I visit SF at least once a year, and default to my learned habit of walking alone, and later at night.
No more.
> No more.
Changing your habits based on a single event isn't particularly rational. If this were a comparative articles on SF crime-rates you might have a good point, but it isn't.
And I say this having had a shooting happen on the street outside my hotel room the last time I stayed in SF - one event isn't a pattern (though in fairness if you look at comparative firearm incidents between US & European cities you're a bit more likely to see obvious disparities).
You only have to be wrong about getting murdered once.
It's doesn't need to be "a single event" that happened to the parent.
Many individual observations, talks with residents, learning what they consider "normal" and "acceptable" baseline are also very possible to scare someone used in a safer city off for life.
Then there are also the actual stats.
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/san-francisco/crime#des...
But changing your habits while in a city in the top 2% for crime might be.
I would say it is quite prudent and rational, because you cannot be killed more than once
What was there before?
The sample size in the relevant comment was 1. If it's larger for you, great - that's more rational. No argument there.
The question really is whether SF has more dodgy areas than average, and I guess the answer is yes. I've been a couple of times, and it was a long time ago, but some very central areas felt a bit too unsafe even during the day.
(This probably used to be somewhat true of the Javits in NYC but that whole area of the city has generally gentrified with the Hudson Yards project being the latest big change.)
I still think Oslo is incredibly safe, but shit happens anywhere
A homeless guy on a street full of druggies near Frankfurt hbh asked for a euro and I said no I can't help you. He walked directly to a spot nearby where he kept a knife, and brandishing the knife, he paced towards me. I put my back to the wall of a nearby building and watched as he approached. About 10 meters from me his friend intervened and talked him down. He walked away instead of assaulting me.
Saying that Europe is super safe compared to the US isn't really accurate or nuanced enough. I'd agree with homicides but most of those involve gangs fighting over turf and not random victims.
Looking at the data, you need to scroll past 9 US cities (all big cities) until you find the first European city (relatively small city you never have a reason to go to) in this crime ranking: https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings.jsp
Europe is definitely safer than the US.
Nation-wide statistics show that Europe is definitely much safer than the US. However I would rather compare metropolitan areas than cities.
No. Jesus Christ.
Violence exists. You can compare risk between places and activities. But decisions should be based on data, not headlines and hunches.
Also, walking around and taking care of yourself is just not in the realm of known data. You should consider the known data, sure, but don’t ignore your instincts on the ground. That is insane.
Europe is not a monolith.
Different areas also have different problems.
It's like the whole talk about "walkable cities" or healthcare.
Everything is frame from a US perspective and simplified to an absurd level so that no contextual criticism is possible without descending into weird political tribalism and an apples to oranges comparison between an entire continent and a country.
e: Also, sorry, it's ridiculous to say the US looks to Europe too much when discussing policy. This almost never happens, and when it does it's from the left, who has 0 actual influence. Every policy discussion should begin by talking about prior art & what we've observed about the effectiveness of policies as implemented elsewhere. It'll never show causality, but it'll start the discussion off with some possible causal links to explore w/ our own policy experiments!
Kiev, 2020-2022.
Pre-war Kyiv was still much much better than say St. Louis.
It's a city in a country engaged in a hot war!
Might as well add Lagos too!
Let's assume all of those happened in Kiev, with a population of 2.8 million (since I can't find more specific data easily right now). That gives a wildly inflated homicide rate per 100,000 population of 51.
St Louis, Baltimore, Birmingham (AL) all had murder rates that year higher than this inflated figure.
I don't think it's in dispute that most European capitals of any size have areas where one could easily get murdered, though. I can personally easily think of areas of London and Paris where I'd not be surprised by news of it happening.
Not really sure what you're talking about.
> When compared with the previous year, overall funding for policing (including any in-year adjustments) for the financial year ending March 2023 will increase by 2.8% in real terms. This will be the eighth consecutive year in which policing funding has increased in real terms
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-...
If you're not in that demographic, you're probably fine.
Simply to remain more anonymous.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1268504/homicide-rate-eu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
What are the arguments against your position that you think are strongest and why are they so weak that you think they can be considered ‘incontrovertible’?
I don't know of any non-straw arguments against my position that demographics are a dominating factor in homicide rates because of the high quality of the homicide data. Note that I say factor and not cause. The causes for these observable patterns are very much under debate. Nevertheless, corpses are hard to ignore. The paperwork almost always gets filed, so the data quality is considerably higher than for underreported crimes such as rape.
Even Istanbul, which is a 15M population city in a country with serious economic turmoil and and has huge number of refugees and illegal immigrants from war torn countries, is much batter than most of the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_homicide_rat...
During the civil war in Lebanon in eighties it was safer there than in modern US.
And of course it all depends on many factors, but I know for a fact that not all of Paris is safe, or all of Berlin. You have your bad apples everywhere.
Doesn't have to be. Almost all (if not all) European cities have much lower homicide rates. To the tune of multiple times lower.
When it's about homicide rates, it kinda is though.
> Different areas also have different problems.
It's rarely violence at the level you see in an American city.
> It's like the whole talk about "walkable cities" or healthcare.
Yeah, I feel it for you, but it's mostly true. With rare exceptions.
While in the US it's mostly false, with rare exceptions.
The somatic marker hypothesis (Bechara and Damasio, 2005; Damasio et al., 1991) highlights the importance of emotions in decision making. The hypothesis postulates that reasoned decision making is influenced by biasing signals (somatic markers) arising from changes in the body periphery.
First triggered as a reaction to experienced feedback (e.g., increased heart rate or visceral responses), the somatic reactions are assumed to be reactivated in similar decision situations.
It is argued that there are primary and secondary inductions of emotional responses.
The primary induction can be understood as innate or learned affective responses arising from a confrontation with pleasurable or aversive stimuli.
Secondary inducers comprise affective responses induced by the recall of past events or anticipation of future states.
But this is really true in general. I consider Boston a pretty safe city. But there are absolutely areas that I wouldn't be walking around late at night.
A small point about language, in case you or anyone else didn't know: In English, it sounds weird to use "female" as a noun to refer to people. If, in that sentence, you would replace "female"/"females" with a word like "man"/"men," then you probably want to be using "woman"/"women" instead of "females." Using "female" as a noun for people can come off as dehumanising since it's how we refer to ex. animals in various situations. This applies to men too! Use "men" or "boys" or similar instead of "males"! Dehumanising language affects everyone.
Not upset / telling you to change immediately / etc., just thought it might be useful to bring up in case (:
Edit: Done engaging with this, thanks for the comments all! Don't want to accidentally start a flame war any more than I may already might have. Sorry mods!
Some light reading on the topic that might help:
"Why is calling women females a bad thing?" https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/tvp97b/w...
"I hate when men call women "females" instead of saying women" https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/u735sl/i_h...
"CMV: Using the word “female” to talk about a woman or girl is not sexist/wrong/inappropriate" https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/hzj5ox/cmv_us...
"When did calling females, female become offensive?" https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/re0dc0/w...
"What’s the deal with calling women “females?”" https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/comments/xa3jwp/whats_the_deal_...
By "it sounds weird" you actually mean "in the past few years there's been a movement to hyperfocus on this small language quirk that nobody really cared about in the past". Just so we're clear.
What sounds odd to you can be perfectly normal to others.
> Don't push your biases onto me.
Might want to try taking your own advice.
Please show me where I did any of:
- Assume why people are using the words they are
- Assume why people care/don't care about a certain issue
- Tried to force my values onto people.
Saying "if you didn't know, wording things this way can come off weird. Maybe try X instead? No pressure (:" is very different from "yeah well obviously your intent here is X [because of the last few years]." I'm not here to force people to change. But if people didn't know something, and do want to change on their own, I'd rather the information be there for them if they want it.
What I did say is that you're pushing your biases onto others while simultaneously telling others not to do the same thing.
Your life experiences have led you to the point today where you object to a certain use of the word "female". That's fine.
But taking your personal objection, which is not a universially agreed upon truth, and using it to lecture someone else in a condescending "you must not know English" way is another matter and probably why you're catching heat right now.
"To me" is the key bit here. I'm conscious of this particular issue since I've run into it on the internet a few times. Whenever I've mentioned it to a woman in a face to face conversation (in the UK) they've looked at me like I was barking mad. I even corrected my mother (she referred to "females" when talking about women) which resulted in a lengthy tirade. She is old though to be fair.
I blame the Ferengi.
>Most people who word things that way don't use the term "males" in a similar way
Conversely, I'm not sure many people are keeping track of this since no-one objects to be called male if they're a man.
In the last few years there's been a hyperfocus on restricting genders that has caused a minority of native-English speakers to start overusing the word "female" with extra emphasis: which may be leading to learners to consider it a normal word to use casually, but historically it has mainly been applied in formal medical/scientific settings.
I think this is accurate. In fact, my grandmother would have said 'ladies' or 'girls' ('gals') rather than 'women'.
Yes incels are utterly annoying despicable broken records of tediously uncreative low quality mental illness, i also strongly dislike them - but for monolinguist americans to start to paint with such an absurdly wide brush is far worse. Choose your bloody battles.
Honestly, it's all about context and really the people say "oh he used female workers instead of women workers" what a pig are the people who are going to be mad no matter what they're literally just looking for an excuse.
And quite simply I find that demonisation of the word female to be rude and fundamentally sexist. We wouldn't have a problem saying "two males walking around" but in escence you would have a problem with "two females walking around". The fact being female is considered dehumanisng is a problem in itself and sexist. Being male is not dehumanising. See how that got turned around? You had good intentions then I got mad and used your words againist you.
I do. Say "men" or similar. Calling men/boys "males" is just as dehumanising as calling women/girls "females." Treat EVERYONE properly.
Imagine thinking someone's gender dehumanising them. It makes no sense. The idea "You're not as human as them because you're male" is an asburd one.
Absolutely not what I'm saying. My objection to it is specifically that referring to someone with "male"/"female" as a noun, in common contexts, can -- not will -- come off as dehumanising, particularly when some people tend to only use "male" or "female" for one gender and not the other.
> You're just wanting to be outraged.
I want people who both don't know that smth may make others uncomfortable and want to change in that case have the relevant information. If you don't want to change, then... good for you? That's not my problem. You do you, I guess?
> I want people who both don't know that smth may make others uncomfortable and want to change in that case have the relevant information. If you don't want to change, then... good for you? That's not my problem. You do you, I guess?
Right back at you. It makes other people uncomfortable when others go around saying a gender is dehumanising. Especialy, when in English it's the correct word. Female/male is refers to gender, woman/man refers to gender and age. It makes people very uncomfortable when you imply they were some how rude when they weren't.
But as I said, people who would be outraged would always be outraged. It's the new trend, to show they're thinking of other people while disregarding others.
Perhaps you've not noticed but some of those people are women. You going to start correcting women when they say they're off on a girls night out and tell them it's a womens night out? You going to start correct them when they say they have an all female executive board and tell them it's an all women executive board?
The reality is, when you say that the word female is offensive, which you are, you're making their gender offensive. And that is not respectful.
Basically, they do it because the terms are in some way dehumanizing.
I also find the terms dehumanizing, but specifically because I've noticed that it's most frequently a term used by incels, self-identified or otherwise. It's common on certain subreddits or on twitter to see users aligned in gamergate / manosphere circles using "females" when talking about women. And yes, these same people will say "men" when talking about men.
Not kids. Kids would be elementary students, for example.
The last few years aside, I've always had an issue with it. In my personal experience, people who tend to call women/girls "females" never, ever use the word "males" to describe men/boys in similar context. It's about using language consistently imo.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=female+lawyer%...
Now you can make the OK symbol again and it's OK. The outrage over it got replaced by a new outrage and the victims of outrage culture during that period are simply seen as an acceptable cost for keeping the outrage fire burning. No apologies. No admissions of guilt or harm. Just the monster leaving behind its path of righteous destruction.
Nah. It's always been a bit odd in certain contexts. And I'm pretty old and square.
What do you think of the word lady? Gentlemen doesn't seem to be the male equivalent anymore.
I treat both males and females with dehumanizing language, since I consider both to be equally worthless.
Edit reply: Yes obviously you were talking about yourself and I used that to draw a conclusion about you. Why would that indicate I didn’t think it through? Your response however really does appear to have not been thought through since you failed to consider that point. That’s consistent with your apparent trend of denigrating yourself in attempts to denigrate others. If I were you I’d check my priors, but I expect you’ll continue to do you.
Not sure if you're male or female, but you certainly didn't think your reply through.
Edit Reply:
> Yes obviously you were talking about yourself and I used that to draw a conclusion about you. Why would that indicate I didn’t think it through?
Your conclusion about a post where I spoke about myself is that it speaks about myself more than it speaks about others.
Not the sharpest tool in the shed, I see.
> Your response however really does appear to have not been thought through since you failed to consider that point. That’s consistent with your apparent trend of denigrating yourself in attempts to denigrate others. If I were you I’d check my priors, but I expect you’ll continue to do you.
Who exactly I attempted to denigrate?
So it's "weird" to me in the sense of "I wouldn't use it and most people around me wouldn't use it" but that's about it.
I don't think anything derogatory is meant by it. It seems to be used like "chicks"
Now that I think about it, you know where it is used a lot? In news reports/police reports. "A young male was injured.... a female was spotted leaving the scene..."
I assume that English speaking folks who don't notice this just got used to hearing 'female' and never paid much attention to the sensibilities around it.
Just to keep the blood pressure low here: I want to be clear there are two sides to this issue. I'm not the sort of "enlightened centrist" who says that lightly: more often than not, there are not two sides to an issue, but this is one of the rare cases where there are two sides to this.
I'm going to explain this as briefly as I can, but it's complicated, so it's not actually going to be brief.
First, let's understand that communication is a two-person (or two-group) activity involving both communicator and audience. Effective communication of complex and charged topics requires that the communicator understand their audience and use language that their audience can understand without being distracted. Likewise, effective communication of complex and charged topics requires that the audience make a good-faith effort to understand the communicator by taking into account the communicator's background/motivations, and try to suss out the communicator's intended meaning, possibly by asking clarifying questions.
One of the important observations in David Foster Wallace's Tense Present[1] is that language doesn't just communicate its direct meaning, it also communicates membership in a group. As Wallace says:
> [M]ost of us are fluent in more than one major English dialect and in a large number of subdialects and are probably at least passable in countless others. Which dialect you choose to use depends, of course, on whom you're addressing. [... T]he dialect you use depends mostly on what sort of Group your listener is part of and whether you wish to present yourself as a fellow member of that Group. [... U]sage-as-inclusion is about much more than class. Here's another thought experiment: A bunch of U.S. teenagers in clothes that look far too large for them are sitting together in the local mall's Food Court, and a 53-year-old man with a combover and clothes that fit comes over to them and says that he was scoping them and thinks they're totally rad and/or phat and is it cool if he just kicks it and does the hang here with them. The kids' reaction is going to be either scorn or embarrassment for the guy — most likely a mix of both. Q: Why? Or imagine that two hard-core urban black guys are standing there talking and I, who am resoundingly and in all ways white, come up and greet them with "Yo" and call them "Brothers" and ask "s'up, s'goin on," pronouncing on with that NYCish oo-o diphthong that Young Urban Black English deploys for a standard o. Either these guys are going to be offended or they are going to think I am simply out of my mind. No other reaction is remotely foreseeable. Q: Why?
> Why: A dialect of English is learned and used either because it's your native vernacular or because it's the dialect of a Group by which you wish (with some degree of plausibility) to be accepted.
I think what a lot of conversations about the word "females" versus "women" or "girls" get wrong is making universal statements about English as if it's a single coherent language. There are many dialects, such as biology English or medical English, where using "female" is absolutely appropriate and using "woman" or "girl" would be unequivocally wrong. Likewise, there are dialects, such as gender theory English, where "female" isn't dehumanizing if used properly: using "females" refers to people with XX chromosomes, while "women" refers to people who identify with a feminine gender (although usually one would say "female assigned at birth" or "FAB" rather than saying "females" by itself).
Audience is everything here. Using gender theory English to a biology audience drastically changes the meaning, placing you as an outsider to the group, and if your intention was to speak biology English, you'd have failed to communicate in that dialect. In fact, the above paragraph, which I, a cisgender man, wrote, is fine only because the audience is a mostly-male, slightly-socially-inept audience of Hacker News denizens. If my audience were a group of American women, that paragraph would be horribly offensive because it's someone who hasn't directly experienced the effects of this sort of language, explaining it to people who have directly experienced the effects of this sort of language. In other words, mansplaining.
The problem with saying "[I]t's normal thing to see young females taking a dog out for a walk[.]" is twofold:
1. It is perceived by some as dehumanizing women. Note that I didn't say "it's dehumanizing women", because that a) assumes the word has some sort of inherent meaning (it doesn't) and b) assumes a lot of intention coming from the communicator. But actually, whether it's dehumanizing isn't as important as the fact that it's perceived as such. Remember that communication is a two-person activity. Yes, that means that it's up to the audience to not assume the worst, and to assume you aren't intentionally dehumanizing women. But it also means that as the communicator, if you find out that your audience perceives the wording as dehumanizing, it's now up to you to change your language to communicate your actual intent more effectively. If you as a communicator find out that your audience perceives your wording as dehumanizing to women, and then insist on staying with your wording, that really starts to communicate that you don't care about communicating effectively, about your audience's perceptions, or about the fact that you might be misunderstood to be dehumanizing women. In the worst case, it communicates that you do, in fact, intend to dehumanize women, although I'm not willing to go that far in your case: I think it's much more likely that you're just feeling attacked and being defensive.
2. As noted before, language communicates membership in a group. In this case, we're clearly not demonstrating membership in medical, biology, or gender theory communities, and the remaining groups which use "female" aren't groups you probably want to associate yourself with. Unfortunately, the other groups which say "females" are generally groups like incels, neckbeards, self-described misogynists, self-described alpha/sigma males, etc. Likely, this is the underlying reason why "females" is viewed as dehumanizing women: these groups really do intend to dehumanize women, and by associating yourself with them, you're implying that you agree with some of their ideas. Again, I assume it isn't your intent to associate yourself with these groups, but effective communication of your identity would avoid associating yourself with these groups. It's up to you, as the communicator, to understand your audience and how they will perceive your use of words, and to choose the words that your audience will perceive as your intended meaning.
Just to highlight the complexity of this: there are also contextual problems with referring to adult women as "girls" as this might be perceived as infantilizing. But, in other contexts, referring to adult women as "women" is denigrating to their youthfulness/attractiveness (i.e. some women would often take offense to being called "that woman" rather than "that girl"). Louis C.K. was adept enough to riff on this phenomenon with his "Nobody wants to see 'women gone wild'" joke, but we all know what happened with Louis C.K. later... But this is partly why Global Citizen has a "Girls and Women" issue rather than a "Girls" or "Women" category (and certainly not a "Females" category)[2]. Either "Girls" or "Women" would not be inclusive of the entire group they're trying to help in the context of their audience's dialect.
[1] https://genius.com/David-foster-wallace-tense-present-democr...
If you or anyone else didn't know, consider a police report or a research paper in which the language is deliberately distant to avoid biasing the reader: "The two female victims were struck by the SUV, and the male suspect fled on foot", "we observed higher rates of CVD for males in the treatment group, but in females the effect size was not significant", and equally bloodless language. This may be dehumanising in some sense, but it's done in a benign way to help the reader be objective.
It's easy for a non-native speaker to make a mistake in informal language after reading formal material like the aforementioned, and it might not be great to call out minor breaches of etiquette in such a targeted and public way.
It seemed to be addressed in a respectful and understanding manner, what's wrong with helping someone (and apparently a bunch of bystanders) learn from their mistake?
Stating that you’ve got information that CLEARLY everyone else needs to be taught; that you’re just trying to be helpful; that nobody should feel pressured to conform “immediately”; all comes off as disingenuous at best and threatening at worst. Instead, try asking questions and engaging in conversation rather than lecturing.
As to the topic at hand: in what way is it dehumanizing to refer to a human as male or female? Being male or female is a fundamental part of being human, not something to be erased or ashamed of. I am a trans woman: a human male who identifies and lives socially as a woman. Should I hide the fact that I’m male? Why?
London is the European (well, kind of) city that most people cite as being bad for knife crime. It's still rare enough that a stabbing will make the national news though.
For a basic comparison, in 2022 there were 710 murders in the UK. 282 were stabbings. In the US there were 26,031 murders (a little more than 20,000 using guns), which is 36 times more, while the US has a population that's only 5 times that of the UK.
>In 2017-18 there were 145 homicides in London, of which approximately 80 were carried out using a knife. There were an additional 4,793 incidents of "knife crime with injury".
which sadly does seem to be more than daily. That said living in central London I don't see any of it.
Turns out, shockingly to me at least, that the US also has a much higher deaths due to stabbing rate than the UK.
0.60/100k residents in the US vs 0.08/100k residents in the UK.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-...
That’s almost an entire order of magnitude. And on top of that you add the many order of magnitudes greater homicides in the US thanks to firearms.
US governments need to scrap their existing operational model tackling drug users and adopt the Swiss National Strategy on Addiction and the four-pillar policy. There are no junkies in the streets unlike in the 1990s.
https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/strategie-und-politik/p...
https://www.bag.admin.ch/dam/bag/en/dokumente/npp/Sucht/Nati...
https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/strategie-und-politik/n...
In the meanwhile, considering the U.S. has an order of magnitude higher rate of stabbing, it’s highly unlikely that London would have a higher, never mind a significantly higher, rate of stabbings than SF.