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.
But of course it's never that simple, which is sort of my entire 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?
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?
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.
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.
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...
I have never experienced significant harassment, and I am a white male-presenting person in a city that is about 30% white. I've lived in various neighborhoods with varying levels of average income and demography. I would walk and bike basically everywhere that wasn't super hilly. I wonder what is different about your experience, the way you carry yourself, etc. that causes these interactions.
> In my experience, the normal, non-exceptional case, of aggressive behaviour between people on the street is unprovoked harassment by troubled individuals.
My experience is that those people usually know each other in some way. Have you ever taken the time to listen, or is it just too shocking to handle?
The situation you describe would seem to be the exception. Compare to violent crimes like sexual assault or shootings, which are overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who already know the victim prior to the assault.
For me, I've encountered huge amounts of harassment in the first three cities. Oddly in NYC I didn't have a problem with it. In the first three, I've had problems in almost every neighborhood.
I honestly believe that somehow, your experience has been very different. I'm not sure why that is... perhaps you have a higher anxiety tolerance than I do. But I've been followed onto the train by a person speaking about shadows, and how he knows people who do "really bad things", situations like that, more than I can count.
Yes, it is also possible for 'locals' to be upset by unreasonable behaviour like loutish drunkenness or reasonable behaviour like wearing a rainbow T-shirt, but it's a bit rich to accuse others of being deliberately obtuse when you're bringing up dangerous driving as an example of why an OP's concerns about walking through certain areas of the city is likely to be his own fault.
sometimes people are downright aggressive if they feel you are trespassing in a place that isn't "yours". I had a somewhat mischievous teacher in high school who liked to take us out to lunch in less affluent neighborhoods. more than once he was asked "why did you bring those kids here?" or told outright "you don't belong here" by the regulars.
> In my experience, those who speak in this and similar manners are forming narratives to reframe the event to re-orient culpability.
why would people do this? to what end? who is really "culpable" in your opinion? all I see in this thread is people recounting times they have felt unwelcome or unsafe somewhere. in response, they do nothing more extreme than to avoid that place in the future. what exactly is the problem here?
Doesn't seem that way to me. Lots of activity in the up/downvotes. Not everyone with an opinion is here expressing it.
> why would people do this? to what end?
When people do bad or otherwise undignified things, they routinely construct a narrative that conveniently leaves those bad things out, or otherwise reframes the events to cast them in a better light when they later recount the story. I don't think many would find this a controversial idea. This idea has been formalized in psychology since at least Jung in the concept of the shadow.
Frequently, this includes additional language to further reinforce the narrative, such as dehumanizing or reductive language like I explained above.
The pattern I've noticed in my interactions with sheltered techie-types who are uncomfortable in big city neighborhoods reflects the language used in OP, i.e., their understanding of minority communities is largely informed by stereotypes developed by local news and one-dimensional TV depictions before moving to neighborhoods and getting a chance to see what it's really like. Instead they stay sheltered in their castle and don't talk to their neighbors, and are subsequently (correctly) labeled gentrifiers. The feeling of not fitting in exacerbates the impulse to apply these stereotypes and colors any subsequent interaction before it begins.
If OP does not fit this description, they've certainly inherited their language (thus, worldview) from those who do.
I actually have plenty of experience in the big city, it's not like I'm someone who comes from the rich burbs and then acts disgusted by the people around.
If anything, I've only become more bitter and hardened over time by living in the city. I was much more empathetic before it happened for 10 years+ and before I was put in so many unsafe situations.
Again, I'm not even referring to minority neighborhoods, actually most of these people are white (though certainly not all).
> 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.
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.
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”.
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.
> If you find this insulting, you may want to reconsider why.
I don’t consider it insulting. I consider it an attempt at an insult. If it’s not that, it’s just a lame attempt to construe a discussion participant’s level of cognition for no particular purpose.
> 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.
This ignores entire countries where it is not allowed despite having stronger social safety systems.
> 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.
Well it’s not racism because many communities dominated by one race have a homeless population dominated by the same race and still choose to ban it.
Clutching at the crutch of racism accusations is just a method of dehumanizing people attempting to improve their community after countless failed attempts to solve homelessness.
...only if you conflate "do not" with "cannot" in order to further your victimization narrative.
> many communities
Weasel words like "many" with no follow-up providing evidence are useless here.
I don’t think you know what “victimization” means. I’m not claiming to be a victim. I’m claiming your attempts to dismiss comments with insults instead of logic is pretty lame.
“Clearly you don’t know what’s going on here so I’m not going to address anything.”
> Weasel words like "many" with no follow-up providing evidence are useless here.
Go to “legal restrictions” on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging if you would actually like to discuss these things you find so “curious”.
> 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.
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.