It is a chicken and egg problem. As long as the majority of people who would maintain the social environment are avoiding the social environment, the healthy consensus/operating regime can never emerge.

▲

davnicwil 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In my experience the majority consensus is to maintain a quiet, generally polite environment on trains and buses.

But that's precisely the problem, it only takes a very tiny minority to change this. If one group, one person sometimes, in a carriage of 50 people decides to go against this, then that's that. It's not even particularly common, but it happens, it's random, and so it's just something that must be contended with.

▲

svnt 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I think that is the case if the majority has or exercises little to no effective social power to enforce the norm.

The majority consensus is to desire a peaceful environment but do nothing when it is violated.

▲

tristor 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Correct. But the golden question is, do what? The authorities don't care. Rules and laws are rarely enforced, and when they are enforced they're done so unevenly. If you decide to take matters into your own hands, it's much more likely that you will be punished by the law than the person you were correcting. So, what do you expect people to do?

▲

svnt 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My point is that in established cultures there are expectations around how these situations are handled, and what you expect people to do is specific to the culture. A single disapproving grandmother can put a stop to it.

That is why it breaks down — once it is discarded in a melting pot the cultural expectations are unclear and it seems you’re at least initially dependent on the state or mob dynamics.

	▲	9x39 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>A single disapproving grandmother can put a stop to it. I think you have to go further upstream socially - there are people that should not be free, but are. Public transit has not just loud talking or music on phones, but the mentally deranged, babbling, even actively drug using population walking a knife's edge between erratic and aggressive behavior. From my POV it's so far past a stern stare on the US west coast that the suggestion comes across comical.

▲

Der_Einzige an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Create vigalantee laws that legalize “taking matters into your own hands”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_drug_war

Extremely popular and objectively reduced crime and drug usage. In portlands case, you keep weed, steroids, psychedelics, and party drugs legal and come down like hell on the society destroying stuff like fenty

China needed to do similar drastic things to get out of the slump caused by the opium wars. They call that period the “century of humiliation “ for a reason.

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

charcircuit 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not. Pass a law that continuing to be noisy or disruptive on a bus or train after a warning results in 10 years of prison time with no parole and consistently enforce it. The problem will solve itself without a chicken and egg problem. Problematic people can simply be removed from society to make for a good social environment. Adding more good people is not the only option and in fact only hides the problem instead of solving it.

▲

JuniperMesos 5 hours ago | parent [-]

This would involve incarcerating a lot of homeless people, which is expensive, and pro-homeless activists would see it as a human rights abuse and fight it.

	▲	9x39 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Deeply unfortunate, but we're arguably in a lose-lose situation where suffering from the problem has abuses, and yet so does fighting those who profit or benefit from the situation. There's immense social capital and NGO patronage at work surrounding 'homeless' - and I parse that as mentally ill now, as it's an insult (IMO) to the homeless who are perfectly capable of respecting others and participating in the social contract.
	▲	charcircuit 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It would be expensive, but would have everyday visible tangible effects which you can't always say about other government spending. In regards to people thinking it's abusing people's rights they will just have to be ignored or taught to respect other people's right to a good experience with public transport.