Often times organized crimes substitutes an absent government and enforce their own set of law and order in the community. They can't afford to just rob the people blind as sometimes portrayed in media. They rely on a somewhat sybmiotic relationship with the "citizens" to act as messengers, human surveillance cameras, warning them from unknown people entering, making false statements to the police etc. The gangs are often much more effective at crime prevention than the government, they often invest more locally than the government.
A big chunk of the violet crimes comes from conflicts between gangs. If you are part of the community and stay in line you can actually be pretty safe. As a tourist on the other hand, you are fair game.
Obviously, it is not everything is rosy and nice, but in my opinion one of the big challenges in facing organized crime, is that the governments don't actually have a believable improvement to offer to the people, so the locals will often defend the current situation.
The strongest local gang establishes a monopoly on violence in their territory. They then extract tribute (taxes) from the local population in various ways. If they get too greedy and extract too much, then eventually the plebs have little enough to lose to break their established order and fight the establishment gang. The most competent gangs find the equilibrium of taxation that is the maximum they can extract without suffocating production and innovation or creating an opposing revolution.
So, in locations where this has happened in modern states, it simply demonstrates that the "official" police and state have failed to manage their monopoly on violence properly, and are being actively out competed by a more effective organization that, if it continues to sustainably control its territory, will eventually become recognized as the new legitimate state.
No - there are also revolutions and secessionist movements. Which already in their formation can be better thought of as mini-governments than "gangs" per se.
The basic problem with the idea of saying "it all started from gang rule" is that it brings to mind an image of criminal networks that just happened to fall into government-like activities (e.g. muscling out other gangs, running basic services) as a way of staying in business. Certainly true in some cases, but in most cases ... not a particularly meaningful description.
History is written by the victors.
Modern gangs also sometimes organize via voluntary cooperation. Their ability to commit violence and control their territory is merely the foundation of their legitimacy in any non violent agreement. Same foundation as all "official" governments.
The Continental Congress did not lead a democracy, any more than the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States does.
Yeah I guess they're all just paid shills, and have no idea of what they're talking about.
Think about it this way - would you be willing to pay me 5% of your pay for this month to have me generate a report of your productivity, if you already knew I was highly likely to send a result that suggests your boss might want to fire you? If you were expected to pay me to do such a report for some reason, I think you'd prefer to pay me to report on someone else's productivity instead.
Basically it came down to an attempt at FUD: "Everyone is biased, you can't really trust anyone, therefore I don't need to acknowledge of any of the substantive points you are making."
Misdirection, in other words.
What works in the place of violence? Escape? Maybe you can have a diaspora society willing to run away and rebuild in any territory it can ever reach and live in. Nullifying defense? Say you have some kind of structure or device that makes you invincible without fighting back and all violence against you is a pointless waste of energy. Then you could just be, and voluntarily agree to some social contract you never use violence to uphold. Love? Maybe all violence could hypothetically be stopped if the violent person's emotions could be negotiated with to circumvent their desires and everyone ends up happy. These all seem totally utopian to depend on 100% purely at a societal level, but these are all nonviolent approaches I know people take to resist violence on a practical 1 to 1 level.
That is a very good question and I do not have a good answer. Maybe subjectively... that legitimate power is perceived as justified. I grew up in a communist regime and had the opportunity to experience the difference between obeying rules because you are afraid not to vs obeying rules because they are at least somewhat correlated to what the majority considers to be good. Sure, even in democracy you obey some rules just because you are afraid not to, but you also understand that you live in an imperfect world that is not centered around you and you can accept some level of power you don't perceive as justified as long as it is about something like zoning rules and not your fundamental freedoms.
But it seems highly subjective... maybe if I grew up in ancient Egypt I would believe that the pharaoh has the right do whatever he pleases and who am I to judge whether it is evil or not.
Everyone is a slave to their incentives. You have to weed through multiple narratives of different perspectives if you want a chance of piecing together "the truth", whatever that actually means.
I think "the truth" means what brings us simultaneously to the greatest understanding, peace, respect for existence and consciousness, freedom from misery, and victory over cruelty. Anything that, over the long run, takes these away in greater amounts than it gives them back is a falsehood. If truth is not this thing, then why ought we seek it in the first place? I think that's how we can all be less of a slave to our incentives (except the incentive for the truth), even if they are to spread FUD and assert our own objective correctness :>
Trying to get rid other cultures herritage is quite a common activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_heritage
History classes in primary and secondary school are often extremely light on any criticism of the own nations past if mentioned at all. In my own case in Switzerland, some things we were taught were outright lies, fabricated by a historian from Zürich almost a century earlier to promote patriotism. The European colonial period is another thing that got completely misrepresented for example.
And in modern observations, if they emerged out of drug dealing, there's even the possibility (though that's certainly not a given) that they never diversify into tribute/protection, while still providing order.
It would be the exact same thing as the "we done do drugs!" ethics portrayed in The Goodfather, only reversed. I wouldn't even consider that all too unlikely, because violent gangsters want to consider themselves as the good guys just like everyone else, and adhering to a code that rules out some forms of unethical behavior goes a long way for that.
If the people, or more specifically the democratic majority, end up becoming more extractive than they are productive towards enhancing their state's power, then eventually some alternative organizing governance structure will emerge that accumulates power more effectively.
This isn't making an ethical judgement about one system or another, just an observation on what appears to be base level reality.
But that's just a speculation from me.
>If you are part of the community and stay in line you can actually be pretty safe.
There was an event I participated about this, I was teaching about gamedev using opensource tools, a lot of people paid to go, the government then brought in a ton of people from the favelas as part of their "digital inclusion" program, although I was happy to teach them, later I heard many of them just stole people's computers, mouses, keyboards, etc... and bolted, a good chunk of the "digital inclusion" people that went for free, didn't sit in a single workshop, instead they just disappeared, and a ton of equipment with them.
Even outside favelas, our infrastructure is just shit too, I work from home and losing power and internet is a constant threat, sometimes water goes out too.
And corruption in general just runs deep, I know a TV producer that was hired to make an Ad for the government, he had to record a government building inside a favela, to make the ad for the government, yet the local government guy wouldn't let him inside to make the recording the government was demanding, he had to approach a congressman about it, and the guy just flat demanded 10k to "do his thing" and make it work.
He did paid the guy, then after that the drug lord demanded another 10k to allow the TV crew inside the favela without being shot.
After he recorded it, the congressman was seen with a new car... meanwhile the drug lord seemly dunked the entire 10k into meat, charcoal and booze and threw a huge barbecue party to the locals.
It seems to me that one care more about his constituents that the other!
Fast forward through some pretty aggressive and technologically advanced gerrymandering, and something like 90% of congressional seats are pretty well insulated from drastic party changes election over election. The primary becomes the only election that matters for most districts, which pushes both parties to the extremes. Because the primary is the only one that matters, there is little to no incentive to rally around your chosen candidate - you just fight that much harder for your favorite one next time.
Solidifying party control in most districts has somewhat paradoxically weakened party control over the process while simultaneously pushing elected candidates to the extremes.
This is what I really like about Ireland's elections - they are so effective in weeding out extremists that the two dominant political forces are almost indistinguishable. It's, perhaps, too efficient in that, but it also seems to be extremely safe and long-term stable.
If a sub-group (esp with people who probably knows each other) comes in with a far lower general skill level it's very easy to lose them to an inadequacy feeling that makes them give up if they expect to fail, being a teacher this is very very hard to notice because in a mixed group the top and middle percentages will ask questions and generally feel as "getting it" but those already feeling stupid often doesn't dare ask questions (but often nod or similar simulating being "smart" to not stand out).
I believe you it is bad but that sounds like your friend is spreading a tall tale.
10K is not even a lot of money, most professionals earn more than that per month (I am thinking that's 10K Reais, not Dollars... with the devaluation of the currency, 10K dollars would actually be a lot of money now, around 55K reais... it used to be closer to 1-to-1 not long ago!).
Regardless of the president, the people are going to elect the very same senators and Congressman, so there is just no hope.
From my limited experience the problem wasn’t so much that tech wasn’t or couldn’t be available but that a lot of them couldn’t even read.
They provide electricity tapped from the net and everything.
Also remember that for these gangs peace is more interesting and profitable than a lot of crime and chaos. Especially over the long run.
Right - a lot of these places are essentially very poor neighborhoods under separate governance. For better (sometimes) or (often) for worse.
I think it is enlightening to look at these sort of situations through the lens of feudalism. Criminal gangs are not sociopathic comic book villains interested in violence for the fun of it, they are more like landlords, and are in it for money, security, and a sense of community. Medieval kings, the Italian/American/Japanese mafias, South/Central American drug cartels, and Middle Eastern/African "warlords" are all cut from the same cloth.
This article is obviously propaganda meant to counter the headlines about the Worker’s Party leading in the polls.
The working people of Brazil have suffered tremendously under Bolsanaro’s neoliberal government and Lula (Worker’s Party candidate who Bolsanaro imprisoned for 2 years on bogus charges) has a big lead. After the recent socialist victories in Chile and Bolivia (following the U.S.-assisted coup), western states will do everything they can to prevent the Worker’s Party from retaking power in Brazil. Expect more of this and other hi-jinx as the Fall election nears. It’s going to be a messy one.
I agree however that what was done to Lula is so bad it's got to be one of the worst affronts to democracy anywhere. It's a shame our media give it so little attention.
The Western states have been embracing social democracy, predicated on forced income redistribution - the very opposite of "neoliberalism" - at an unprecedented rate:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...
These ideological narratives that claim that political parties which advocate for more government power, are the underdog, going up against powerful forces who prefer free markets, looks like nothing more than propaganda to entrench and expand the power of the state and its functionaries.
No, they haven't. Stop peddling this obvious bullshit based on a single figure stretched all the way to the moon. Social spending != social democracy. Social spending != welfare state.
As I've asked for previously, and what you always - unsurprisingly - fail to provide: please present a single reputable, non-free-market think-tank, source that agrees that the "Western states" have been embracing social democracy the last few decades.
The creation of major new social welfare programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF, since 1960, corresponds with a massive increase in the share of economic output expropriated by the state for the purpose of expending it on social programs.
Claiming Western states did not experience a transition to a more social democratic economic model, amidst the creation of major social welfare programs, and a massive increase in social welfare spending, is insane gaslighting.
>>a single figure
What an incredibly disingenuous way to characterize the share of GDP spent on government social welfare programs.
This is an all-encompassing figure that encapsulates every major type of social democratic spending.
Claiming that me using this extremely revealing macro-economic statistic, as evidence of the rise of social democracy, as:
"peddling this obvious bullshit based on a single figure stretched all the way to the moon"
is a desperate attempt to gaslight the public to hide reality from it.
>>non-free-market think-tank
Any think tank worth its salt is pro-free-market. Non-free-market think tanks are ideologically-motivated crank organizations, and usually on the payroll of the direct beneficiaries of social democracy - public sector unions.
Whether social democracy ideologues/apologists will admit that Western states experienced a massive transition to a more social democratic economic model over the last 60 years, doesn't change what the evidence, and any remotely sane analysis of it, shows.
Where's the reputable source that can back up your claims with more than just an outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation of a single figure?
> extremely revealing macro-economic statistic, as evidence of the rise of social democracy
No, it just isn't. If it was true, you wouldn't have any problem at all providing a reputable source agreeing with your claim. But you clearly do.
> Any think tank worth its salt is pro-free-market. Non-free-market think tanks are ideologically-motivated crank organizations, and usually on the payroll of the direct beneficiaries of social democracy - public sector unions.
That's not based in reality whatsoever.
You have yet to explain what is extraordinary about my claim, besides your baseless claim that the intellectual authorities you defer to haven't concurred with the assertion.
The statistics speak for themselves, and don't need confirmation from the state apparatus' amen corner to be believed.
>>outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation of a single figure?
Again with your absurdly disingenuous characterization of the share of GDP spent on government social welfare programs.
One more time:
This is an all-encompassing figure that is constituted solely by different types of social democratic spending, and encapsulates every major type of social democratic spending.
Claiming that me using this extremely revealing macro-economic statistic, as evidence of the rise of social democracy, as:
"an outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation"
is a desperate attempt to gaslight the public to hide reality from it.
No, it's not. That's a superficial and biased interpretation. There's a minimum threshold to be met if one is to spend energy on a reply, hence the need for something more than just your hot take, especially since your credibility is already very low because of your union conspiracy ramblings.
One more time:
If that is such an obviously correct interpretation as you suggest, please provide reputable sources that agree with your claim, after that we can dive deeper into other possible causes to an increased social spending without that being "an embrace of social democracy".
Your characterization is absolute nonsense, and I've already explained exactly why.
>>especially since your credibility is already very low because of your union conspiracy ramblings.
I've addressed this disingenuous criticism before:
Your pithy response to my argument that unionized news staff have an economic interest in promoting left wing political ideas - when I've elaborated at length as to why I believe this is the case - suggests you're approaching this issue very emotionally, and not in a good faith attempt to open-mindedly explore what I'm saying to see if it's true.
You realize that name-calling and sophistry is not debate, right? You can't just bully people into adopting your interpretation of the world.
Asserting that a claim is "a superficial and biased interpretation" or "conspiracy ramblings", is not evidence. It's just a baseless opinion, and in terms of substance, the equivalent of name-calling - an attempt to appeal to people's emotions to manipulate them into believing something, instead of convincing them by presenting a logical argument.
>>we can dive deeper into other possible causes to an increased social spending without that being "an embrace of social democracy".
We can dive deeper in your mental gymnastics, as you try to maintain "neoliberalism" has been ascendant, whilst the economy has become more social democratically structured? It's undeniable that the West has massively moved toward a more social democratic economic model.
> It's undeniable that the West has massively moved toward a more social democratic economic model.
If it's undeniable, you shouldn't be the only one claiming this. Not even conservatives (in Europe at least) are saying this, even though it would be mana from heaven for them if it was true.
Once more:
Asserting that a claim is "a superficial and biased interpretation" or "conspiracy ramblings", is not evidence. It's just a baseless opinion, and in terms of substance, the equivalent of name-calling - an attempt to appeal to people's emotions to manipulate them into believing something, instead of convincing them by presenting a logical argument.
To reiterate: If it's undeniable, you shouldn't be the only one claiming this. Not even conservatives (in Europe at least) are saying this, even though it would be manna from heaven for them if it was true.
What is the point of me digging up a source when you've completely dismissed clear macroeconomic evidence of a shift to a more social democratic economic structure?
How many examples would I need to dig up of academic authorities concurring on what the statistics clearly show, before you concede I am right?
> which are appeals to emotion that are without substance
No, they are repeated appeals for source to an extraordinary claim which obviously would be more commonplace if it was true since large political camps would have a lot to gain from it. But the lack thereof says a lot, that's why I keep requesting a reputable source to back up your claim that goes deeper than a superficial glance at a social spending figure.
> How many examples would I need to dig up of academic authorities concurring on what the statistics clearly show, before you concede I am right?
You can start with providing a single one?
As much as I dislike linking to this article it's relevant to this because it shows how not even a right-wing pseudo-intellectual media-outfit that certainly can't be dismissed as having a "union-led left-wing bias" agrees with your claim:
https://quillette.com/2021/04/07/what-happened-to-social-dem...
"Starting in the 1970s, such things as foreign competition, mass immigration from developing countries, automation, and the growing financialization of economic power undermined this progress. In the United States, data from the Census Bureau show that the share of national income going to the middle 60 percent of households has fallen to a record low since the 1970s. Wealth gains in recent decades have gone overwhelmingly to the top one percent of households, and especially to the top 0.5 percent. Social mobility has declined in over two-thirds of European Union countries, including Sweden. Across the 36 wealthier countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the richest citizens have taken an ever-greater share of national GDP while the middle class has shrunk. Much of the global middle class is heavily in debt—mainly because of high housing costs—and “looks increasingly like a boat in rocky waters,” suggests the OECD."
When will you concede that you're are practicing dogmatism because of your ideological bias?
I provided a source to the data.
People are free to draw their own interpretations from the macroeconomic data I presented, which shows, indisputably, a massive shift to a more social democratic economic model.
>>they are repeated appeals for source to an extraordinary claim
I provided a source for the data that verifies my claim.
You have not explained at all what is extraordinary about characterizing the creation of sweeping social welfare programs, and an associated massive rise in the share of GDP expropriated by the state for social welfare spending, as "a dramatic shift to a more social democratic economic model".
>>which obviously would be more commonplace if it was true since large political camps would have a lot to gain from it.
There is no "large political camp" that stands to gain from aggressively advocating a reduction in government power, including so-called right-wing parties, under whom the share of GDP expended on social welfare programs has rapidly increased, as major new expansions of the social welfare system has been implemented (e.g. Medicare D under Bush).
All embarking on any genuine campaign to reduce government spending would do is draw the ire of the very powerful public sector unions, whose agendas you aggressively champion in our discussion, and ensure a massive election defeat.
>>You can start with providing a single one?
What difference would it make if I dig up one source? Would it lead to you agreeing with me? If not, this is just an exercise in deflection from you.
If you tell me how many sources it will take, for you to agree with me, then I might take the time to dig them up.
>>In the United States, data from the Census Bureau show that the share of national income going to the middle 60 percent of households has fallen to a record low since the 1970s
This characterizes an outcome, not a govermment policy. The government policy of expending economic output on social welfare programs was expanded all through the last 60 years.
Your dogmatic and ideologically motivated insistence that social democracy will reduce income inequality is completely unsubstantiated, and therefore a rise in income inequality in no way contradicts the assertion that the economy transitioned to a more social democratic model.
No you haven't. Just a figure and your own interpretation of it.
> which shows, indisputably, a massive shift to a more social democratic economic model.
No, it doesn't. It's exactly this interpretation that need to be backed up, not the figure.
You are making a claim, an interpretation, that no one else makes. So the burden of evidence is on you. This is common sense. Stop delaying and start providing.
> There is no "large political camp" that stands to gain from aggressively advocating a reduction in government power
Of course they are large political camp that would love to blame the recent increases in inequality and more on an "embrace of social democracy". Stop lying to save face.
> What difference would it make if I dig up one source? Would it lead to you agreeing with me? If not, this is just an exercise in deflection from you.
Are you seriously asking why it makes difference to provide sources for unique claims that runs contrary to the established consensus?
> If you tell me how many sources it will take, for you to agree with me, then I might take the time to dig them up.
This has nothing to do with a certain quantity of sources. What an absurdly anti-intellectual thing to say.
> This characterizes an outcome, not a govermment policy.
Stop cherry-picking. That article is very clear that it doesn't agree with your assertion. It asked what happened to social democracy and very clearly implying that it has gotten off its original path in recent times. That doesn't square with your claim that social democracy has instead been embraced during that time.
I can provide even more non-academic and academic sources into the decline of social democracy if you'd like, there's loads of them. But somehow you can't even provide a single one supporting your exact opposite claim? This is what makes it extra-ordinary.
Here's another one:
"The rightward shift and electoral decline of social democratic parties under increasing inequality" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2021.1...
"Recent electoral results reveal a pronounced decline in the fortunes of Social Democratic parties. Much of the decline debate has revolved around their rightward policy shifts, which have turned Social Democrats away from their founding principle of equality in an age of increasing inequality. Thus, this article examines the interconnections of these major changes in the Western political economy. In doing so, it contributes to the identification of income inequality as a key mechanism moderating Social Democratic policy offerings and their support. It does so through aggregate-level election results and individual-level survey responses on a sample of 22 advanced democracies, over 336 elections, from 1965–2019. Results reveal that rightward economic movements of Social Democrats significantly reduce their vote share under higher levels of income inequality or when they are combined with rightward socio-cultural movements. The findings provide an important explanation for the pronounced electoral decline of Social Democratic parties."
Money isn't the goal, money + little trouble is the goal. If a city is a big tourist destination, the bad press, the potential involvement of foreign nations, the outcry from the tourism industry, etc are all good reasons for local law enforcement to strike back hard.
Especially if overwhelmed, it's very possible local law enforcement wont give the same weight to an investigation involving only locals and one involving a foreigner, especially if the eyes of, say, Germany are staring at you.
I am very much not a lawyer.
The gangs there cared about drugs and making money. As long as you weren't there interfering with them making money, they didn't really care about you as a tourist. They might get a phone or pocket change from you but why waste time and money on just that? Bigger fish to fry.
In all the years my ex hungout and worked in the favela, not one bad thing happened to her. Which surprised the hell out of me. (She was a foreigner but spoke the language)
You really don't want something bad to happen to a tourist, so you focus on the worst-case scenario. It akin to a children and streets; it's easier to tell children to avoid crossing a street and not have to worry, even if statistically it's pretty unlikely an accident would happen.
Moreover, since the news largely focuses on the tragedies, it's easy to get an inflated sense of danger. I know people who live in Culiacán, right in the center of the Sinaloa Cartel. They'll tell me every day in the news someone is dead.
Nonetheless, they live worry-free, peaceful lives. In a city of 1 million, and especially if you're not involved with cartels, even considering the homicide rates are much higher than they should, it's very unlikely something bad will happen to you.
IMO there aren't "bad cities" in Mexico, but cities might have neighborhoods or areas to avoid. I know people in Culiacán, famously at the center of the Sinaloa Cartel and often in the news as a dangerous place. They live a tranquil life, like anyone else would. What they complain most about is just how hot it gets in the summer.
Going back to my point though if a friend were visiting I'd just tell them to stick to Mazatlán or other known touristy places. Both for the peace of mind and because its easier to get around with English.
One should still not simply walk into a Favela as a tourist. I have family in Brazil (Sao Paulo) and a majority had different experiences even when being careful.
Regarding "Not wasting time and money", it goes quick. A guy on a motorbike with a gun, a car that stops and 3 people jump you etc.
I love Brazil, the people, the music, the landscape, the farova, but criminality is a problem (more then 50 000 homicides per year).
Someone foreign who learns the "ways" of the locals would easily be able to mingle though and go mostly unnoticed (Brazil has had peoples of all races for a long time, it's not like you stand out much by being blonde or asian, for example). And any local will immediately tell you to never walk around with money or expensive devices, and specially, never flash them around no matter where you go (near favelas there's a lot of unemployed/poor/desperate people - no one wants to live in one... so it ends up being a lot more dangerous in general than anywhere else).
Everyday I would walk past the the checkpoint with like a 15 year old guy with an extened clip glock behind a makeshift cement barrier.
The internet situation was pretty weird, some telecom, that I could barely get any info on made a deal with the comando to provide everyone with internet. every month I would walk up with my gf further up the hill where the C.V. headquarters were and we would pay I think about 20 dollars to the boss, this big fat black guy with a revolver and a metal cash box, and a list on paper of all the families that paid, and what speed/tier they paid for, I opted for the 30 dollar a month ultrafast bandwidth(i didnt notice a difference), but it was fast enough for my gf who was Gold in League of Legends to have 40 ping.
This was not one of the major telecoms, and they had some sort of deal with the C.V. and when the internet would fuck up the Commando even had technicians
here is the favela
across the way from the checkpoint CV is selling drugs on a ping pong table, one day when my gf+her family was out of town I just had to go see what the deal was and bought a little bit of everything
CV stands for Comando vermelho(red command) and PR stands for the favela Paula Ramos..
CV also made money from the little busses that i took to come and go, the other way they make lots of money is selling gas, and selling guns to bandits.
EDIT: Also forgot to mention I never felt unsafe at all, and have been robbed only outside of the favela.. If there is any crime or stuff like that the comando would kill the robber or thieves. I only felt unsafe when the police/bope would come on raids, because they didnt get their monthly bribe.
(That said, I know nothing about favelas or what is wise or unwise to do in them.)
In general (although it used to be truer).
That said, there are many places in US cities where I'd pretty strongly recommend against looking out of place, wandering around like a clueless tourist, late at night.
No, you probably won't be shot. But being robbed isn't out of the question.
What is almost certainly true is you're pretty safe most places if you blend in reasonably, keep valuables hidden, and look like you know what you're doing.
We can always construct hypothetical situations that meet some criteria. I wouldn't recommend that in any part of any city.
It's pretty safe in Tokyo. Not every city requires you to be on the constant lookout for your own safety.
Perhaps you're used to cities with higher crime rates, and are projecting that onto every city.
Must we make up hypotheticals for my state of mind too? Perhaps stick to the facts and stay away from the person.
My point is this isn't a hypothetical; you can walk around Tokyo at night and be fine.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, but don't let it stop you.
> I wouldn't recommend [wandering around like a clueless tourist, late at night] in any part of any city.
I have lived in Tokyo, NYC, San Francisco for at least 2 years each. Tokyo is a concrete and non-hypothetical counterexample to your proposition.
> We can always construct hypothetical situations that meet some criteria.
How is not recommending going to dangerous neighborhoods in America a hypothetical situation? There is statistical data and crime maps. You cannot deny that.
I have also lived in places where not only would I advise more-vulnerable people against going out at night, I wouldn't go wander around myself either.
But yes the odds of being a victim aren't leaping from zero to 100 percent between these nighborhoods. More like aceptably low to unacceptably high.
Crime in the favelas is again afaik a very local thing. I’ve had lunch and dinner in restaurants in favelas and I know there’s a favela in Rio where people go for night life.
Ofc I am Brazilian and have family there.
A lot of these favelas the gang that controls them holds the peace. As a gringo you’d get robbed immediately sure, but for locals? The favelas are not some insane dystopian nightmare for many people who live in them. They’re just poor places, shanty towns.
Your understanding appears to be empirically wrong. The thing about poverty is that you learn to depend on those around you, and gang membership aligns by neighborhood or even specific blocks.
Outsiders may be fair game, but locals have built relationships within the community over years. The armed gang member may feel some loyalty to the organization that let him play games when he was 10, and he has a cousin/friend on the eSports team. There are very few secrets in such close-knit communities you cannot secretly steal and fence the equipment without someone knowing - outsiders can't either because there is always someone keeping vigilance (hence the guns).
Tourists stand out like a sore thumb as a target. Your guide was probably right.
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g303506-d24775...
BTW Netflix even produced a whole 4-season dystopian scifi TV show about how resourceful young people from Brazil's favelas can be - "3%". It's quite watchable and provides some interesting clues.
The working people of Brazil have suffered tremendously under Bolsanaro’s neoliberal government and Lula (Worker’s Party candidate who Bolsanaro imprisoned for 2 years on bogus charges) has a big lead. After the recent socialist victories in Chile and Bolivia (following the U.S.-assisted coup), western states will do everything they can to prevent the Worker’s Party from retaking power in Brazil. Expect more of this and other hi-jinx as the Fall election nears. It’s going to be a messy one.
Most “dangerous ghettos” are the same way. If people dont have beef with you they arent just looking to take advantage. A sociopathic person with a badge is much more dangerous because they dont have to collaborate at all, unlike civilians.
When I did a full-on tourist experience of Rio, the guides were adamant that we not even go near any favela, as we'd immediately be robbed or worse. My understanding was that the crime in those areas was so astronomically high that nothing even resembling IT infrastructure could exist, as it would immediately be confiscated by the cartels operating there.
I'm glad that's not the case, but I wish the article had more information about how these people were able to operate safely.