Woman raped on a train, bystanders did nothing

It remains a right wing theme of assaulting women and downplaying it, not a left wing theme. And that theme is carried by the ex-US president himself.

 

yeah.... Epstein did not kill himself.

Wow... I can't believe you wrote that one. hahahahahahahahahahahaha... too good.

 

I’m around over a dozen species of animals daily. It applies to all animals—even humans.

 

Unlike Epstein... we got your precious ex-president saying it himself on tape.

 

Yeah... tell that to Juantia Broderrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, or the other women Clinton raped and molested.



We can also talk about all the children China Joe has groped and sniffed. Did you see the latest classroom Biden kiddy sniff job from this week? Sick weirdo.

 

I don't recall Clinton being convicted of rape, while we do have Donald talking about how easy it is for him to sexual abuse women.
Must hurt your right wing feels

 

I'm not a Trump fan. Don't be all butt hurt, because Clinton is a rapist, molester, and Epstein's closest buddy.

 

really here are some links that say it's a politician problem
These Are All The Politicians Accused of Sexual Misconduct in 2017 | Teen Vogue
Here's a list of political figures accused of sexual misconduct (nbcnews.com)
List Of All US Politicians Charged Or Convicted of Sex Crimes Against Minors (usareally.com)

 

Of course you're not a Trump fan... lol
You're just getting all emo when I mock how he claims he can sexual assault women and get away with it... and it being a right wing theme.

Mind you. You righties were all but appalled that Donald claims he gets away with sexual assault. That's where the difference really is at when a left wing politician gets busted.

 

It's no more a "right wing theme", than a left wing theme. Only a partisan would believe differently. Both parties suck, but this case we are talking about is all about the Democrats side of the equation. It's not MAGA country. It's prime 100% Democrat run.

 

I'd commend somebody for trying to stop it, but that would be of a heroic level not expected of average people. Calling 911 immediately would be the basic and decent thing to do, but on the other hand somebody who is crazy enough to rape somebody in front of people on public transportation would also probably be willing to immediately murder somebody they overhear calling police. So, obviously a tragedy, but I don't know that I'd condemn those people either. Just would say they didn't act with courage.

 

A black man rapes a woman on a full train and of course you want to talk about orange man. They could literally burn Philadelphia to the ground and the story would be about Donald Trump. What will definitely not happen is any interest by any liberal to offer any kind of assistance or aid to the victim of this vicious attack or any interest in punishing the perpetrator. This poor oppressed homeless black man should be let off the hook because Donald Trump exists.... amirite?

 

I believe all stories that are negative to them are immediately about Trump. It's psychosis. The topic could be Biden breaking his promise on an Alaskan pipeline that would have created thousands of jobs... and they will run to Orange Man Bad.

Biden ****s up Afghanistan = Orange Man Bad
Runaway Inflation = Orange Man Bad
Border Humanitarian Disaster = Orange Man Bad

Equation to be a Leftist

Anything Bad = Orange Man Bad

 

You could not be more wrong. Big Cities have very transient populations. One near me has only 7% owner-occupied residences, for example. So the vast majority of inhabitants are on 6 or 12 month leases.

Even the most rudimentary understanding of social anthropology will tell you that such an extreme level of transience obviates any possibility of 'community'.

 

My rudimentary understanding of maps tells me that it's about a toss up. I don't know where you live, but 7% seems to be awfully low compared to the national average. I also would argue that some of the most cohesive commuties that I've experienced were in fairly densely populated areas. Most apartment complexes I know of are full of renters, but many are very communal. Many acquaintances I've had have remarked how friendly people were in the meglopolis I grew up in. But. like the anecdote I typed earlier, that is just my experience.
But, that wasn't what I was referring to. I was responding to the post that says that people in cities have lower values than other areas, I assume more rural areas. I was pointing out that, IN MY EXPERIENCE, that was not true. It's a very common idea that I run into in rural areas that is not accurate. I couldn't find a value level map, so I'm left with only my experiences of living and being around both extensively.
Even the most accurate rifle on the rack won't hit the target if the shooters aim is off.

 

Found this interesting too. The numbers on the graph didn't paste for some reason, but the darker is the higher rate. It says "Reported crime incidents per 1,000 people in 2014",
gradations at 10,20,30,40 and 50 as they darken. Seems like the crime per capita is slightly worse in rural areas, at least in 2014.
Note of oddity. All the maps I found on these subjects were at least 8 years old. Not sure why I couldn't locate more updated maps, but I doubt it has changed that much.
Thanks for your post. This was very interesting to me to research.

 

1) It's the stats for inner urban suburbs in that city. Very few owner occupied residences.

2) It's not real community, because no one is actually invested in their space or each other, other than in a very tokenistic way. There are no reciprocal social obligations, which are common in fixed communities, where all the members have ownership in the space and are motivated by their trust in others to remain where they are and do what they do.

3) I've lived (and still do) in both city and country .. and my experience is that country people are FAR more interested in what their neighbours are doing .. in the best way possible. That's real community. Stepping up, meeting expectations, toeing the 'gentlemans agreement' lines of expected behaviour, mutual obligation, being stable and invested in the place, etc etc.

 

I was referring to the generalization that people from rural areas have higher values than those in urban areas, and I was disputing that, in my experience. I thought they were about even overall. Good and bad in both and in between. Crime per capita seems a little worse in rural areas.
Honestly, if I were to make a guess, I would say the suburban areas would tend to have the lower values, but that is again just my experience, and very generalized. It's very possible that all of our ideas about higher and lower values differ. Some may place religion higher on their list, for example. But many of the assumptions I've heard from people who grew up in a rural area about "city folk" are not very accurate, and vice-versa.

 

The answer might be in the article:

Sounds like there were not many people in the car, and maybe not physically capable of taking on a gang-banger. Also, people assume such criminals are armed, so getting involved could cost you your life. So, I assume most were too afraid to act. Should they have called 911? Absolutely. The person who videotaped the incident was probably a like-minded criminal as the rapist.

 

Current US President is accused of rape.

 

Wow. I must have missed a whole lot of something, since there is a clear line between 'you can' and 'I did', but even that aside, I don't recall your personal nightmare twiddling a cigar in the Oval Office.....

 

Who's defending rape? I must have missed that.

 

That's the problem with cities - there is no community to measure, so you can't qualify a moral value. Nothing is real in cities ... everyone is living a temporary existence, with no ties to place or substance. They're like transit hubs, more than anything else.

The only exceptions would be the tight knit ethnic or religious enclaves, in which residents live their entire lives in one place, surrounded by people they've known all their lives. Those are definitely communities - and you can see that in the mutual obligations the members have to each other and to the community as a whole - as much as you can see it in their physical stability.

OTOH, in rural communities the entire populace is stable and familiar, and most employ social obligations at least in terms of behaviour, if not actual 'work' for the community. Whether we agree with the premise and nature of those obligations is beside the point - it's that which validates us and gives us substance. When no one we encounter is invested in us beyond casual friendship, nor requires anything of us, it can be incredibly lonely and invalidating for certain types of individuals. People who are attracted to cities because they think 'activity' equates to validation and fullfilment, often find out the hard way that it does the opposite.

 

First off, I'm glad that you like the community you live in. There's a lot of value in that.
Although I can't know your experiences, I think you are off the mark on your assessment on "city life" in general. I think that people see what they want to see, and definitely only what they are exposed to .

 

I live in a city, a suburb, and a rural town. I have multiple properties, and inhabit all of them at various times.

The one certainty is that there is NO community in cities in the general population. No one is beholden to their neighbours, no one is answerable to the group, and no one cares about their neighbours (beyond casual acquaintance) because their neighbours are constantly changing. Add in the fact that very few are even invested in place enough to own their home, and you have a substantial missing element from 'community'.