Hacker News Reader

> 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.

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.

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).