5 ms·

> the level of aggression in the locals This is off-topic, but I can't help but notice how this is worded. I am having trouble articulating what bothers me abo

by uoaei 6y ago

> the level of aggression in the locals This is off-topic, but I can't help but notice how this is worded. I am having trouble articulating what bothers me about it. But it seems like you feel like you're "in the community, but not of it". There is an implicit distinction between you and your household, and the "locals". The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role. Just my thoughts. I know this is irrelevant but I feel like it needs to be heard.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
uoaei 6y ago
Someone replied with > If you beat up someone for being "not of your community", you're scum. but deleted it before I was able to reply. While I'm on this topic I would like to point out how this perpetuates the same issues by replying to it directly: "Scum" is an interesting word choice. (Yes, that use of 'interesting' is a very loaded one.) But OP didn't say anything about "beating up," just "aggression." And they also didn't claim it's solely because they're "not of the community." There is a lot of obscured context here, but the invariant to notice is that folks who are generally antagonistic against those they perceive as lower classes will use this kind of reductive, dehumanizing language to describe their interactions.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wassenaar10 6y ago
> But it seems like you feel like you're "in the community, but not of it". There is an implicit distinction between you and your household, and the "locals". If we're talking about a larger city, for example Boston (the city focused on for this webpage), then there will undoubtedly be communities in that city to which you do not belong. I would wager that in nearly every city in the world, there are neighborhoods and communities which non-residents of those communities try to avoid walking through. > The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role. Honestly, what are you talking about? Are you insinuating that pedestrians frequently go into neighborhoods in which they don't live to start trouble?
- uoaei 6y ago
  > If we're talking about a larger city, for example Boston (the city focused on for this webpage), then there will undoubtedly be communities in that city to which you do not belong. And you think that talking about people who live in other neighborhoods like a colonist marching through the Congo is an appropriate way to treat fellow citizens? > Are you insinuating that pedestrians frequently go into neighborhoods in which they don't live to start trouble? Obviously not, and that seems to be a deliberately obtuse interpretation for the intention of muddling debate. The insinuation is that there are many reasons people may become "aggressive" and a lot of them involve someone else acting poorly. OP's framing does not allow for the cause of this "aggression" to be their actions. If someone was routinely speeding through my neighborhood in their car, for instance, I would be "aggressive" because I fear for the safety of my neighbors. The framing that OP uses strongly implies that they think they can do no wrong.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    > Obviously not, and that seems to be a deliberately obtuse interpretation for the intention of muddling debate. The insinuation is that there are many reasons people may become "aggressive" and a lot of them involve someone else acting poorly. I've seen far more people acting aggressive to pedestrians without being provoked by the pedestrians because they're in a lot of internal distress (acting erratically, unkempt, possibly homeless) than I've seen pedestrians inciting "locals" to be aggressive back to them. Walk down a street and past someone muttering that they're about to murder a bunch of people and you might not go back that way next time. Sometimes "you were asking for it" isn't the explanation.
    - uoaei 6y ago
      Evidence of exceptions does not disprove the rule. You already know this, I'm sure.
      - majormajor 6y ago
        What do you think is the exception here? We're both making assumptions about what the original poster meant with their wording. In my experience, the normal, non-exceptional case, of aggressive behaviour between people on the street is unprovoked harassment by troubled individuals. (Or outright crime like being held up... but fortunately I haven't encountered this myself) That harrasment is hardly uncommon. I have a hard time thinking of other sorts of conflict or aggression I've seen walking around...
kortilla 6y ago
You assume the OP doesn’t refer to him/herself as a local. Have you considered it’s meant to be about how the article doesn’t distinguish between behavior of the locals in various regions? > The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role. You’ve clearly never experienced aggressive panhandling. Your only “role” is being present.
- uoaei 6y ago
  > You assume the OP doesn’t refer to himself as a local. You assume the OP is a "he," among many other things, such as: > You’ve clearly never experienced aggressive panhandling. Typically the approach of "scold motivated assumptions with unmotivated ones" does not engender support, because it shows that you do not comprehend the context in which this conversation operates.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    > You assume the OP is a "he," Nope, no assumption. Just a gross mistake of failing to put the global match in there. Updated accordingly. > because it shows that you do not comprehend the context in which this conversation operates. Ah, insults and no content. I suppose trolling it is then. The point is that if you spend any large amount of time in many US cities you will encounter aggressive panhandling and the only action on your behalf is your presence there. There is a reason some communities vote to entirely ban panhandling, and it’s not because “racism”.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - uoaei 6y ago
      I spend a lot of time in US cities. I live in one of them. The reason some communities vote to entirely ban panhandling goes to the root of why people resort to panhandling. It's because there is no support structure to counteract the decades of systemic destruction of human dignity. The vote is to assuage middle- and upper-class sensibilities to avoid thinking about the systemic issues by resorting to "out of sight, out of mind." There is a strong bias in the types of people who fall into this situation. If you do not consider that racism, you have missed approximately the last decade of discussion around the matter.
NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
For what it's worth, I think you're reading way too much into what the poster said. For me, "the locals" means nothing more than "the people who are habitually in that area". In my neighborhood, I am one of "the locals", other places I go, I'm perhaps not. I took "aggression" to mean something like "proclivity to force a social engagement regardless of my desire to be part of it". In New York City, that's sometimes panhandling, sometimes people with mental health issues, sometimes the guys with the CDs or the people who want to tell the whole car about their personal religious conversion while you're riding on the subway. If my only role is "being there" then my only element of control is "not being there", which is sort of the poster's entire point.
- uoaei 6y ago
  > If my only role is "being there" then my only element of control is "not being there", which is sort of the poster's entire point. But of course it's never that simple, which is sort of my entire point.
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    Not to be obtuse, but what is your point? Obviously there exists some complex set of life circumstances, personal histories, elements of chance and so on that lead to there being some people who will interact in an insistent, even hostile, way with strangers on the streets. In that both I and those people form part of the same economy, inhabit the same political reality, my actions are probably implicated in some unfathomably complex way. I have "a role". To that extent: yes, it is not "that simple", in fact it's unknowably complex. But, in practical terms, what are you proposing?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

by uoaei 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

uoaei 6y ago

Someone replied with > If you beat up someone for being "not of your community", you're scum. but deleted it before I was able to reply. While I'm on this topic I would like to point out how this perpetuates the same issues by replying to it directly: "Scum" is an interesting word choice. (Yes, that use of 'interesting' is a very loaded one.) But OP didn't say anything about "beating up," just "aggression." And they also didn't claim it's solely because they're "not of the community." There is a lot of obscured context here, but the invariant to notice is that folks who are generally antagonistic against those they perceive as lower classes will use this kind of reductive, dehumanizing language to describe their interactions.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wassenaar10 6y ago

> But it seems like you feel like you're "in the community, but not of it". There is an implicit distinction between you and your household, and the "locals". If we're talking about a larger city, for example Boston (the city focused on for this webpage), then there will undoubtedly be communities in that city to which you do not belong. I would wager that in nearly every city in the world, there are neighborhoods and communities which non-residents of those communities try to avoid walking through. > The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role. Honestly, what are you talking about? Are you insinuating that pedestrians frequently go into neighborhoods in which they don't live to start trouble?

uoaei 6y ago
> If we're talking about a larger city, for example Boston (the city focused on for this webpage), then there will undoubtedly be communities in that city to which you do not belong. And you think that talking about people who live in other neighborhoods like a colonist marching through the Congo is an appropriate way to treat fellow citizens? > Are you insinuating that pedestrians frequently go into neighborhoods in which they don't live to start trouble? Obviously not, and that seems to be a deliberately obtuse interpretation for the intention of muddling debate. The insinuation is that there are many reasons people may become "aggressive" and a lot of them involve someone else acting poorly. OP's framing does not allow for the cause of this "aggression" to be their actions. If someone was routinely speeding through my neighborhood in their car, for instance, I would be "aggressive" because I fear for the safety of my neighbors. The framing that OP uses strongly implies that they think they can do no wrong.
- majormajor 6y ago
  > Obviously not, and that seems to be a deliberately obtuse interpretation for the intention of muddling debate. The insinuation is that there are many reasons people may become "aggressive" and a lot of them involve someone else acting poorly. I've seen far more people acting aggressive to pedestrians without being provoked by the pedestrians because they're in a lot of internal distress (acting erratically, unkempt, possibly homeless) than I've seen pedestrians inciting "locals" to be aggressive back to them. Walk down a street and past someone muttering that they're about to murder a bunch of people and you might not go back that way next time. Sometimes "you were asking for it" isn't the explanation.
  - uoaei 6y ago
    Evidence of exceptions does not disprove the rule. You already know this, I'm sure.
    - majormajor 6y ago
      What do you think is the exception here? We're both making assumptions about what the original poster meant with their wording. In my experience, the normal, non-exceptional case, of aggressive behaviour between people on the street is unprovoked harassment by troubled individuals. (Or outright crime like being held up... but fortunately I haven't encountered this myself) That harrasment is hardly uncommon. I have a hard time thinking of other sorts of conflict or aggression I've seen walking around...

kortilla 6y ago

You assume the OP doesn’t refer to him/herself as a local. Have you considered it’s meant to be about how the article doesn’t distinguish between behavior of the locals in various regions? > The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role. You’ve clearly never experienced aggressive panhandling. Your only “role” is being present.

uoaei 6y ago
> You assume the OP doesn’t refer to himself as a local. You assume the OP is a "he," among many other things, such as: > You’ve clearly never experienced aggressive panhandling. Typically the approach of "scold motivated assumptions with unmotivated ones" does not engender support, because it shows that you do not comprehend the context in which this conversation operates.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > You assume the OP is a "he," Nope, no assumption. Just a gross mistake of failing to put the global match in there. Updated accordingly. > because it shows that you do not comprehend the context in which this conversation operates. Ah, insults and no content. I suppose trolling it is then. The point is that if you spend any large amount of time in many US cities you will encounter aggressive panhandling and the only action on your behalf is your presence there. There is a reason some communities vote to entirely ban panhandling, and it’s not because “racism”.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - uoaei 6y ago
    I spend a lot of time in US cities. I live in one of them. The reason some communities vote to entirely ban panhandling goes to the root of why people resort to panhandling. It's because there is no support structure to counteract the decades of systemic destruction of human dignity. The vote is to assuage middle- and upper-class sensibilities to avoid thinking about the systemic issues by resorting to "out of sight, out of mind." There is a strong bias in the types of people who fall into this situation. If you do not consider that racism, you have missed approximately the last decade of discussion around the matter.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago

For what it's worth, I think you're reading way too much into what the poster said. For me, "the locals" means nothing more than "the people who are habitually in that area". In my neighborhood, I am one of "the locals", other places I go, I'm perhaps not. I took "aggression" to mean something like "proclivity to force a social engagement regardless of my desire to be part of it". In New York City, that's sometimes panhandling, sometimes people with mental health issues, sometimes the guys with the CDs or the people who want to tell the whole car about their personal religious conversion while you're riding on the subway. If my only role is "being there" then my only element of control is "not being there", which is sort of the poster's entire point.

uoaei 6y ago
> If my only role is "being there" then my only element of control is "not being there", which is sort of the poster's entire point. But of course it's never that simple, which is sort of my entire point.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  Not to be obtuse, but what is your point? Obviously there exists some complex set of life circumstances, personal histories, elements of chance and so on that lead to there being some people who will interact in an insistent, even hostile, way with strangers on the streets. In that both I and those people form part of the same economy, inhabit the same political reality, my actions are probably implicated in some unfathomably complex way. I have "a role". To that extent: yes, it is not "that simple", in fact it's unknowably complex. But, in practical terms, what are you proposing?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]