Torishima is against the Dragon Ball Theme park in Saudi Arabia

[Kunzait_83]

Something like this could never happen in NYC where I live given the high degree of crime from homeless/migrants/junkies, but maybe we can have one of these somewhere else in the US someday.

For my whole entire life now, I've only lived an hour and change outside of NYC. I'm often traveling in and out of the city fairly constantly, always have been. And no... crime is VERY down in NYC, and has been for a very, very, very long time now: minus a very small but noticeable bump up during the worst of Covid, which went back down almost immediately thereafter.

And I'm a child of the 80s: I have vivid, living memories of pre-1994 NYC when it was actually for real-real dangerous and unsafe and packed to the gills with seriously violent crime. It hasn't been anything vaguely approaching that level now for the past like... closing on almost 30 years now. Compared to what it used to be like back in the day, the NYC of the past 25+ years has basically been Disneyland.

And yes, seconding the whole "migrant" thing being a dead giveaway and obvious dogwhistle. Homeless people and migrants do not automatically equal danger or criminality. At all. Likewise, simply being homeless and being a drug addict, in and of itself, is not (nor should it be) a crime. Violent crime is when someone does actual, physical harm to you in some way. Period.

If you're someone who actually lives in NYC, then homeless people and drug addicts should be a VERY common sight that you should be long, long-since used to. Enough to know that many/most of them aren't at all dangerous or violent in a GREAT majority of instances. Some are, certainly: but its way, way, way, WAY less common now than it used to be in the 70s, 80s, and first chunk of the 90s. Its not even remotely comparable or close.

And migrants... yeah, that's just textbook, dictionary definition racism there. Migrants =/= threat or danger. At all, whatsoever. Sorry to break out the R word there, but there's just literally no other explanation for that one.


And fuck it, I'll also throw this out there too as a more generalized point, if only just because this seems to be a common repeating theme I've long noticed now among people in recent years who are utterly convinced - against all obvious indicators to the contrary - that NYC is more dangerous than ever now:

Seeing a homeless person and getting freaked out and scared by it does not constitute "violent crime being up". Do not confuse social anxiety with actual danger.

Lots of times, people who are either new to the city or just don't go there very often, they'll just see a homeless guy either for the first time in their life, or for the first time in a very long while... and they'll freak out because they aren't used to seeing that sort of thing. And lots of times they'll conflate "seeing a homeless person" with "crime is out of control", because of panicky, lizard-brained irrational fear and social anxiety.

Take it from someone who A) has lived within a stone's throw away from the Big Apple my entire life and B) grew up in a neighborhood that was rife with actual violent crime, gang activity, and a legitimately high murder rate, and who's childhood was filled with actual firsthand experience with serious violence: there's a VAST universe of difference between just seeing a homeless guy sleeping on a subway bench or having a mental health episode and being weirded out by it, and actually having someone actually stick a gun in your face, put a knife into you, or physically assault you in some other way.

Those two things are NOT at all the same, and far, far too many Sheltered Summer Children out there lately who aren't used to big metropolitan cities and having homeless people be a regular part of their day to day have been very easily confusing these two things.

I cannot emphasize this point enough. If all you saw was a homeless junkie on a street corner muttering to him/herself, you did not see a crime: you just got scared. Go to therapy and/or take some anti-anxiety meds. Or meditate, whatever calms you down. And if the mere sight of brown-skinned immigrants walking past you down the street is enough to get your fear and blood pressure up, then I really, really cannot emphasize the "go to therapy" part enough.

tl;dr - Being scared of big cities and being surrounded by otherwise innocuous things that are social anxiety triggers for some people (homeless guy on a bench, junkie rambling to himself, brown-skinned guy in a turban walking by, etc.) does not mean that there's actual danger around you or that "crime" is out of control. You're just easily scared and prone to anxiety attacks. And are maybe/probably a wee bit racist perhaps.

[Yellow Flower King]

Something like this could never happen in NYC where I live given the high degree of crime from homeless/migrants/junkies, but maybe we can have one of these somewhere else in the US someday.

For my whole entire life now, I've only lived an hour and change outside of NYC. I'm often traveling in and out of the city fairly constantly, always have been. And no... crime is VERY down in NYC, and has been for a very, very, very long time now: minus a very small but noticeable bump up during the worst of Covid, which went back down almost immediately thereafter.

And I'm a child of the 80s: I have vivid, living memories of pre-1994 NYC when it was actually for real-real dangerous and unsafe and packed to the gills with seriously violent crime. It hasn't been anything vaguely approaching that level now for the past like... closing on almost 30 years now. Compared to what it used to be like back in the day, the NYC of the past 25+ years has basically been Disneyland.

And yes, seconding the whole "migrant" thing being a dead giveaway and obvious dogwhistle. Homeless people and migrants do not automatically equal danger or criminality. At all. Likewise, simply being homeless and being a drug addict, in and of itself, is not (nor should it be) a crime. Violent crime is when someone does actual, physical harm to you in some way. Period.

If you're someone who actually lives in NYC, then homeless people and drug addicts should be a VERY common sight that you should be long, long-since used to. Enough to know that many/most of them aren't at all dangerous or violent in a GREAT majority of instances. Some are, certainly: but its way, way, way, WAY less common now than it used to be in the 70s, 80s, and first chunk of the 90s. Its not even remotely comparable or close.

And migrants... yeah, that's just textbook, dictionary definition racism there. Migrants =/= threat or danger. At all, whatsoever. Sorry to break out the R word there, but there's just literally no other explanation for that one.


And fuck it, I'll also throw this out there too as a more generalized point, if only just because this seems to be a common repeating theme I've long noticed now among people in recent years who are utterly convinced - against all obvious indicators to the contrary - that NYC is more dangerous than ever now:

Seeing a homeless person and getting freaked out and scared by it does not constitute "violent crime being up". Do not confuse social anxiety with actual danger.

Lots of times, people who are either new to the city or just don't go there very often, they'll just see a homeless guy either for the first time in their life, or for the first time in a very long while... and they'll freak out because they aren't used to seeing that sort of thing. And lots of times they'll conflate "seeing a homeless person" with "crime is out of control", because of panicky, lizard-brained irrational fear and social anxiety.

Take it from someone who A) has lived within a stone's throw away from the Big Apple my entire life and B) grew up in a neighborhood that was rife with actual violent crime, gang activity, and a legitimately high murder rate, and who's childhood was filled with actual firsthand experience with serious violence: there's a VAST universe of difference between just seeing a homeless guy sleeping on a subway bench or having a mental health episode and being weirded out by it, and actually having someone actually stick a gun in your face, put a knife into you, or physically assault you in some other way.

Those two things are NOT at all the same, and far, far too many Sheltered Summer Children out there lately who aren't used to big metropolitan cities and having homeless people be a regular part of their day to day have been very easily confusing these two things.

I cannot emphasize this point enough. If all you saw was a homeless junkie on a street corner muttering to him/herself, you did not see a crime: you just got scared. Go to therapy and/or take some anti-anxiety meds. Or meditate, whatever calms you down. And if the mere sight of brown-skinned immigrants walking past you down the street is enough to get your fear and blood pressure up, then I really, really cannot emphasize the "go to therapy" part enough.

tl;dr - Being scared of big cities and being surrounded by otherwise innocuous things that are social anxiety triggers for some people (homeless guy on a bench, junkie rambling to himself, brown-skinned guy in a turban walking by, etc.) does not mean that there's actual danger around you or that "crime" is out of control. You're just easily scared and prone to anxiety attacks. And are maybe/probably a wee bit racist perhaps.

I love this entire post, except the parts about the scared and anxiety attacks. Because those are a thing that actually happens and that guy you are responding to was not scared at all he just wanted to throw Acceptable/Targets/Under/The/Bus, basically any sort of boogeyman to justify his intolerance.

[Kunzait_83]

I love this entire post, except the parts about the scared and anxiety attacks. Because those are a thing that actually happens and that guy you are responding to was not scared at all he just wanted to throw Acceptable/Targets/Under/The/Bus, basically any sort of boogeyman to justify his intolerance.

You might have missed this part just before then:

And fuck it, I'll also throw this out there too as a more generalized point,

That part onward wasn't just aimed at this one guy: its as noted, a more general point since its a repeating theme I've noticed that often comes up with this particular topic (crime in big major cities, particularly in New York).

And by that same token, you'd be AMAZED at how often reactionary bigotry for some (hardly all, but some) folks sometimes boils down to "Would rather let their own personal baggage and hangups fester into a full blown hateful psychosis instead of just go to therapy or talk to someone before it gets to that point."

Lots of medical science and research has been done over the years also linking reactionary/conservative thought to overly-heightened, overly-developed brain activity in the amygdala region. i.e. A greater than normal fear/anxiety response.

Basically, there's for some time now been a fair amount of actual neurological evidence to suggest that a great majority of conservative and reactionary thinking is rooted in overly heightened fear. And also, overly heightened disgust.

I've been reading foundational American Neo-Nazi literature for quite some years now, and all throughout there is a consistent repeating theme throughout most (if not all) of it of viewing other non-white races as "infected" or "dirty" in some way, pointing to a severe, severe phobia of germs/uncleanliness lying at the heart of a great deal of the worst kinds of racial bigotry.

This correlates with a LOT of the neurological study of the brains of not just conservative thinkers in general, but also with hardcore racists: that there is a much greater than average disgust-response, particularly to anything seen as uncleanly or in any way infectious.

Obviously this hardly means that all or most germophobes are racist or anything like that. But it certainly does indicate that people who ARE racist tend to have a much greater than average chance of also being germophobic, and that there is likely some sort of weird link between the two in those cases. See also: H.P. Lovecraft. And Adolf Hitler. And Donald Trump even.

In any case, the point being that there's been mounting neuroscience over the years pointing to conservative and even racially bigoted thinking being closely linked to overly stimulated and heightened fear, anxiety, and disgust responses in the brain, stemming from overly-developed amygdalas.

And also I have some personal IRL experience with a few conservative/reactionary folks in my personal life who also make it pretty plainly obvious whenever they go to NYC that they're wrestling with a great, great deal of severe social anxiety... and in a few cases I'd even go so far as to say some weird kinds of latent agoraphobia. And that those fears and neuroses are playing a great deal into their view of NYC as still being some sort of dystopian crime ridden hellhole like it used to be back in the day, despite it now long being safer than its ever been in ages... with conservative media and "crime porn" reporting feeding into their confirmation bias and validating their fears.

For anyone who's read A Confederacy of Dunces, Ignatius J. Reilly's whole character very much is derived from exactly this type of person that many of us have known in some part of our lives: someone who wants very much to view and portray themselves as a brave and tough guy, but is actually incredibly nervous, afraid, deeply insecure, and easily agitated by a great many otherwise innocuous things about being out in public among lots of people (noise, smells, seeing people who are sick, handicapped, or physically different in some way, etc).

This pretty perfectly sums a LOT of conservative men out there, both today and throughout history.

And also lastly, don't misunderstand: none of this neuroscience means that this is ALL that all conservative/reactionary thinking boils down to and can be completely and fully explained away as. A tremendously great, great deal of social and experiential factors are also at play as well, obviously. The neuroscience aspect is just one of numerous pieces of the puzzle in what goes on within the reactionary/racist mind.

[Analytical Delusion]

I didn't think my comment would be that controversial. I've lived in NYC since 2009 (and prior to college from 05-09 in CA, lived in the suburbs). Violent crime started to decline earlier this year, but it's above its pre-pandemic levels:



The city felt its safest in my lifetime when Bloomberg was mayor. I'm sure it's still safer than it was in the 70s and 80s, but it's frightening, especially to women.

My fiance (a naturalized citizen) wants to move after our lease ends because things have gotten more dangerous lately. We live in Chelsea, and within a few blocks of my apartment, some highlights from this year:

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/manhattan/su ... t/6121073/
https://abc7ny.com/post/chelsea-shootin ... /16660896/
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/video/on-air ... n/6247797/

[Kunzait_83]

I didn't think my comment would be that controversial.

I mean...

Something like this could never happen in NYC where I live given the high degree of crime from homeless/migrants/junkies,

You singled out migrants as being indicative of higher crime in the city. There isn't any way around this: this comment is the literal dictionary definition of racism. I wouldn't jump to that if there were ANY wiggle room here, but there simply isn't.

This topic has been studied and analyzed to death for countless years now: and every single bit of it shows that migrants are not in any way the drivers of crime, either in New York, or throughout the U.S. in general writ large. Hell, in many instances they actually help REDUCE crime rates.

This point has literally be one of THE central pillars of conservative politics for far, far longer than anyone on this forum has been alive, and certainly in particular throughout the past 10 years especially. This 1000% irrational fear has literally been the central fuel that has catapulted Trump to the presidency twice now, with all the death, hate crimes, economic failures, and general misery that has brought with it.

You cannot possibly expect to simply casually restate this incredibly, exhaustingly tired-as-hell point, and not expect any number of people here to roll their eyes and groan, at a bare minimum. People have been hearing this nonsense repeated and regurgitated endlessly now for decades and decades, and even MORE pointedly in just this past decade... and all its lead to is a significant uptick in hate crimes against minorities, completely needless persecution of immigrants in general, and further enflamed racial tensions and resentments all around leading to immigrants in the U.S. being plunged into a hellish state of constant fear and paranoia of other Americans they're trying to live peacefully among.

Its even lead to a partial, minor INCREASE in overall crime rates, as people who either are immigrants or have friends and loved ones who are immigrants are now LESS likely to report a crime for fear of getting themselves or someone they know deported. Its disincentivized people to call the police when something happens, leading in effect to more crime. And its also lead to increases in violence against immigrants.

In short: the idea that migrants mean more crime has been a hatefully racist stereotype that is both COMPLETELY unfounded/counterfactual and has been nonetheless heavily weaponized to basically make life in general vastly, vastly more miserable and shittier for anyone unlucky enough to currently be living in the U.S. as an immigrant. Its been debunked and disproven time and time and time again, yet millions of people (like apparently yourself) continue to believe it and promote it, and its allowed some of the worst monsters in the country to rise to the highest levels of power and make life vastly more horrible for basically most average, ordinary people.

So yeah: that's going to be a clearly controversial statement and its going to attract at least some degree of hostility. Don't act shocked.

I've lived in NYC since 2009 (and prior to college from 05-09 in CA, lived in the suburbs). Violent crime started to decline earlier this year, but it's above its pre-pandemic levels:

Some quick perspective here:



When you say that violent crime in NYC is still above its pre-pandemic levels, we're talking about an absolutely minuscule level of difference here: particularly in the grand scheme of New York overall. At the very, very peak of crime's Covid pandemic boost up in NYC, it was still at less than 1/6th of where it was at its worst during the height of the "old" New York.

You say you've been living in the city since 2009? As I said, I have vivid, living memory of it during the 80s and early 90s: the very, very, very worst of the Covid pandemic crime bump was barely a tick-bite on the ass of where things used to be in this city. And now its even that much less so as it continues to fall once more.

At the point we've been at, even during and after Covid, we're literally examining these fluctuations in NYC crime rates with a goddamned jeweler's loop. We're splitting hairs here over literally single digit percentages. Low, low double digit at worst.

So when you say "crime is still higher in this city during and after Covid", my response to that is: "Relative and in proportion to WHAT exactly?" Because this seems to be seriously lacking in some basic overall perspective here.

And speaking of perspective, lets compare New York to a few other notable American cities:



Note that I'm ordering this list solely by violent crimes rather than all crimes (violent and non-violent) overall.

Per FBI statistics, these are the current top 30 most dangerous, violent crime-ridden cities in the entire United States as of this year.

Notice which city is nowhere to be found here? Per the FBI, with the a few notable exceptions like California, New Jersey, Baltimore, and so on, the 30 most violent cities in the country can almost entirely be found in largely deep rural and midwestern states. The number one most dangerous city in the United States, in terms of overall violent crime, being Memphis Tennessee. Yep, home of Graceland.

Fucking Anchorage Alaska is apparently a VASTLY more dangerous and crime infested city than NYC. Anchorage Alaska! Little Rock Arkansas, home to Bill Clinton, is 4th! The 4th most dangerous, violent city in the country in the year of our lord 2025 is fucking Little Rock! Albuquerque New Mexico of all places, subject of one of the single most goofy-ass Weird Al songs ever, is currently the 13th most violently dangerous city in the entire U.S. "Albucrazy" indeed!

So where on this list exactly is The Big Apple you might ask? Just a bit further down maybe? Somewhere in the 40 or 50 range perhaps?

Nope, guess again:



Big bad New York City is, per 2025 FBI crime statistics, the 67th most dangerous, crime-ridden city in the U.S. Goddamned Tulsa Oklahoma is higher on this list! In 2025 today, you're literally less safe - substantially less safe - in Tulsa than you are NYC! Hell, even Des Moines Iowa is apparently even slightly higher up/slightly more dangerous than NYC is these days! Even Iowa has cities more violent than NYC is today, and barely anyone lives in that fucking state as it is!

Spokane Washington has more than triple the number of rapes/sexual assaults that NYC does!

If you went back in time and told my child-self circa 1990 - back when me venturing into NYC meant going somewhere astronomically, breathtakingly more lethal and dangerous than my own normal hometown stomping grounds, which were already plenty lethal and dangerous enough as it was - that I would someday grow up into a world where NYC was safer and less dangerous than fucking Anchorage Alaska, Little Rock Arkansas, Albuquerque New Mexico, Des Moines Iowa, Spokane Washington, and Tulsa Oklahoma... I would've thought that the future must be some kind of goddamned utopia or something.

Fuck man, the entire state of Alabama has more than double the crime rate of just New York City alone! The whole state!

And just for funsies, lets narrow our focus down to just murder rate alone. Here's what the FBI top 30 most murder-happy cities list then looks like:



The list suddenly gets even MORE rural/midwestern than before! We hear so much about Chicago's murder rate in the news every single day week in and week out: and while its indeed fairly high up at number 22, note the cities that dramatically outpace it in murder rates. Birmingham Alabama is the current number one murder capital in the United States! Where's the moral panic about what's going on in Birmingham? Or Shreveport Louisiana? Or Louisville Kentucky? Or St. Louis, which comes in a close second behind Birmingham in highest rate of murders in all of the U.S.?

And where oh where is The Big Apple on the murder list?



Even vastly lower down the ladder than it was when we did violent crime overall, at 127!

"New York City: the 127th most murderous city in America." Doesn't really strike fear into one's heart when put into perspective, does it?

The city felt its safest in my lifetime when Bloomberg was mayor.

Two things here:

First, note your own words: the city felt safest. Felt. We're not going off of facts or reality here: we're literally going off of vibes here, per your own words. Many, many things in life can FEEL safe or unsafe. Highly so even. That doesn't necessarily correlate to those things actually BEING safe or unsafe in actuality though.

I can go into an empty, dark room and FEEL plenty unsafe: that doesn't mean I'm actually in any danger, does it? I can likewise sit in my home chilling in broad daylight and feel safe as can be: but that can quickly change on a dime as soon as a severe storm rolls through.

Once again kids, all together now....



Second point: you highlighting Bloomberg's mayoral tenure, of all people. When we talk about New York "feeling safer" during the Bloomberg era, its supremely important to ask "felt safer to whom exactly"?

I too well remember the Bloomberg years. And while crime in the city was continuing its by then many, many years long rapid plummet downward, Bloomberg's mayoral run was largely defined by something else altogether: a little law enforcement policy called Stop & Frisk. Which by most accounts did absolutely fuck-all nothing to contribute to the fall in violent crime across the city, and instead only fueled and increased the rates of police abuse, harassment, and discrimination against overwhelmingly black and Hispanic citizens.

To the point where black and Hispanic New Yorkers suffered severe, life-altering PTSD and depression leading to falling grades, lack of trust in the community, and less employment.

Bloomberg's ultimate long-lasting legacy as NYC mayor was twofold: further increasing economic disparity and inequality, and needlessly traumatizing the city's minority communities with pointlessly invasive and abusive (to say nothing of racist) policing tactics. Abuses whose effects still linger on to this day under Adams.

Whatever good happened in NYC during the bulk of the 2000s occurred in spite of Bloomberg, not because of him.

In short, fuck Michael Bloomberg, and fuck anyone who defends what he did to black and Latino New Yorkers as being in any way contributing to the "safety" of the city.

I'm sure it's still safer than it was in the 70s and 80s, but it's frightening, especially to women.

For context on this: sexual assault is the one and sole lone category of crime in NYC that has increased to any even vaguely significant degree post-Covid (and even then, we're still talking within the 20% range at most). While this is unquestionably awful and serious (and I cannot stress that point enough), it bears reminding that the current sexual assault numbers are only marginally higher than they were under Bloomberg - who was mayor from 2002 to 2013 - during even their lowest years in his tenure (which would've been around 2007 to 2010 or thereabouts).

Like I said before: taken in the grander scheme of things here, we're examining what are ultimately and comparatively small-scale fluctuations through a jeweler's loop here. Compared to even the late 1990s (when the worst was already well and truly over with) these numbers are still incredibly fucking low. They're higher than they were under the best years of Bloomberg's reign... but not by THAT much. And those SA rates certainly weren't as low as they were under Bloomberg because of anything he did as mayor.

And to once more return to the FBI chart and have it adjusted to solely gauge rape and sexual assault rates by city nationwide, lets look at the top 30 first:



Oof. Jeez, what the fuck are they putting in the drinking water up in Anchorage these days?

And numbers 3 through 5 on the list are all cities in Ohio, Vice President JD Vance's home turf (though I don't think any of those Ohio rape numbers are counting upholstery fwiw).

And so where then does New York City find itself ranking on the list of most rape-happy cities in the U.S.?




Its lowest ever placement yet, at 164. The one specific area of violent crime that had by far increased the most post-Covid (in relative proportion to the others that is), and the city overall still only clocks in as the 164th most rapey city nationwide.

Like I said before: context, perspective, and proportionality - in terms of not just the history of the city itself, but also where it relates to other cities all across the country - are all super key things to keep in mind here when discussing both increases and decreases in NYC's crime statistics.

We live in Chelsea

Are you serious? You're in Chelsea?

Dude... dude! You literally live in one of the nicest, most upscale areas of the entire city (that isn't like ultra-ultra mega-rich anyway, like Park Avenue or whatnot). What the hell are you scared of? You're in Chelsea?! I can't even...  

For all the non-New Yorkers here, this is the area of the city were Analytical Delusion (on-the-nose perfect name for this post by the way) lives in:



And to further hammer this point home, here's a condo located just a few blocks from Delusion's apartment (and right near where one of the crime incidents they linked to took place):



Yeah... South Bronx circa 1988 this ain't.

and within a few blocks of my apartment, some highlights from this year:

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/manhattan/su ... t/6121073/
https://abc7ny.com/post/chelsea-shootin ... /16660896/
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/video/on-air ... n/6247797/

Look, speaking for myself as someone who grew up during and in the midst of an absolute and utter violent crime/gang-torn hellscape... I don't like diminishing the impact that ANY violent crime has on anyone. Violent crime is a deeply, deeply traumatizing, horrific experience for anyone to have to undergo, and I don't wish it on anyone for any reason.

I've been there, I've had guns pulled on me at a disturbingly young age and I'd been stabbed twice before I was even 12 years old: I fucking get it man.

As of today however, and without doxing myself any further than I already have here, I'm lucky enough to live in an incredibly safe, safe town. These days I live literally right next to the beach, and crime is as near to non-existent where I now live as you can reasonably expect. Its safe enough you can walk down the street all by yourself at 2:00 in the morning, and literally no one will bother you, ever.

That having been said... even here where I am now, in this safe-ass little town, we had a shooting incident just a couple of days ago within a 30 minute walk from my house. And several years back, I have distinct memories of a double homicide that took place in a small bar that's only a 15 minute walk from my house. A bar I'd been to myself many times before. I could've just as easily been unlucky enough to have been in it the night those two murders took place there.

This wasn't in my old childhood city mind you (the one that even to this day is a cesspit of violent gang activity, and currently dwarfs NYC's violent crime rate overall): this all happened in my current, present town, which is overall and normally about as safe as an episode of the Sesame Street.

Am I scared to go out late at night because of those incidents? Am I combing the local news shaking in terror for stories about crime surges? Absolutely not. No. Because even in the safest neighborhoods in the safest towns in the safest parts of the world...

...ugly, terrible shit still happens sometimes.

A 100% absolute and utter crime-free utopia is literally impossible. We can get awfully, awfully close to one, sure... but even in the best-case scenario safest most near-utopia you can get, sometimes on random occasions, people are still going to go crazy, act out violently, and seriously harm or kill someone. That is NEVER, ever going to fully 100% go away and stop. Ever. Even under the BEST possible conditions and circumstances. Even in fucking Chelsea New York.

When old people romanticize the 1950s and whatnot... understand, this applies to even back then. Even in the Leave it to Beaver and Ozzie & Harriet days, people still got murdered and raped and robbed. Ed Gein, one of America's most notorious and heinous serial killers, was active in that same time period. When old people romanticize the past, they are quite literally just romanticizing the past. Hell, oftentimes the past in most cases was usually WAY WORSE, way less safe, way more violent, and way more dangerous even!

At the end of the day, it is monumentally important to maintain and understand perspective and proportionality. Anything can happen to any one of us at anytime, in any place. No matter how safe it normally may be. That's a fundamental fact of life. Any moment your number could be up, even when you least expect it and feel the most safe and secure.

You can take that knowledge and either live in paranoid, paralyzing terror of it, constantly looking over your shoulder for that 1% possibility you might be one of the super unlucky few to run into the next Ed Gein or Ted Bundy...

...OR you can just keep that bit of insight in your back pocket, have some basic, common sense street smarts because of it, and otherwise just live your fucking life as normal and don't let yourself be ruled over by fear and paranoia.

Me personally? Having survived my share of violence growing up, I choose the latter. All day, any day. And all I can do beyond that is simply recommend that other people do the same.

[Analytical Delusion]

[Redacted per request from M16U3L2015]

[JulieYBM]

The Democratic Party is not a left-wing party. It's at most a center-right party, with cities like New York City attracting mostly right-wing Democrats, the same type currently trying to keep Zohran Mamdani from winning the mayoral election.

Which is all to say, voting for Dems doesn't necessarily mean there's progressivism going on there.

Anyway, I just popped open Google Maps and looked at 7th Ave, Chelsea, NY, NY and the images are captured from August 2024. The streets look picture-esque.

[M16U3L2015]

May I ask to return to the original topic of the thread as it seems to have turned into a discussion of New York politics and crime rather than the original topic being discussed.

[Analytical Delusion]

May I ask to return to the original topic of the thread as it seems to have turned into a discussion of New York politics and crime rather than the original topic being discussed.

Yes, I haven't been on the forum in some time, so I needed to remind myself of the rules.

This is a Dragon Ball (and by extension Akira Toriyama-focused) community. Unless there is a direct comparison, correlation, or influence being discussed with regard to other franchises, we ask that conversations and contributions be about and solely about Dragon Ball and/or Toriyama’s direct works. Other topics that related to Dragon Ball or Toriyama beyond the baseline content itself (e.g., societal) are of course welcomed, so long as they are in line with the rest of the community guidelines.

Evidently off-topic discussions (i.e. crime, politics, etc.) are against the TOS, so I will redact my posts (even if I was discussing in good faith). Apologies.

EDIT: Seems I can't redact the first one.

[Yellow Flower King]

I love this entire post, except the parts about the scared and anxiety attacks. Because those are a thing that actually happens and that guy you are responding to was not scared at all he just wanted to throw Acceptable/Targets/Under/The/Bus, basically any sort of boogeyman to justify his intolerance.

You might have missed this part just before then:

And fuck it, I'll also throw this out there too as a more generalized point,

That part onward wasn't just aimed at this one guy: its as noted, a more general point since its a repeating theme I've noticed that often comes up with this particular topic (crime in big major cities, particularly in New York).

And by that same token, you'd be AMAZED at how often reactionary bigotry for some (hardly all, but some) folks sometimes boils down to "Would rather let their own personal baggage and hangups fester into a full blown hateful psychosis instead of just go to therapy or talk to someone before it gets to that point."

Lots of medical science and research has been done over the years also linking reactionary/conservative thought to overly-heightened, overly-developed brain activity in the amygdala region. i.e. A greater than normal fear/anxiety response.

Basically, there's for some time now been a fair amount of actual neurological evidence to suggest that a great majority of conservative and reactionary thinking is rooted in overly heightened fear. And also, overly heightened disgust.

I've been reading foundational American Neo-Nazi literature for quite some years now, and all throughout there is a consistent repeating theme throughout most (if not all) of it of viewing other non-white races as "infected" or "dirty" in some way, pointing to a severe, severe phobia of germs/uncleanliness lying at the heart of a great deal of the worst kinds of racial bigotry.

This correlates with a LOT of the neurological study of the brains of not just conservative thinkers in general, but also with hardcore racists: that there is a much greater than average disgust-response, particularly to anything seen as uncleanly or in any way infectious.

Obviously this hardly means that all or most germophobes are racist or anything like that. But it certainly does indicate that people who ARE racist tend to have a much greater than average chance of also being germophobic, and that there is likely some sort of weird link between the two in those cases. See also: H.P. Lovecraft. And Adolf Hitler. And Donald Trump even.

In any case, the point being that there's been mounting neuroscience over the years pointing to conservative and even racially bigoted thinking being closely linked to overly stimulated and heightened fear, anxiety, and disgust responses in the brain, stemming from overly-developed amygdalas.

And also I have some personal IRL experience with a few conservative/reactionary folks in my personal life who also make it pretty plainly obvious whenever they go to NYC that they're wrestling with a great, great deal of severe social anxiety... and in a few cases I'd even go so far as to say some weird kinds of latent agoraphobia. And that those fears and neuroses are playing a great deal into their view of NYC as still being some sort of dystopian crime ridden hellhole like it used to be back in the day, despite it now long being safer than its ever been in ages... with conservative media and "crime porn" reporting feeding into their confirmation bias and validating their fears.

For anyone who's read A Confederacy of Dunces, Ignatius J. Reilly's whole character very much is derived from exactly this type of person that many of us have known in some part of our lives: someone who wants very much to view and portray themselves as a brave and tough guy, but is actually incredibly nervous, afraid, deeply insecure, and easily agitated by a great many otherwise innocuous things about being out in public among lots of people (noise, smells, seeing people who are sick, handicapped, or physically different in some way, etc).

This pretty perfectly sums a LOT of conservative men out there, both today and throughout history.

And also lastly, don't misunderstand: none of this neuroscience means that this is ALL that all conservative/reactionary thinking boils down to and can be completely and fully explained away as. A tremendously great, great deal of social and experiential factors are also at play as well, obviously. The neuroscience aspect is just one of numerous pieces of the puzzle in what goes on within the reactionary/racist mind.

I absolutely agree then and have no further disagreement.

[Hellspawn28]

Didn't know there was going to be a theme park, pretty exciting. Travel to the Middle East for work sometimes, so definitely will check it out when it's completed.

Something like this could never happen in NYC where I have to live given the high degree of crime from homeless/migrants/junkies, but maybe we can have one of these somewhere else in the US someday.

Crime in New York City is massively down, actually.

I feel more safer in New York City than I do in Baltimore. Baltimore, MD is a total shithole and has been ever since I was a kid.

[Tian]

--But wouldn't it be okay if it was a theme park like Disneyland that can be enjoyed by people of all ages and genders?

Japanese children can go to Disneyland in Japan, but it's different in Saudi Arabia, right? It's become a place for wealthy adults.

Weekly Shonen Jump is a culture that has been supported by Japanese children. All over the world, the only magazines that children buy with their own money are Japanese manga magazines. That's why I don't think we should do anything that ignores the culture that Japanese children have nurtured.

If the automatic translation is accurate and correct, then I strongly agree with this Torishima's point.

As many of us know and some others could guess, Dragon Ball hasn't had a great history in the Arab World in terms of localization. I even dare to say that the Arabic dub is one of the most heavily censored localizations of the franchise. So censored that diverts a lot from the original source and makes you wonder why they even bothered to distribute the franchise in the territory.

People has the right to know Dragon Ball in its original, true and authentic form. Not in a heavily censored and too divergent from source material one.

[Yellow Flower King]

--But wouldn't it be okay if it was a theme park like Disneyland that can be enjoyed by people of all ages and genders?

Japanese children can go to Disneyland in Japan, but it's different in Saudi Arabia, right? It's become a place for wealthy adults.

Weekly Shonen Jump is a culture that has been supported by Japanese children. All over the world, the only magazines that children buy with their own money are Japanese manga magazines. That's why I don't think we should do anything that ignores the culture that Japanese children have nurtured.

If the automatic translation is accurate and correct, then I strongly agree with this Torishima's point.

As many of us know and some others could guess, Dragon Ball hasn't had a great history in the Arab World in terms of localization. I even dare to say that the Arabic dub is one of the most heavily censored localizations of the franchise. So censored that diverts a lot from the original source and makes you wonder why they even bothered to distribute the franchise in the territory.

People has the right to know Dragon Ball in its original, true and authentic form. Not in a heavily censored and too divergent from source material one.

Ironically enough, I heard the Funimation dub of all dubs was massively popular in Arab Territories. Sean Schemmel (!!!) who was treated like royalty said "They couldnt have Goku kill his brother, that's sin in Islam."

That said, Arab fans do have a lot of love and nostalgia for their dubs, edited or not. Not to mention Super having the most faithful dub thus far.

[Tian]

Ironically enough, I heard the Funimation dub of all dubs was massively popular in Arab Territories. Sean Schemmel (!!!) who was treated like royalty said "They couldnt have Goku kill his brother, that's sin in Islam."

Yes, I'm aware that the FUNimation dub has a lot of fans around the world. There are even Latin Americans that are really fond of the Falcouner Productions score.

Not to mention Super having the most faithful dub thus far.

And the only one of the franchise that was complete so far. DB stopped at around episode 50, DBZ and Z Kai both stopped at Freeza Saga and GT wasn't dubbed.

Even Arabs were initially skeptical about whether Super would be fully dubbed or not when the dub was announced by the recording studio (Venus).

[Yellow Flower King]

This is perhaps one of the reasons a re adaptation would be worthwhile.

[Jord]

--But wouldn't it be okay if it was a theme park like Disneyland that can be enjoyed by people of all ages and genders?

Japanese children can go to Disneyland in Japan, but it's different in Saudi Arabia, right? It's become a place for wealthy adults.

Weekly Shonen Jump is a culture that has been supported by Japanese children. All over the world, the only magazines that children buy with their own money are Japanese manga magazines. That's why I don't think we should do anything that ignores the culture that Japanese children have nurtured.

If the automatic translation is accurate and correct, then I strongly agree with this Torishima's point.

As many of us know and some others could guess, Dragon Ball hasn't had a great history in the Arab World in terms of localization. I even dare to say that the Arabic dub is one of the most heavily censored localizations of the franchise. So censored that diverts a lot from the original source and makes you wonder why they even bothered to distribute the franchise in the territory.

People has the right to know Dragon Ball in its original, true and authentic form. Not in a heavily censored and too divergent from source material one.

Ironically enough, I heard the Funimation dub of all dubs was massively popular in Arab Territories. Sean Schemmel (!!!) who was treated like royalty said "They couldnt have Goku kill his brother, that's sin in Islam."

That said, Arab fans do have a lot of love and nostalgia for their dubs, edited or not. Not to mention Super having the most faithful dub thus far.

Then I am curious to learn how they got around the removal of Raditz in the show.

From what I've read is that the region there is doing their best to attract foreign tourists, with even a new Disney park coming there. That will be indoors, like the WB park there. I expect the DB theme park to work in a likeminded way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GleGeDR ... ZGhhYmk%3D

It looks absolutely stunning.

Now, I don't think we know the budget of the DB park, but WB at least shows us what is possible.

[Yellow Flower King]

If the automatic translation is accurate and correct, then I strongly agree with this Torishima's point.

As many of us know and some others could guess, Dragon Ball hasn't had a great history in the Arab World in terms of localization. I even dare to say that the Arabic dub is one of the most heavily censored localizations of the franchise. So censored that diverts a lot from the original source and makes you wonder why they even bothered to distribute the franchise in the territory.

People has the right to know Dragon Ball in its original, true and authentic form. Not in a heavily censored and too divergent from source material one.

Ironically enough, I heard the Funimation dub of all dubs was massively popular in Arab Territories. Sean Schemmel (!!!) who was treated like royalty said "They couldnt have Goku kill his brother, that's sin in Islam."

That said, Arab fans do have a lot of love and nostalgia for their dubs, edited or not. Not to mention Super having the most faithful dub thus far.

Then I am curious to learn how they got around the removal of Raditz in the show.

From what I've read is that the region there is doing their best to attract foreign tourists, with even a new Disney park coming there. That will be indoors, like the WB park there. I expect the DB theme park to work in a likeminded way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GleGeDR ... ZGhhYmk%3D

It looks absolutely stunning.

Now, I don't think we know the budget of the DB park, but WB at least shows us what is possible.

They didnt remove him, he simply wasnt Goku's brother anymore.

[Tian]

Then I am curious to learn how they got around the removal of Raditz in the show.

Well, they DID remove a character in the Z dub but it wasn't Raditz but Shenron. Raditz was re-written as Goku's former friend who turned evil.

Yes, you read it right. They somehow thought it was better to introduce Raditz as some guy whom Goku met off-screen in the past.

[Yellow Flower King]

If the automatic translation is accurate and correct, then I strongly agree with this Torishima's point.

As many of us know and some others could guess, Dragon Ball hasn't had a great history in the Arab World in terms of localization. I even dare to say that the Arabic dub is one of the most heavily censored localizations of the franchise. So censored that diverts a lot from the original source and makes you wonder why they even bothered to distribute the franchise in the territory.

People has the right to know Dragon Ball in its original, true and authentic form. Not in a heavily censored and too divergent from source material one.

Ironically enough, I heard the Funimation dub of all dubs was massively popular in Arab Territories. Sean Schemmel (!!!) who was treated like royalty said "They couldnt have Goku kill his brother, that's sin in Islam."

That said, Arab fans do have a lot of love and nostalgia for their dubs, edited or not. Not to mention Super having the most faithful dub thus far.

Then I am curious to learn how they got around the removal of Raditz in the show.

From what I've read is that the region there is doing their best to attract foreign tourists, with even a new Disney park coming there. That will be indoors, like the WB park there. I expect the DB theme park to work in a likeminded way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GleGeDR ... ZGhhYmk%3D

It looks absolutely stunning.

Now, I don't think we know the budget of the DB park, but WB at least shows us what is possible.

Is it bad that I expected the women to have hijabs? There is nothing wrong with that but it is surprising.

[Jord]

Then I am curious to learn how they got around the removal of Raditz in the show.

Well, they DID remove a character in the Z dub but it wasn't Raditz but Shenron. Raditz was re-written as Goku's former friend who turned evil.

Yes, you read it right. They somehow thought it was better to introduce Raditz as some guy whom Goku met off-screen in the past.

That is incredible, lol. I guess it was the best way to go.