I'm just asking this as a general question.

I keep hearing people talking about "back in the day" you didn't have to worry about guns, rioting, etc. etc.

But I'm wondering if these folks are reading the same history books as I'm reading.

What is your general opinion. Is the world a more dangerous place now? And why?

imago said:

Same world. Different media outlets.

It's safer now because all the dinosaurs are dead.

It wasnt, people just didnt know about all the shit that was going on.

Most of us live a lot longer now.

It was REALLY dangerous when the flood happened!

Do they say "back in the day" a lot in thailand?

Eye watched a program recently where a man went 2 Canada....and was told nobody locked there doors!!!!!U could walk in some1s house and b greeted by the words Hi how ru?So this chap put it 2 the test he simply walked into peoples houses called out hello and got a hello back and do u fancy a drink???Eye was like ...This man went down the street doing this,no door was locked and every home owner was welcoming and polite...There seemed 2 b alot of people from chicago visiting canada 4 the peace and quiet and the none violent environment...

This program made me think this is how all the world should b and what a great shame this isnt the case!

ManlyMoose said:

No one in my part of Canada does that!

same old, same old.

Agression and territoral instincts have allways caused drama. However, the industrial and technological revolution have led to more harmfull weaponry.

For women it's still not a safe place, however, in the west it's at least saver then it ever has been. Allthough, women statistically should still fear men. Testosteron exceeds morals.

The cavemen had clubs we've got nuclear weapons. Humanity hasn't solved it's problem of violence, it's just that the technology has improved.

The further back you go the more lawlessness there actually was in a more widespread way. There was more chance of being murdered, raped, robbed the further back in time you go.

ufoclub said:

The further back you go the more lawlessness there actually was in a more widespread way. There was more chance of being murdered, raped, robbed the further back in time you go.

Do laws really help you think?

Elites get away with anything. As long as you can afford a laywer, you'r above the law. In any country, not just Russia or America.

There's still some really barbaric places that are like going back in time:

http://www.theage.com.au/...34387.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...n4ogU-I-Kk

.

[Edited 9/25/11 2:22am]

alphastreet said:

No one in my part of Canada does that!

May b the program eye watched was a set up???But it didnt look it,maybe it was in an xcluesivr part of Canada?Where living this way is possible?

dJJ said:

ufoclub said:

The further back you go the more lawlessness there actually was in a more widespread way. There was more chance of being murdered, raped, robbed the further back in time you go.

Do laws really help you think?

Elites get away with anything. As long as you can afford a laywer, you'r above the law. In any country, not just Russia or America.

Laws and police help keep neighbors from raping, killing, and taking things form each other. Keep going back in time and you have more and more people who freely did whatever they wanted. You know, like the old Amercian west, medieval times, etc.

Human creations like technology and society with human patterns of manipulation and control of the masses has made the world a safer place whether you like or not. It's just the way the human animal species is.

dJJ said:

ufoclub said:

The further back you go the more lawlessness there actually was in a more widespread way. There was more chance of being murdered, raped, robbed the further back in time you go.

Do laws really help you think?

Elites get away with anything. As long as you can afford a laywer, you'r above the law. In any country, not just Russia or America.

Laws and police control help keep neighbors from raping, killing, and taking things from each other. Keep going back in time and you have more and more people who freely did whatever they wanted. You know, like the old American west, medieval times, etc. This includes people in the elite or the masses or the fringes.

Certainly, elite control can be abused and is moralistically objectionable if you believe that all people are created equal and should have equal freedom. Humans try to make things less authoritarian with sytsems of voting and checks and balances. And these systems do exist in much more functional ways now then they did in the past in wider areas. Kings are dwindling in the world, right?

Human creations like technology and society with human patterns of manipulation and control of the masses has made the world a safer place whether people like to admit it or not. It's just the way the human animal species is. Until we figure out a way to strongly imbed moral rules and circumvent animalistic hormonal and survival instincts that lead to unjust and harm of one another, then these measures of population behavior control will remain the only way.

HobbesLeCute said:

It's safer now because all the dinosaurs are dead.

Don't you just hate it when Godzilla wakes up?

the bigger the population the more unsafe the world gets.... as the risk of nastly low life existing increases thats just how is goes.... but i wish it wasnt so and i hope 4 a better future

FuzzyWitch said:

the bigger the population the more unsafe the world gets.... as the risk of nastly low life existing increases thats just how is goes.... but i wish it wasnt so and i hope 4 a better future

Eye believe that children r our future,teach them well and let them lead the way......

Back in the day, when and where? In general, in the 40s 50s and early 60s, yes, it was. But to a certain extent, depending on who you asked and where they lived, they would probably still say no. But after the youth movement and sexual revolution of the mid to late 60s the US, if not the world, was a different place. After that point it greatly depended on what part of the country and even what neighborhood you lived in. Then, with the internet revolution a whole different type of "unsafe" was thrust upon the world at large once again.

However, a lot of this, if you actually look at statistics, comes down to a general feeling of unease, regardless of how FACTUALLY safe your neighborhood, town, state or country may be. People just don't FEEL as safe as they used to. The evils of the world have been revealed, and regardless of how close they may come to you in your daily life, what has been seen can't be unseen. Once you know, you know. And these days, nearly EVERYbody knows, which creates that constant "what's going to happen next" buzz that sits uncomfortably over everything we do.

I think back in the old days, it was only easier if you were Caucasian...if you were another race & not on your own soil.......

Tittypants said:

I think back in the old days, it was only easier if you were Caucasian...if you were another race & not on your own soil.......

There is no argument against the foulness of how blacks were treated in the US, nor is there any excuse for it. Let me make that clear up front. However...

I think it would be interesting to do a comparison of statistics regarding how many black people were killed by whites during those years and how many have been killed by other blacks since. I'm pretty sure the later number would be higher.

Cerebus said:

Tittypants said:

I think back in the old days, it was only easier if you were Caucasian...if you were another race & not on your own soil.......

There is no argument against the foulness of how blacks were treated in the US, nor is there any excuse for it. Let me make that clear up front. However...

I think it would be interesting to do a comparison of statistics regarding how many black people were killed by whites during those years and how many have been killed by other blacks since. I'm pretty sure the later number would be higher.

I remember hearing of a study that concluded (and shame on me for not bothering to find links to it) that blacks are more likely to die at the hands of other blacks, yes. But, as I speculate about a study I'm not bothering to find, I can see such crimes being ones of opportunity related to distribution of violent offenders on a socioeconomic level.

But, even during the slave trade, one could argue the Africans who assisted European slavers were helping to kill fellow Africans. And, as the thinking goes, the whites who enslaved and killed Africans and African-Americans by extension also engaged in crimes of opportunity.

So, while I worry sometimes about such aforementioned studies somehow being used to ameliorate the evils that gave way to the horrid practice of whites lynching blacks in the 19th and 20th centuries or of de facto, legislated hatred and mistreatment or to portray black-on-black violence as some humanistic superlative or anomaly, I know there are just as many historic and ongoing examples (the Holocaust; conflicts in Bosnia, the Middle East and throughout the world) that point to inter-ethnic atrocities as being more related to a human condition that is, sadly, universal.

Number23 said:

imago said:

I'm just asking this as a general question.

I keep hearing people talking about "back in the day" you didn't have to worry about guns, rioting, etc. etc.

But I'm wondering if these folks are reading the same history books as I'm reading.

What is your general opinion. Is the world a more dangerous place now? And why?

How do you define danger? A Darwinian hangover steering you to exist in perpetual fear of your life and protect your gene pool? Allowing forces you have no control over control you? Existing in continual terror of being sacrificed to a Sun God or burnt at the stake for having a black cat or being knocked down by a shit car? Sleeping with one eye open incase your children crack open your skull and eat your brain raw to inherit your knowledge? It depends what you mean by danger. I don't think guns changed anything, the brain has to tell the finger to pull the trigger. I kinda think people have always lived in fear of the known. The unknowns collect themselves in a kind of subconcious cultural clunge which evolves as societal humour to form bonds. The cliche that everything changes and nothing changes - in regards to human behaviour - holds true to me. There's always been cunts and will always be cunts. If there was a sticker big enough to be seen from space, they should stick it to Russia or somewhere with FULL OF CUNTS written on it. But meterorites can't read, thank fuck.

That's a nice turn of phrase. I'm going to work that one in at dinner, methinks.

JerseyKRS said:

Do they say "back in the day" a lot in thailand?

Hell to tha khraphom!

ThreadBare said:

Cerebus said:

There is no argument against the foulness of how blacks were treated in the US, nor is there any excuse for it. Let me make that clear up front. However...

I think it would be interesting to do a comparison of statistics regarding how many black people were killed by whites during those years and how many have been killed by other blacks since. I'm pretty sure the later number would be higher.

I remember hearing of a study that concluded (and shame on me for not bothering to find links to it) that blacks are more likely to die at the hands of other blacks, yes. But, as I speculate about a study I'm not bothering to find, I can see such crimes being ones of opportunity related to distribution of violent offenders on a socioeconomic level.

But, even during the slave trade, one could argue the Africans who assisted European slavers were helping to kill fellow Africans. And, as the thinking goes, the whites who enslaved and killed Africans and African-Americans by extension also engaged in crimes of opportunity.

So, while I worry sometimes about such aforementioned studies somehow being used to ameliorate the evils that gave way to the horrid practice of whites lynching blacks in the 19th and 20th centuries or of de facto, legislated hatred and mistreatment or to portray black-on-black violence as some humanistic superlative or anomaly, I know there are just as many historic and ongoing examples (the Holocaust; conflicts in Bosnia, the Middle East and throughout the world) that point to inter-ethnic atrocities as being more related to a human condition that is, sadly, universal.

I agree with all of this at one level or another, but that last sentence is exactly what I meant in my first post. The world could, statistically, be safer a safer place now (although I'm not sure it is). Regardless, now, from a very young age, we KNOW how messed up the world is, which leads many people to live their lives with a general feeling of unease.

"or to portray black-on-black violence as some humanistic superlative or anomaly" Its certainly not, as it continues in great abundance, with absolutely no assistance, to this very day. Again, the root cause need not be argued. It happened, it was terrible, it will always be terrible, there will never be an argument or excuse that makes the slightest bit of sense (in my mind, anyway - don't want to speak for all). But the fact remains that white people can't make black people stop perpatrating crimes against their own kind.

Cerebus said:

ThreadBare said:

I remember hearing of a study that concluded (and shame on me for not bothering to find links to it) that blacks are more likely to die at the hands of other blacks, yes. But, as I speculate about a study I'm not bothering to find, I can see such crimes being ones of opportunity related to distribution of violent offenders on a socioeconomic level.

But, even during the slave trade, one could argue the Africans who assisted European slavers were helping to kill fellow Africans. And, as the thinking goes, the whites who enslaved and killed Africans and African-Americans by extension also engaged in crimes of opportunity.

So, while I worry sometimes about such aforementioned studies somehow being used to ameliorate the evils that gave way to the horrid practice of whites lynching blacks in the 19th and 20th centuries or of de facto, legislated hatred and mistreatment or to portray black-on-black violence as some humanistic superlative or anomaly, I know there are just as many historic and ongoing examples (the Holocaust; conflicts in Bosnia, the Middle East and throughout the world) that point to inter-ethnic atrocities as being more related to a human condition that is, sadly, universal.

I agree with all of this at one level or another, but that last sentence is exactly what I meant in my first post. The world could, statistically, be safer a safer place now (although I'm not sure it is). Regardless, now, from a very young age, we KNOW how messed up the world is, which leads many people to live their lives with a general feeling of unease.

"or to portray black-on-black violence as some humanistic superlative or anomaly" Its certainly not, as it continues in great abundance, with absolutely no assistance, to this very day. Again, the root cause need not be argued. It happened, it was terrible, it will always be terrible, there will never be an argument or excuse that makes the slightest bit of sense (in my mind, anyway - don't want to speak for all). But the fact remains that white people can't make black people stop perpatrating crimes against their own kind.

Indeed, nor vice versa. No matter how many good-Negro movies Morgan Freeman makes. It's all so universal.