5 ms·

> The Mission is still dangerous at night, for people who don't look like techies, and you still have to hopscotch over human feces. The mission is far safer n

> The Mission is still dangerous at night, for people who don't look like techies, and you still have to hopscotch over human feces. The mission is far safer now than it used to be. And if you look like a "techie" (What does that mean exactly?) you're more likely to be victimized. The criminals are probably thinking that you have some assets, and won't fight back. I've never felt unsafe in the mission in the past ten years.

tptacek 10y ago
The west side of Chicago is a pretty safe place to be if you're a white dude on a bicycle with a backpack. But it's an incredibly dangerous neighborhood for the locals, who are among the poorest people in the region.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > But it's an incredibly dangerous neighborhood for the locals, who are among the poorest people in the region. Yes, that's because a lot of the locals are caught up in some shady activities. Gang violence and drug violence generally don't bother outsiders. Being poor doesn't have much to do with it, except to make you want to get caught up in the life to make some money for your family.
  - kasey_junk 10y ago
    He's arguing by example that your idea that the Mission being more dangerous for someone with "assets" doesn't play out in other parts of major American cities. I don't know anything about the mission but in my southside Chicago neighborhood having assets will not get you targeted. Being a young black kid from the wrong block will. This thread is basically all about the idea that rich techies deciding if a neighborhood is more safe from their perspective is flawed, because they are likely to be the least impacted. From my experience, that's true.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > Being a young black kid from the wrong block will. Why are you inserting age and race into this discussion? Either you're caught up in street drama or you're not. If you're not, people generally don't mess with you unless you have assets, there's nothing in it for them. > This thread is basically all about the idea that rich techies deciding if a neighborhood is more safe from their perspective is flawed, because they are likely to be the least impacted. From my experience, that's true. Agreed, not because they're "rich" or "techie", but because they haven't been around long enough to take sides and get targeted by a particular group of people. "Rich techies" is just a dog whistle to try to get sympathy.
      - kasey_junk 10y ago
        > Why are you inserting age and race into this discussion? Because by every metric you can come up with young black men in my neighborhood are in more danger than any one else & it has nothing to do with their criminal affiliation. It is a trivial excercise to find kids that grew up just like me but black, who experience violence levels unheard of where I grew up & the only demographic difference is race. The idea that its only "criminals" who suffer from American urban violence is so trivially refuted that no one who studies it seriously considers it credible. Yet on one of the most affluent tech boards in the world its considered normal to argue the opposite.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        > It is a trivial excercise to find kids that grew up just like me but black, who experience violence levels unheard of where I grew up & the only demographic difference is race. The idea that its only "criminals" who suffer from American urban violence is so trivially refuted that no one who studies it seriously considers it credible. Spend the trivial effort and show me. > Yet on one of the most affluent tech boards in the world its considered normal to argue the opposite. What does affluent and tech have to do with anything? Let's spin this another way. By every metric you can come up with, young black men are more likely to commit homicide, deal drugs, skip out on child support, and be incarcerated than any one else, and the only demographic differnce is race. It has nothing to do with their criminal affiliation. Once you start going against the social narrative, things get interesting.

tptacek 10y ago

The west side of Chicago is a pretty safe place to be if you're a white dude on a bicycle with a backpack. But it's an incredibly dangerous neighborhood for the locals, who are among the poorest people in the region.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> But it's an incredibly dangerous neighborhood for the locals, who are among the poorest people in the region. Yes, that's because a lot of the locals are caught up in some shady activities. Gang violence and drug violence generally don't bother outsiders. Being poor doesn't have much to do with it, except to make you want to get caught up in the life to make some money for your family.
- kasey_junk 10y ago
  He's arguing by example that your idea that the Mission being more dangerous for someone with "assets" doesn't play out in other parts of major American cities. I don't know anything about the mission but in my southside Chicago neighborhood having assets will not get you targeted. Being a young black kid from the wrong block will. This thread is basically all about the idea that rich techies deciding if a neighborhood is more safe from their perspective is flawed, because they are likely to be the least impacted. From my experience, that's true.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > Being a young black kid from the wrong block will. Why are you inserting age and race into this discussion? Either you're caught up in street drama or you're not. If you're not, people generally don't mess with you unless you have assets, there's nothing in it for them. > This thread is basically all about the idea that rich techies deciding if a neighborhood is more safe from their perspective is flawed, because they are likely to be the least impacted. From my experience, that's true. Agreed, not because they're "rich" or "techie", but because they haven't been around long enough to take sides and get targeted by a particular group of people. "Rich techies" is just a dog whistle to try to get sympathy.
    - kasey_junk 10y ago
      > Why are you inserting age and race into this discussion? Because by every metric you can come up with young black men in my neighborhood are in more danger than any one else & it has nothing to do with their criminal affiliation. It is a trivial excercise to find kids that grew up just like me but black, who experience violence levels unheard of where I grew up & the only demographic difference is race. The idea that its only "criminals" who suffer from American urban violence is so trivially refuted that no one who studies it seriously considers it credible. Yet on one of the most affluent tech boards in the world its considered normal to argue the opposite.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        > It is a trivial excercise to find kids that grew up just like me but black, who experience violence levels unheard of where I grew up & the only demographic difference is race. The idea that its only "criminals" who suffer from American urban violence is so trivially refuted that no one who studies it seriously considers it credible. Spend the trivial effort and show me. > Yet on one of the most affluent tech boards in the world its considered normal to argue the opposite. What does affluent and tech have to do with anything? Let's spin this another way. By every metric you can come up with, young black men are more likely to commit homicide, deal drugs, skip out on child support, and be incarcerated than any one else, and the only demographic differnce is race. It has nothing to do with their criminal affiliation. Once you start going against the social narrative, things get interesting.