurotypical person in a neurodivergent family, "normal" cultural assumptions of noise are really weird.)
My feeling is that more noise consideration will be like escalators/elevators, kerb cuts, or other accommodations that are generally popular with those who are generally fully mobile. On the other hand a few people will really hate them, and they will make things cost more money.
Everyone said that making bars nonsmoking would ruin business but my local bars show every evidence of doing very well. So I think we should also be careful of current wisdom about what everyone wants. Maybe many 20 somethings want noisy restaurants bars or maybe they just take them for granted and would go as much or more to quieter ones.
Bearing in mind that those with a hearing impairment also find a loud background noise almost impossible to socialise in, too.
I identify with that. Maybe I should get my hearing tested.
There are also auditory processing disorders of various kinds and severities that can cause similar issues and which can coincide with perfect hearing. I've had a similar issue since I was very young - and had very good hearing.
@Leorning Cniht I can't see how a neurodivergent person or someone with PTSD being caused harm by the loud bangs of fireworks would be 'a matter of personal taste' (to say nothing of the effect on animals - rabbits can die of shock caused by loud noises). Someone eg having a PTSD-induced flashback isn't just 'not enjoying it'.
The "matter of personal taste" referred to my description of a light show as "worthless dreck". You are presenting a light show as a fun alternative to fireworks that doesn't have any of the negatives of a firework display. Whilst I agree with you that a light show lacks these negatives, it also (and this is the "personal taste" bit) lacks any kind of positive merit whatsoever.
@Leorning Cniht I can't see how a neurodivergent person or someone with PTSD being caused harm by the loud bangs of fireworks would be 'a matter of personal taste' (to say nothing of the effect on animals - rabbits can die of shock caused by loud noises). Someone eg having a PTSD-induced flashback isn't just 'not enjoying it'.
The "matter of personal taste" referred to my description of a light show as "worthless dreck". You are presenting a light show as a fun alternative to fireworks that doesn't have any of the negatives of a firework display. Whilst I agree with you that a light show lacks these negatives, it also (and this is the "personal taste" bit) lacks any kind of positive merit whatsoever.
We (young 20-somethings with not a lot of spare dosh) used to part with hard-earned pay to lie on our backs and watch laser shows projected on the domed ceiling of an auditorium. They certainly are not universally despised.
I'm a bit confused by @Doc Tor's link to a list of groups that mostly seem concerned with encouraging black and brown folks to enjoy hiking: there's nothing about the racial or ethnic background of a fellow hiker than can possibly affect someone's enjoyment of a hike, unless they're flat-out racist. And I don't consider "I don't want to see anyone of this minority I don't like" as being worthy of even the smallest consideration.
Except that we're being asked to consider it, and to judge whether or not it's the right time for black and brown hikers to be permitted to head out into the hills in case it upsets the established social order.
Nobody is saying that, and nobody is preventing black and brown hikers from heading out to the hills.
There's ample evidence of black and brown hikers receiving abuse - considerably more evidence, in fact, than people with epilepsy wanting to ban rock concerts, which I think was an earlier and entirely unsubstantiated gambit of yours
Happy to take this elsewhere if this is inappropriate; but @Marvin the Martian do the holes people have pointed out in this particular example give you any pause over how you diagnose oppression?
@Leorning Cniht I can't see how a neurodivergent person or someone with PTSD being caused harm by the loud bangs of fireworks would be 'a matter of personal taste' (to say nothing of the effect on animals - rabbits can die of shock caused by loud noises). Someone eg having a PTSD-induced flashback isn't just 'not enjoying it'.
The "matter of personal taste" referred to my description of a light show as "worthless dreck". You are presenting a light show as a fun alternative to fireworks that doesn't have any of the negatives of a firework display. Whilst I agree with you that a light show lacks these negatives, it also (and this is the "personal taste" bit) lacks any kind of positive merit whatsoever.
Well, nobody's forcing you to go - and it means more people are included. Nobody *needs* fireworks, they're optional.
If nobody *needs* them then why does it matter which group is excluded?
Nobody *needs* Camembert, so would it matter if Tesco refused to sell it to, say, Lesbians?
Oh, I know. I wasn't the one saying it's OK for some people to be denied a certain form of enjoyment because that form of enjoyment isn't a *need*. I'm just saying that if you're OK with some people being excluded from or denied a thing then on what basis do you decide which people it's OK or not OK to exclude?
Your Tesco camembert example is a case in point. Yes, it's wrong for Tesco to refuse to sell it to lesbians, but only because it's wrong for Tesco to refuse to sell it to any arbitrary group of people. So if someone were to say that it's fine for (say) cishet men to be denied camembert because it's not a *need* but it's not fine for the same denial to be levelled at lesbians then I'd definitely be asking them to explain how they reached that conclusion.
Though I'd also point out that the fact that people with dairy allergies (such as both my kids) can't enjoy camembert doesn't make it wrong for Tesco to sell it in the first place.
I think, in general, the “silent majority” will say they want things to be fair, and so will marginalised communities,
It’s my opinion that these arguments often get heated because when people argue for what they consider “fair”, there tend to be some participants using fair to mean equality and some using it to mean equity - this is quite a good discussion of why that becomes a problem.
@Marvin the Martian I am going to return to this - I believe, but I could be misinterpreting, that you think a fair system is about equality rather than equity ? Is that right ?
I think, in general, the “silent majority” will say they want things to be fair, and so will marginalised communities,
It’s my opinion that these arguments often get heated because when people argue for what they consider “fair”, there tend to be some participants using fair to mean equality and some using it to mean equity - this is quite a good discussion of why that becomes a problem.
Though I'd also point out that the fact that people with dairy allergies (such as both my kids) can't enjoy camembert doesn't make it wrong for Tesco to sell it in the first place.
Tesco selling camembert doesn't terrorize dogs or traumatize veterans. What else you got?
Fireworks aren't optional, as every New Year's Eve and November 5th shows.
It certainly shows that there are large numbers of people who enjoy fireworks and would probably feel pretty miffed if they were banned. Most are probably unaware of negative effects, they just enjoy the show. Fireworks also seem to be a significant part of Diwali celebrations, so banning them might be seen as discriminating against another group.
I think there would need to be public discussion of the reasons why a change was needed.
Or perhaps more defined times and places. There quite a difference between one day a year, clearly advertised, a long way from residential housing, that is easy to avoid if you don’t want to participate - and people letting them off in their back gardens for about a week roughly around the date with no prior notice.
Organised events are great. I've been to many and enjoyed them.
But from the middle of October to the middle of November it sounds like we're in a war zone. The cats are less than pleased by this, and given the density of pets in my area, they won't be the only ones.
Maybe just don't sell them to members of the public?
I think, in general, the “silent majority” will say they want things to be fair, and so will marginalised communities,
It’s my opinion that these arguments often get heated because when people argue for what they consider “fair”, there tend to be some participants using fair to mean equality and some using it to mean equity - this is quite a good discussion of why that becomes a problem.
@Marvin the Martian I am going to return to this - I believe, but I could be misinterpreting, that you think a fair system is about equality rather than equity ? Is that right ?
The question is whether they feel the loss is worth it for the sake of including others, or whether they feel they have been deprived of something they enjoyed and feel resentful against those they see as having spoiled their enjoyment. They may not know or understand why the change was necessary. They may not care about the needs of those who are being included. They feel it is not fair that a majority of people have to change their behaviour/environment for the sake of a minority, because there are more of them who like it the way that it is.
Well, nobody's forcing you to go - and it means more people are included. Nobody *needs* fireworks, they're optional.
Your first sentence might be wrong. Suppose, for example, that out of 100 people, 60 enjoy a fireworks show, 30 are indifferent towards fireworks, 5 dislike fireworks, and 5 have a PTSD or sensory issue that makes fireworks problematic for them. Suppose that 30 people enjoy a light show, and the other 70 people are indifferent towards it.
Which is more inclusive - the thing that more people actually want, or the thing that isn't actively bad for someone?
Fireworks are a bit unusual, in that they're loud enough that if you live nearby, you don't completely escape from them by being indoors. And that makes a difference - if someone is traumatized by fireworks, telling them "don't go to a fireworks display" isn't much of an imposition. Telling them that the fireworks display is going to invade their home and they don't have a choice about it is a rather bigger deal.
For the record, I'm all in favour of corralling fireworks in to specific identified days and times (for example, November 5th, and the Saturday closest to November 5th, between dusk and 10pm).
The noisy-music-in-ice-rinks example is different, in that the problematic noise remains within the ice rink. If affects people who have a problem with noise but want to go ice skating. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask to me to have a music-free timeslot for those who don't want, or can't stand, loud music, just like it's not unreasonable for a swimming pool to have a women-only slot. And if the music-free slot proves popular and profitable, presumably an ice rink would expand it.
Well, nobody's forcing you to go - and it means more people are included. Nobody *needs* fireworks, they're optional.
That's never going to be an argument well received here. The midnight fireworks on New Year's Eve draw enormous crowds, well over a million around the Harbour and at vantage points. They're so popular that there is now a 9pm edition for those for whom midnight is impossible/very difficult.
I think, in general, the “silent majority” will say they want things to be fair, and so will marginalised communities,
It’s my opinion that these arguments often get heated because when people argue for what they consider “fair”, there tend to be some participants using fair to mean equality and some using it to mean equity - this is quite a good discussion of why that becomes a problem.
@Marvin the Martian I am going to return to this - I believe, but I could be misinterpreting, that you think a fair system is about equality rather than equity ? Is that right ?
Yes, if you like.
Do you think the costs of pursuing equity are too high, or do you think it not a worthwhile goal in the first place ?
I think, in general, the “silent majority” will say they want things to be fair, and so will marginalised communities,
It’s my opinion that these arguments often get heated because when people argue for what they consider “fair”, there tend to be some participants using fair to mean equality and some using it to mean equity - this is quite a good discussion of why that becomes a problem.
@Marvin the Martian I am going to return to this - I believe, but I could be misinterpreting, that you think a fair system is about equality rather than equity ? Is that right ?
Yes, if you like.
Do you think the costs of pursuing equity are too high, or do you think it not a worthwhile goal in the first place ?
Closer to the latter. As long as the game is played fairly I’m perfectly happy with there being winners and losers.
That comes back to two different definitions of fairly. Equity attempts to correct for structural inequality.
Take a 400m race, you could have everyone starts in line as they do for the 100m - they all start in line in the same place. But the curving track means those in the outer lanes run a longer distance. So that is mitigated by having a staggered start correcting for the curve - so the person on the out side lane starts ahead of the person on the inside lane. Do you think that unfair ?
I think, in general, the “silent majority” will say they want things to be fair, and so will marginalised communities,
It’s my opinion that these arguments often get heated because when people argue for what they consider “fair”, there tend to be some participants using fair to mean equality and some using it to mean equity - this is quite a good discussion of why that becomes a problem.
@Marvin the Martian I am going to return to this - I believe, but I could be misinterpreting, that you think a fair system is about equality rather than equity ? Is that right ?
Yes, if you like.
Do you think the costs of pursuing equity are too high, or do you think it not a worthwhile goal in the first place ?
Closer to the latter. As long as the game is played fairly I’m perfectly happy with there being winners and losers.
The question is, what about when the rules aren't fair, or that some are able to break the rules to their advantage? Are you happy if people lose in those situations? Or, even when some people would want to join the game back are prevented from doing so?
Comments
On reflection, I think I know what's irking me here. I'm giving a lived account of what's needed to enable inclusion in a particular setting, while people not currently in the excluded group are telling me why we can't have it.
Which, it should be noted, is what happens to disabled people all the damn time.
Exactly my point.
As you asked:
Ship of Fools.
Well, you gave an honest answer to the question which is fair enough but we're not doing that. Got another example?
Tubbs
Temp Host
And this is a prime example. In my opinion (and I think we'll all agree that this is purely a matter of personal taste), light shows are worthless dreck. You assert that they create a lot of enjoyment, I assert that they're crap, and we're both right.
Because we're back to the different kinds of inclusion. Pomona's example is making a firework display more inclusive by making it into something completely different. Your example is making a less invasive change - one you think isn't important to other people, but you might not be right about your assessment of the enjoyment other people get from pre-show music.
I might offer a different, but perhaps related, example. Pre-plague, I went to a lot of competitive events with my kids. The kids spend all day competing in whatever-it-is, and then there's an award ceremony with a thousand kids crammed in the same room at the end of the day.
Only it takes some time to collate the results and get the presentation ready, so there's invariably some "entertainment" for the kids at this time, and this "entertainment" invariably consisted of lots of shouting and cheering and screaming and getting the kids "amped up". This was enjoyed by the large majority of the kids.
It was not, however, compatible with my personal kid, who used to spend this time reading a book in a quiet corridor a few corners away, and asked someone to come and get them when the actual awards were starting. There's plenty of forms of entertainment that this kid would have enjoyed (most of them involving attentive listening and polite applause) but they wouldn't be as much fun for most of the other thousand kids.
This loud pre-ceremony "entertainment" seems to me to serve the same purpose as the pre-fireworks music you're complaining about. So I'm not persuaded that it's as unintrinsic as you claim.
Frankly, I am fed up to the back teeth with being unwelcome everywhere unless I want my ears blasted off. Bowling alleys, swimming pools, ice rinks, they all fucking do it. The only way I can avoid it is hardly ever to do anything fun. Someone with a massive great speaker has to blast their music into the place. It's all very well saying "don't go to places like that then" but that means sitting at home on my arse doing fuck all.
And yes, in case you haven't detected it, I'm fucking angry. I know lots of people who hate it, lots who don't care either way, and absolutely no-one who actually wants it. So no, I don't think it's intrinsic. I think a noisy minority used to getting their own way has foisted it on the rest of us.
@KarlLB has every right to want to be included. People are welcome to want events with excessive noise. It sounds like Karl would hate them for many reasons.
Any organization that wants to include or pretend to include people like Karl should also have quieter events. There is no reason to say that all people who enjoy noisy events will not also enjoy the quieter events. I know I have enjoyed prefirework music but absolutely also enjoy the quiet time to talk to my friends and family before and after. The city of Chicago, where I live, tends to have multiple official firework events in multiple locations lately and the different events are different. Some are noisier than others. That seems what we should be aiming for.*
*Minus the poor information. I am not sure how easily one could find out which firework events will have music and which will not
But a village of 200 people with one event a year (and all the usual problems of people not wanting to organise things so the same people end up organising the same thing every year or nothing happens) might struggle a bit more to offer multiple things. Which then, I suppose, comes down to how far someone might be expected to travel to go to something that suits them, unless they're willing to organise it themselves? I concede it's easier in urban areas, but round here we essentially get what we're given, or do ourselves. Since we're very explicitly doing own voices, I'll own that a lot of my social life out here in the sticks involves doing things I might not otherwise choose (or indeed try very hard) to do. Unfortunately.
The *preference* of one person for loud music is being held as equivalent to the *inability* of another person to bear it at all. We are comparing a possibly impaired experience for one person with complete exclusion from the experience for another.
The funny thing is it's often framed as the excluded people wanting to force everyone to accommodate them, rather than eg the loud music lover wanting to force others to accommodate him. This seems upside down, given that we're contrasting one person's preference with another's need.
This is why I'd set the intrinsicality bar rather high. Earsplitting (ie. have to shout rather than talk, normal conversation impossible) volume music - intrinsic to night clubs and rock concerts. Ice rinks, restaurants, bowling alleys- not so much.
I don't know the extent to which enforcement is possible or desirable in the leisure sector, but if inclusivity is a desire then this is the sort of consideration required.
My mum - who suffers from chronic tinnitus - simply will not be able to hear me if there's music playing or other loud conversations behind us. Hearing aids don't help much either.
Arguably, at the advanced age of 50-mumble, I don't think I know anyone who wants to shout at each other across a pub table any more, and I don't know what the managers are trying to achieve with the decibel level.
Like Karl, I'm not looking to have it banned, but does it have to be in all social spaces?
They're trying to make the place seem warm and alive, and they may also be trying to get people to drink more.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18647281/
I also don't hear or read much from anyone who finds additional noise in places like food courts or restaurants to be essential to their enjoyment and I know in the case of pubs and restaurants the science behind it is that it makes people drink more and buy more unhealthy food - so what's being characterised as 'enjoyment' is in a lot of cases just an eye on profit due to the unconscious effects the loud music has. Historically fine dining used to be a quieter experience because when the fashion was for plush interiors they damped the sound reflections a lot - modern design choices have tended to make restaurants much noisier places but that's about fashion not anything intrinsic to the experience.
Profiteering at the expense of excluding a lot of people and making activities painful for them, and where the noise level isn't an intrinsic part of what you go out for, seems a bit dubious to me.
It also makes me think of open plan offices - they're done not because most people working in them actually like or enjoy them but because they are cheap with similarly awful results for hearing imparied/neurodivergent folk and of course for everybody in pandemics unless the ventilation is top notch. You don't have to be neurodivergent to find them awful a friend with anxiety suffers badly from having to work in one too. Companies like them because they are cheap - research on them shows them to be awful for productivity and for days off sick.
I think we need to beware of saying 'people enjoy it' when what's actually going on is somebody making a choice a few people can profit from at the cost of serious impairment/exclusion to other people.
By the way, all terrain/off road wheelchairs are a thing. A young disabled fundraiser in Shetland had the Highland and Islands twitter account for a while and one of the things he posted about was him and his wheelchair and people helping with a few portable aids getting across the St Ninians Isle tombolo to visit the island. Tarmac was not pictured.
There are disability groups in Scotland which lend out that kind of thing.
This resonates with me (no pun intended).
I'm an active part of the local mountain biking community, and we are broadly loathed by hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts. Because, when we ride on a trail, it becomes much more dangerous for everyone, in addition to possibly causing serious erosion to the wild space. So it means that it makes sense for us to carve out bike-specific recreation areas that don't impinge on other's ability to access the outdoors, and maintain them such that they can have minimal impact on the local terrain. And when we do co-exist on multi-use trails, we need to make sure we do so safely and considerately. It's inconvenient to be restricted to certain areas for some classes of riding (#gnar), but it's better than blithely ignoring the needs of others.
Finding ways to let more people get more of what they want/need is the basic reason to have civilized society, right?
There are always some people who see their preference as more important than anyone else's need or preference. Selfish human nature I guess.
It's not just ONE person's preference and against another ONE's need. We are talking about groups of people. So if, for example, a majority of people like the loud music, then they are being asked to forgo their preference for the sake of inclusion of a minority. That does involve a small level of loss for them. The question is whether they feel the loss is worth it for the sake of including others, or whether they feel they have been deprived of something they enjoyed and feel resentful against those they see as having spoiled their enjoyment. They may not know or understand why the change was necessary. They may not care about the needs of those who are being included. They feel it is not fair that a majority of people have to change their behaviour/environment for the sake of a minority, because there are more of them who like it the way that it is. These things do not make them right. But if they are a majority they have power, either in the way they vote, or where they choose to spend their money or exercise influence in other ways. We need to try to get a majority on the side of inclusion of the minority, even if not part of the group. Legislation and rules are only a first step, changing hearts and minds can take longer. But I think that is still the right order, as many people will just get used to that being the way things are after it is legislated to be so.
My feeling is that more noise consideration will be like escalators/elevators, kerb cuts, or other accommodations that are generally popular with those who are generally fully mobile. On the other hand a few people will really hate them, and they will make things cost more money.
Everyone said that making bars nonsmoking would ruin business but my local bars show every evidence of doing very well. So I think we should also be careful of current wisdom about what everyone wants. Maybe many 20 somethings want noisy restaurants bars or maybe they just take them for granted and would go as much or more to quieter ones.
I identify with that. Maybe I should get my hearing tested.
Specsavers used to do free hearing tests with their eye tests, don’t know if they still do.
[/tangent]
But what if a hearing aid loop installation that then benefited you diminished the enjoyment of someone else?
There are also auditory processing disorders of various kinds and severities that can cause similar issues and which can coincide with perfect hearing. I've had a similar issue since I was very young - and had very good hearing.
The "matter of personal taste" referred to my description of a light show as "worthless dreck". You are presenting a light show as a fun alternative to fireworks that doesn't have any of the negatives of a firework display. Whilst I agree with you that a light show lacks these negatives, it also (and this is the "personal taste" bit) lacks any kind of positive merit whatsoever.
We (young 20-somethings with not a lot of spare dosh) used to part with hard-earned pay to lie on our backs and watch laser shows projected on the domed ceiling of an auditorium. They certainly are not universally despised.
Pomona, please don't minimise vulnerability or make fun of anyone posting from an experience of disability, as Marvin just did.
Thank you.
Hosting off
MaryLouise, Epiphanies Host.
Happy to take this elsewhere if this is inappropriate; but @Marvin the Martian do the holes people have pointed out in this particular example give you any pause over how you diagnose oppression?
Well, nobody's forcing you to go - and it means more people are included. Nobody *needs* fireworks, they're optional.
If nobody *needs* them then why does it matter which group is excluded?
Nobody *needs* Camembert, so would it matter if Tesco refused to sell it to, say, Lesbians?
Oh, I know. I wasn't the one saying it's OK for some people to be denied a certain form of enjoyment because that form of enjoyment isn't a *need*. I'm just saying that if you're OK with some people being excluded from or denied a thing then on what basis do you decide which people it's OK or not OK to exclude?
Your Tesco camembert example is a case in point. Yes, it's wrong for Tesco to refuse to sell it to lesbians, but only because it's wrong for Tesco to refuse to sell it to any arbitrary group of people. So if someone were to say that it's fine for (say) cishet men to be denied camembert because it's not a *need* but it's not fine for the same denial to be levelled at lesbians then I'd definitely be asking them to explain how they reached that conclusion.
Though I'd also point out that the fact that people with dairy allergies (such as both my kids) can't enjoy camembert doesn't make it wrong for Tesco to sell it in the first place.
@Marvin the Martian I am going to return to this - I believe, but I could be misinterpreting, that you think a fair system is about equality rather than equity ? Is that right ?
I really like this version of that cartoon: https://blogs.tip.duke.edu/teachersworkshop/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2019/07/Liberation-2-1024x496.jpg
Apologies to the hosts for my crappy code.
Nobody's PTSD or dog is traumatized by lack of fireworks.
Tesco selling camembert doesn't terrorize dogs or traumatize veterans. What else you got?
It certainly shows that there are large numbers of people who enjoy fireworks and would probably feel pretty miffed if they were banned. Most are probably unaware of negative effects, they just enjoy the show. Fireworks also seem to be a significant part of Diwali celebrations, so banning them might be seen as discriminating against another group.
I think there would need to be public discussion of the reasons why a change was needed.
But from the middle of October to the middle of November it sounds like we're in a war zone. The cats are less than pleased by this, and given the density of pets in my area, they won't be the only ones.
Maybe just don't sell them to members of the public?
Yes, if you like.
Your first sentence might be wrong. Suppose, for example, that out of 100 people, 60 enjoy a fireworks show, 30 are indifferent towards fireworks, 5 dislike fireworks, and 5 have a PTSD or sensory issue that makes fireworks problematic for them. Suppose that 30 people enjoy a light show, and the other 70 people are indifferent towards it.
Which is more inclusive - the thing that more people actually want, or the thing that isn't actively bad for someone?
Fireworks are a bit unusual, in that they're loud enough that if you live nearby, you don't completely escape from them by being indoors. And that makes a difference - if someone is traumatized by fireworks, telling them "don't go to a fireworks display" isn't much of an imposition. Telling them that the fireworks display is going to invade their home and they don't have a choice about it is a rather bigger deal.
For the record, I'm all in favour of corralling fireworks in to specific identified days and times (for example, November 5th, and the Saturday closest to November 5th, between dusk and 10pm).
The noisy-music-in-ice-rinks example is different, in that the problematic noise remains within the ice rink. If affects people who have a problem with noise but want to go ice skating. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask to me to have a music-free timeslot for those who don't want, or can't stand, loud music, just like it's not unreasonable for a swimming pool to have a women-only slot. And if the music-free slot proves popular and profitable, presumably an ice rink would expand it.
That's never going to be an argument well received here. The midnight fireworks on New Year's Eve draw enormous crowds, well over a million around the Harbour and at vantage points. They're so popular that there is now a 9pm edition for those for whom midnight is impossible/very difficult.
Do you think the costs of pursuing equity are too high, or do you think it not a worthwhile goal in the first place ?
Closer to the latter. As long as the game is played fairly I’m perfectly happy with there being winners and losers.
Take a 400m race, you could have everyone starts in line as they do for the 100m - they all start in line in the same place. But the curving track means those in the outer lanes run a longer distance. So that is mitigated by having a staggered start correcting for the curve - so the person on the out side lane starts ahead of the person on the inside lane. Do you think that unfair ?