Funny how people try so hard to show/prove/argue that SF is safe.
If it was, these discussions wouldn’t exist.
You won’t see these threads about Zurich, just saying.
If it was, these discussions wouldn’t exist.
You won’t see these threads about Zurich, just saying.
For comparison, I've spent maybe a month in SF put together over the last few years:
- In 30 days, I met more than 30 mentally ill people in SF. 40 Years everywhere else, I saw one old lady with dementia once in Copenhagen. And a few randoms few and far between in London. By mentally ill I mean the kind of ill where you're shouting nonsense in public.
- Then there's the guy who is aggressively threatening his imaginary friends. Seems to be a SF creature, doesn't seem drunk or stoned, just nuts. Even these guys outnumber the drunk/stoned nutters I've met in Europe in the last few years. I ran into them often, trying to stay away since you know...
- SF seemed like you were never more than 2 minutes away from someone with lower level mental health problems. I sat down in a Starbucks and realised I was hearing Cantonese from somewhere. Turned around it was some middle aged woman swearing while having a conversation with herself. But she wasn't in the category above.
- Never saw any crime but I've seen the shoplifting videos. That would not pass in Zurich. Probably not most places though I wonder if Metropolitan Police would get their act together.
- Extreme distress behavior like stealing food, never saw it anywhere else. In SF someone ran in to grab my leftovers when I was done eating. Not the same as a safety issue, but you can see how people might feel unsafe with that kind of thing happening.
- Generally an extreme level of inequality in living conditions might make people feel unsafe. I mean there were people on the street with no shoes, walking around Nordstrom department store in town centre.
Of course it's a long way between safety stats and feeling safe. I would guess if you're living in Sweden right now, you are safe despite the rocketing murder rate, providing you're not involved in organised crime. You might not feel that way and yes there's going to be innocents caught up with it. But safe means a lot of things.
Neither out of mana, nor what a dyslexic cow says, nor that your spectrum hobbit has fucking crashed again where helping me here: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=oom
iirc the easier to synthesize meth causes psychosis pretty quickly and makes it hard to help people recover.
It’s one thing to be able to persuade a heroin addict into recovery, it’s another to interact with someone fully psychotic.
That mixed with good weather and not as strict policy causes problems.
Around soma or tenderloin you’ll see lots of people doing the “dope lean” - I think that’s a fentanyl thing.
It was pretty much the polar opposite experience of walking down any major street in LA or SF. Of all the metro areas I've visited in Europe, Copenhagen had the least visible amount of junkies and homeless people. I've been in Oslo tons of times, and there you see them quite frequently (but compared to California they're pretty much non-existent)
Ideology is the problem. There are many who base their worldview not on reality but rather what they wish to be true.
It takes a lot to admit you were wrong, and it’s not the kind of thing I typically expect from the kind of folks well invested in ideologically driven politics.
They'll ignore mitigating factors that might not fit their narrative - things like the Reagan repeal of MHSA, the bussing of 'problem' citizenry from other states to SF, police 'quiet quitting', among countless others.
Truth is, there's plenty of blame to go around, but one side deals in bad faith because they like it to be this way because it makes them feel right.
Also much of it is not grassroots - that's the first mistake many make viewing it as. If you look at both the Democratic Party as well as Republicans there are wealthy elites behind both, funding the campaigns. But their policies and demands can be extremely radical and populist, much more so than in Europe.
Would you consider it far-left or far-right to demand payment of $5 million to every "Black adult" (they don't define what that means), as well as eliminating all their debt AND having them pay no tax AND guaranteed annual income of at least $97,000 for 250 years AND a home in San Francisco for just $1 per family? Might sound insane but that's an actual proposal from San Fransisco, it's not a made-up example.
The same party has been in power for over 20 years. This is actually not so different from some places in Europe. In Berlin for example you can see a similar development, although maybe not with the same level of crime. But the trend is comparable.
SJF is the political ideology which local governments like SF have embraced. It's one that I personally think is to blame for many of the city's problems, and I believe moderates like myself are ever so slowly being proven right on the topic.
[1] <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-security-police/fr...> <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-terror-...>, for example
I'm not saying this is a good thing, as tourism is a big contributor to Prague's economy, and I don't like when people are getting scammed. But this doesn't affect much the average Tomáš' life.
I have also lived five years in San Francisco, and Paris overall feels much safer to me.
No Go Zones are complete nonsense, but there's a gradient of safety.
Are you referring to the Barbes Rochechouart area?
Yeah other parts of the 18th are really nice.
Also to note, I make it a point to avoid, say, inland Baltimore or South Detroit. Whereas I did go to North Paris, which speaks the difference.
But compared to Montreal/Ottawa/Toronto Paris is certainly still a level below in safety. I imagine the Japanese would say the same of Canada.
Ah ok I see. Its been a while since I've been there (2015). Its wasn't too bad back then, has it gotten worse?
It looked really rough.
The short video clips may seem similar, but the lived reality is vastly different.
When an area rules out half the demographic then there's no way to sugarcoat it.
So they are no-go zones. I'm glad you've cleared this up. I can now tell my liberal friends that a Parisian has confirmed the existence of such and it isn't just American conservatives telling lies.
Maybe start to subscribe to the bipartisan view that being a woman alone at night generally sucks.
Nope. Taking a train from Zürich HB to Bellinzona for the holiday. The train is full. My suitcase is in the next car.
It will be there, untouched, when I get off in an hour or so.
Certainly in terms of crime, it doesn’t
I can't believe people are still sprouting this crap.
They admitted that they exist before Trump became president!
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-security-police/fr...>
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-terror-...>
The murder rate in SF is extremely low. Violent crime as a whole is extremely low.
If a tech founder got stabbed in Zurich, you would indeed see a story just like this.
This is such an exaggeration, it's a borderline lie.
In contrast, 6.5% of the population in SF is the victim of crime every year.
For a sense of scale for anyone who hasn't been, Switzerland has tax funded drinkable water fountains basically everywhere, and (if you will excuse the surprising conjunction) rolls of free bags for dog poo mounted on the dog poo bins which are also basically everywhere.
Only point I was trying to make is that this statement is reductio ad absurdum:
> Funny how people try so hard to show/prove/argue that SF is safe. If it was, these discussions wouldn’t exist.
Given the significant overlap between "people who live in or near SF because they work in tech, with a strong history of startups" and "people who discuss things on HN, a website about tech, with a strong history of startups", it's entirely unsurprising that people would discuss SF crime rates on HN, and the fact that they do so can't be construed as any form of evidence for any position.
Sigh, I'm not even trying to affirm or deny anything about SF, I've only been there once, met some lovely homeless people, and some very unwell ones.
I've been to SF a few times, though most recently in 2018 and I don't know the place well enough to name the districts without Google helping.
Obviously some people do get stabbed in the streets there.
E.g., "Zürich Messerstecherei" or "Zürich erstochen" will yield far more relevant results like this one:
https://www.20min.ch/story/erneut-messerstecherei-in-zuerich...
"Erneut Messerstecherei in Zürich" roughly translates to "Another stabbing in Zürich".
And I'm not trying to claim that it's comparable. The only point I was trying to make is that this statement is reductio ad absurdum:
> Funny how people try so hard to show/prove/argue that SF is safe. If it was, these discussions wouldn’t exist.
Given the significant overlap between "people who live in or near SF because they work in tech, with a strong history of startups" and "people who discuss things on HN, a website about tech, with a strong history of startups", it's entirely unsurprising that people would discuss SF crime rates on HN, and the fact that they do so can't be construed as any form of evidence for any position.
I am pretty sure that when there is a stabbing in Zürich, locals will discuss it in their relevant online communities.
Sigh, I'm not even trying to affirm or deny anything about SF, I've only been there once, met some lovely homeless people, and some very unwell ones.
E.g., "Zürich Messerstecherei" or "Zürich erstochen" will yield far more relevant results like this one:
https://www.20min.ch/story/erneut-messerstecherei-in-zuerich...
"Erneut Messerstecherei in Zürich" roughly translates to "Another stabbing in Zürich".