Comment by ndiscussion | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ndiscussion | Hacker News Reader

Interesting article... it does make me wonder if they're missing some key ingredient.

One example for me personally is the level of aggression in the locals. There are certain streets I avoid due to this aggressive behavior, and something like that wasn't even mentioned.

Perhaps there are other missing variables too.

edit: in case anyone was wondering, no, I'm not implying some kind of racist undertone here. I've walked through many diverse neighborhoods in many cities without any problem whatsoever.

By "aggression" I mean panhandling and other interruptions by people undergoing obvious psychosis with no sense of social norms.

The reason I stated this oddly is because there's a large tangent of people on HN who will attack you for inferring that some homeless people (yes, these psychotic people are generally homeless) are psychotic and aggressive. Perhaps they live in gated communities?

No matter what I do, these people are allowed to exist where I live, but I don't consider them part of my community at all.

> By "aggression" I mean panhandling and other interruptions by people undergoing obvious psychosis with no sense of social norms.

I'd like to throw in interruptions by people who are completely sober but have something they want to sell. Going to get your coffee and having someone say "hey, let's have a chat really quick" then reply "wow, ignore me like I didn't just talk to you" when you ignore them is irritating as hell. In the pre-covid days people in my office would go to the Starbucks that was a half block further away just to avoid those people. Note: if a homeless person was this aggressive, the police would definitely get involved.

Also while calling it aggression is a bit of a stretch, I noticed the block that surrounds a couple of the busiest transit stations are noticeably less polite. Things like smaller personal space, more tolerance for cutting people off, less "excuse me" or "pardon me". It makes sense in the context, but if you are passing by it could be a hassle that you'll put a bit of effort into avoiding.

I'm glad someone brought this up, because I honestly find these sorts of aggressive sidewalk salespeople to be much worse than any panhandler. I've had them walk directly into my path, forcing me to walk around them or stop and I think that level of obstruction is asinine. I'm kind of an anxious person and someone moving that aggressively to block my path sets off my fight or flight very badly. Reminds me of the behaviour of the perpetrators of beatings I took in school.

> I think that level of obstruction is asinine

It really is.

> I'm kind of an anxious person and someone moving that aggressively to block my path sets off my fight or flight very badly.

I really think that is a correct response. In a lot of cases, the sale comes closed to guaranteed once they get you into the conversation. They can lean into things like guilt, social etiquette, the your desire to look nice in order to make you feel like you have to buy in order to leave. That's why they choose sell by interrupting people on the streets instead of via other means.

Yes, thank you, these people are actually a bigger issue than panhandlers in my experience (though panhandlers are much more common in my area and they slipped my mind)

> 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.

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.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

I edited my post if you're interested, I assure you that I don't do anything to agitate these people, and if I did, I'd deserve whatever came to me (probably a knife).

The world is full of streets where people who are not local or do not look like they are local are likely to be mugged, chased by gangs who regard it as their 'territory', regarded as suspicious on account of their ethnicity or crowded with extremely persistent vendors or beggars. It is sensible to avoid them.

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.

you are extrapolating a lot here from the choice of a single, somewhat vague, word. the looks you receive from passersby can make it very clear that you are not welcome or at least not expected to be in that area. I'm not sure I would call it "aggressive", but certainly "uncomfortable" and to be avoided if possible. this observation is not unique to affluent white people.

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.

The broader point is this: readers of such comments will extrapolate exactly in the manner dictated by the language used. Language matters, word choice matters, and it is incumbent upon civil participants in society to avoid drawing rhetorical lines like "local/not-local" and reducing forms of street-level interaction to "aggression." In my experience, those who speak in this and similar manners are forming narratives to reframe the event to re-orient culpability. Obviously that works better when you dehumanize someone who isn't there to defend themselves.

it seems that you are the only one who is making this extrapolation, but I'll bite.

> 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?

> it seems that you are the only one who is making this extrapolation

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.

Just fyi, I'm about as far from a sheltered techie type as they come... since 18, I've lived in shared room situations with strangers on Craigslist for most of my life, often in the cheapest and most unsafe neighborhoods.

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).

Most of the "aggression" is just mugging attempts. "You're walking in here like you own the place", "what's with these glasses, think you're so smart", "you got any money, what if I find some" is stuff I've heard many times irl.

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.

> 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.

> 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”.

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.

(From your now deleted first high-brow reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26029344)

> 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.

> a lame attempt to construe a discussion participant’s level of cognition

...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.

> victimization narrative.

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”.

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.

> 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.

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?

There’s a major economic and racial discussion missing here... the huge gaps in the southern part of their map (east and west of warren st... roxbury and dorchester) are the poorest areas of boston and heavily segregated racially... I’d wager that this data isn’t actually representative of the population and skews heavily towards high income white people...

> No matter what I do, these people are allowed to exist where I live, but I don't consider them part of my community at all.

this makes me sad to hear. who would disallow them to exist? and how would that disallowing happen? how would things change if you did consider them part of your community? maybe your interactions would be different if your attitude and energy changed?

In many cities, they are bused out to become someone else's problem.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but many of these people are obviously extremely unhappy, and they show no sign of changing soon.

If I viewed them as part of my community, it would probably be like pouring money into a black hole. Heroin tolerance goes up very quickly, and the associated costs go up just as quickly.

wow. these are human beings you are talking about, not animals. busing people out is incredibly dehumanizing, and is widely acknowledged as a violation of human rights. it destroys these peoples support networks and ability to receive aid.

if you are unable to give them money you can at least acknowledge their common humanity and treat them as a person, and not a problem to be fixed.

--edit-- HN is not letting me reply right now so to answer your question i'm putting it here: i live in the SF Bay Area, which is far more dense than Portland. I work with a lot of unhoused people. I volunteer to feed them, distribute blankets to them, and make an effort to let them see how people still care for them. Do some of them ramble incoherently? Sure, a few, but frankly, not much more than the average Fox news viewer.

I don't support busing them out, and actually, I used to acknowledge them and treat them as humans. Eventually, it became a large time sink, and not a pleasant one (give a mouse a muffin).

Out of curiosity, do you live in a large city? Try crossing the Burnside bridge in Portland, OR every day for months and get back to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com