The crime wave in America

[dicknixon72]

Advocates of 'public transit in America' fail to understand that the affordability of fullsize, freeway-capable automobiles, a vast intracontinental network of paved, lit, free-access highways, and unfettered access between states IS our public transit system.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Advocates of 'public transit in America' fail to understand that the affordability of fullsize, freeway-capable automobiles, a vast intracontinental network of paved, lit, free-access highways, and unfettered access between states IS our public transit system.

Bingo.

Edit: I think many do realize this, and they hate that.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Advocates of 'public transit in America' fail to understand that the affordability of fullsize, freeway-capable automobiles, a vast intracontinental network of paved, lit, free-access highways, and unfettered access between states IS our public transit system.

You do have to admit that it is not easy to live in many places in the USA without a car. US building patterns that rely on car friendly cities have created a major obesity epidemic as well as communities without souls. Freeways are good between cities (especially rural areas) but are not so great inside cities and just create sprawl.

China has a good (and affordable) shared bike system (which is expanding in many cities), a good train network (which actually needs to be expanded because demand tends to exceed supply of train seats), and a pretty decent bus service (although it also is often overcrowded). China is not ideal though and has sprawl issues in places. I like the traditional European development model seen in many small cities and towns.

I will say that public transport in the USA is often overpriced and built over budget and built VERY slowly. I suppose that is a disadvantage of US style democracy (and excessive regulations) vs. China's central planning.

Which city is more walkable? Which will likely have a lower obesity rate? The modern style of urban planning is yet another example of how 'progress' is often actually a joke.

 

[MartyMcFly]

This is how all mass transit in the US is used, in every major city I have been to. Public transportation is just homeless/black/criminal transportation. The governing authorities love to create and expand these networks for this element to spread the love. When the city bus or the metro rail comes to your part of town, you get enriched.

It depends. Real estate values in Boston are much higher than in Kansas City or Milwaukee and one reason may be because Yuppies like the idea of visiting downtown without worrying about finding overpriced parking, dealing with traffic jams, and not being able to enjoy some beers due to stiff drinking and driving laws. I saw a lot of professionals and students using public transport there. Cities can create timed tickets (perhaps 90-120 minutes) to prevent bums from sleeping all day in a bus and they can have plain clothes inspectors to kick bums out of metro stations as well.

China has a lot of poor people using the buses and subways, but they tend to behave well. I think this is because the government will not tolerate very bad behavior (they do need to crack down more on public urination though). The USA can keep poor people in line as well by just enforcing rules.

Personally, I hate big city driving. I visited St. Louis and was able to park in a free commuter parking lot and get an affordable daily metro pass. Parking in downtown might have cost more and it certainly would have been more stressful.

 

[Easy_C]

China has a lot of poor people using the buses and subways, but they tend to behave well. I think this is because the government will not tolerate very bad behavior (they do need to crack down more on public urination though).

Some indications are they didn't before and Chinese behavior towards the commons was atrocious.


Their social credit does enforce that kind of behavior. One aspect of their management I find interesting is that they've figured a lack of civic ethic is a problem in their society and their solution is to attempt to "brute force" it and artificially create civil public behavior using surveillance.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Some indications are they didn't before and Chinese behavior towards the commons was atrocious.


Their social credit does enforce that kind of behavior. One aspect of their management I find interesting is that they've figured a lack of civic ethic is a problem in their society and their solution is to attempt to "brute force" it and artificially create civil public behavior using surveillance.

You are right that manners still need a lot of improving. I often took vacations in South Korea just to take a break in a quiet and civilized place where people are polite.

However, Chinese people often don't get too upset about issues that annoy me. For example, public urination in the middle of a square or market only mildly bothers some people (as long as it is a little kid doing it), pushing to get on a bus or cutting people in traffic or honking at pedestrians crossing at a light doesn't even phase most people and most do the same. We have to remember that China had a shortage of resources and the cultural revolution made people forget about traditional politeness. Good manners were also a lower priority because people had bigger issues to think about. I will say that most Chinese people will be polite to you once they get to know you. I read this is normal and has to do with Confucian culture regarding relationships. If you are a stranger, you are not part of their circle and they have little concern about your opinions regarding them pushing past you to get on a bus or talking loudly.

Things are getting better though. The governments (national and certain local ones) are using propaganda to encourage manners (posters are everywhere). Younger people tend to behave better than their elders who were young rebels and/or victims during the cultural revolution. A lot of things seem top-down in China. If the government says that good manners are important, many people will follow. I think the government has realized that good manners will create a more 'harmonious society' (yes, this sounds like Chinese propaganda, but I actually agree with them on this).

I was thinking of Rudy Gulliani's understanding regarding 'Broken Window Theory' made NYC better. He is not the first person to understand it and apply the ideas behind it to better his city. Lee Kuan Yew was strict to make Singapore civilized and it worked well. Perhaps China is trying the same thing with their social credit system. Chinese can achieve a lot if they are led well (as Taiwan and Singapore show us). The USA is going in reverse of this. Allowing young people to act like thugs with few consequences only encourages more young people to do the same. This is why so many American cities are cesspools.

Broken windows theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Easy_C]

However, Chinese people often don't get too upset about issues that annoy me. For example, public urination in the middle of a square or market only mildly bothers some people (as long as it is a little kid doing it), pushing to get on a bus or cutting people in traffic or honking at pedestrians crossing at a light doesn't even phase most people and most do the same. We have to remember that China had a shortage of resources and the cultural revolution made people forget about traditional politeness. Good manners were also a lower priority because people had bigger issues to think about. I will say that most Chinese people will be polite to you once they get to know you. I read this is normal and has to do with Confucian culture regarding relationships. If you are a stranger, you are not part of their circle and they have little concern about your opinions regarding them pushing past you to get on a bus or talking loudly.

That's probably the bigger issue. As a side note, the degree to which Marxism destroys common interpersonal courtesy and consideration is nothing short of astounding. It instills mass psychopathy in a population extremely quickly.

 

[Max Roscoe]

View attachment 32158

What is causing declining trust and unity is society:

a) diversity
b) liberals who live in diverse areas
c) both a) and b)
d) bad raycists who are fleeing from the cities

Remember Robert Putnam's discovery when writing Bowling Alone?
He was dismayed to find out that despite what he believed in, the evidence showed that diversity indeed made society weaker, people less likely to engage, to vote, to make friends, etc.

The downside of diversity - The Boston Globe

...our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

He tried really hard to come up with an alternative explanation, as he personally believed in diversity, but could not.

People would say, 'I bet you forgot about X,'" Putnam says of the string of suggestions from colleagues. "There were 20 or 30 X's."

But even after statistically taking them all into account, the connection remained strong: Higher diversity meant lower social capital. In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television."

"People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down' -- that is, to pull in like a turtle," Putnam writes.

The troubling thing is, I grew up in a majority white community without most of these problems, and yet I am in this dystopian world. Imagine what we are creating for a child born today? If todays society is what an 80% white culture creates, what will our world be like when it is 60% white (today)? 50? (in another decade)

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an Irish Catholic, produced a report on the Negro Problem, and concluded that it was ghetto culture that was responsible for the problems facing blacks. What did the elites do? Ghetto culture was turned up to 11.

The white bastard rate now surpasses the black bastard rate of 1950. (Even I am shocked that 1/3 of Americans are bastards).

 

[Coja Petrus Uscan]

^ I think we can see the fate of socially marooned, leftist whites in Seattle and Portland. Each races' fall has a different.

Some indications are they didn't before and Chinese behavior towards the commons was atrocious.


Their social credit does enforce that kind of behavior. One aspect of their management I find interesting is that they've figured a lack of civic ethic is a problem in their society and their solution is to attempt to "brute force" it and artificially create civil public behavior using surveillance.

This video was banned on Youtube, so no time marker. Go to 1:12.



A strong society is one in which most human interaction can be regulated privately and locally, by generally agreed on, unwritten rules.

Big brother controls are typically an admission of social failure. If social failure is not addressed, a tyrannical government will grow in its place.

 

[Coja Petrus Uscan]

 

[rainy]

If you told me a certain race wasn't inherently more violent than others, I'd all BS.

Some may call that racist. But those that do would still cross the street to avoid that race if walking alone after dark. In fact, those who would be the most outspoken about that comment being racist, white yuppy liberal women, would take the longest and farthest route away from that race if walking alone after dark.

 

[Pointy Elbows]

The author is a British economist and has done extensive research on migration. In the book, he basically shows under which conditions migration can be beneficial for a Western nation and under which it will rather accelerate the decline of the host nation.
Needless to say, his findings are pretty obvious but nevertheless, it is a very good read. He summarizes some interesting studies. Among them, the Putnam study from the NYT article above.

This guy, Putnam, is a hardcore Harvard Liberal. He conducted the largest social study ever done in the US. His point was to prove that diversity was indeed our strength. Well, his finding showed a completely different picture. He was so horrified by the results that he didn't believe them. Thus, he included more markers into his study, hoping that by digging deeper, the picture would change. It didn't. In fact, it became clearer and clearer that diversity = disaster on many social levels. Since this went against his bias, he considered not publishing his study. Eventually he did, though.

Another study cited looked at the diplomatic personnel of the UN in NYC. They gathered data on which nation's drivers would pay the parking meters. Since they have diplomatic immunity, none of the drivers have to pay them. The outcome, surprise surprise, was that drivers from countries like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, etc. hardly paid them, while drivers from countries like Norway, Germany or Japan would pay up.

The author makes the point that you cannot import a bunch of people from such nations and expect them to comply to our Western norms. By not regulating their influx, he argues, they'll destroy the host nation's social fabric if they reach a certain threshold in the population. Basically, what we are witnessing right now in many Western nations.

Or as Chateau Heartiste would say:

Diversity + Proximity = War.

It just never works as advertised.

 

[Coja Petrus Uscan]

 

[homersheineken]

All I see are 2 white men being lynched by a pack of black men.

Mayor Fightloot, still sure that White Supremacism is the number 1 threat to Chicago?

 

[Gremlin]

It's time to deport the animals back to their continent of origin.

 

[Easy_C]

Here's where that was in Chicago on the map: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Sn...46696473,41.87797025622018,-87.62276817588807

As you can see it's North of the river. Normally this is a relatively wealthy area with high priced condos and trendy bars. It's two block away from the area's high end fashion mall, The Shops at North Bridge.

 

[Gremlin]

Here's where that was in Chicago on the map: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Snickers&iax=images&ia=images&iaxm=maps&strict_bbox=0&bbox=41.885119430329254,-87.63225246696473,41.87797025622018,-87.62276817588807

As you can see it's North of the river. Normally this is a relatively wealthy area with high priced condos and trendy bars. It's two block away from the area's high end fashion mall, The Shops at North Bridge.

It started out as a small trend several years ago with groups (always in groups) of so-called humans starting trouble throughout Chicago. The trend is now the norm since the cops leave them alone and thousands of violent criminals were freed from prison. I know Chicagoans who always have a gun on them whenever they go out.

 

[Coja Petrus Uscan]

 

[JohnKreese]

Or literally ANY person who gets an STD?

 

[Coja Petrus Uscan]