3 ms·
I've certainly heard similar things from women about "that" kind of look, and I wouldn't have really questioned it if religion weren't brought in. They might be
by scottlamb 8y ago
I've certainly heard similar things from women about "that" kind of look, and I wouldn't have really questioned it if religion weren't brought in. They might be right about if they "should" be frightened. I'm not going to say otherwise, and I support their personally doing what they need to feel safe, based on whatever information they think is best.
However, when it comes to setting public policy that trades off against individual liberty, authoritatively stating which of N cities is safest, and so on, I think the bar should be higher. Statements should be based on hard data such as numbers of violent attacks. This isn't practical for individuals (imagine: "based on extensive personal trials, I was murdered ten times as often by people who...") but is on the scale of cities/states/countries.
- ryandrake 8y agoInteresting thread about the relative safety of cities, but wait...hang on: now simply looking at someone is perceived as threatening? Not catcalling or showing aggression... simply making eye contact?? I’ll take a note to avoid all eye contact in the future. I’m not a city person so I had no idea how little it takes to be considered a threat.
- krageon 8y agoIn a big city it's generally considered bad form to look at others too much. Making eye contact is something I would avoid, but mostly because it can be seen as threatening (I'm assuming you're a guy) and can lead to you being ganged up somewhere dark if you do it to the wrong person.
- 0db532a0 8y agoIt is not threatening in London to make eye contact with someone, however much people joke about people never talking to each other.