[jerrycabbage]

Why is this crap making it to the top of ycombinator? I am perfectly happy seeing SXSW not screw with Austin for a week. This guy was probably detained for suspicion of a crime. Austin cops have their problems but are not particularly bad in any regard. Austin is a very safe city and one of the few to not have any "mass shootings" in recent history. Austin's big problem is the gentrification brought on by class conscious geeks constantly moving there.

[KirinDave]

> Why is this crap making it to the top of ycombinator?

Because SXSW is one of the most important events of the year for launching digital products that are not games? Lots of regulars of this website (myself included) are part of product launches at SXSW.

It's also a diversity-related story, which has been becoming an increasingly important topic for HN.

[jerrycabbage]

Yes, but there is no real story yet. People do legitimately become detained for things. It sucks, but thats what happens when you show up to demonstrations etc which the author aludes to previous in his twitter feed, but not the one quoted in this message. It is Travis County, the liberal mecca of Texas. People are not being oppressed for their views there. He did something to have the spitmask put on him.

[KirinDave]

Guilty until proven innocent, I see.

> It is Travis County, the liberal mecca of Texas.

There are lots of liberals who act in racist ways.

[jerrycabbage]

Dude looked white to me. Not sure what your point here would be.

[kennywinker]

There have been a number of mass shootings in Austin, with many fatalities. A quick google search will find details. Also, safe is an arbitrary thing.

[jerrycabbage]

If you were to reference the anti-gun propaganda which went over mass shootings in recent history, Austin is distinctly lacking for a city of its size. Yes, there have been shootings. Charles Whitman is the famous one.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Also, safe is an arbitrary thing.

What does that even mean?

If you're saying that dividing cities into "safe" and "not safe" requires an arbitrary threshold, then yes, it's arbitrary where you set the threshold. But even then, you can non-arbitrarily label cities as "safer" and "less safe" when compared to each other.

But if you mean that the concept of "safe" is arbitrary: Safe means that there's a lower chance (not zero!) that I'll be on the receiving end of crime. Less chance that I'll be put in the hospital (or in the ground) or have my stuff stolen. That translates into less worry and less attention that I have to pay to keeping myself safe. (It does not mean that I can pay no attention!) That "less worry" and "less chance of being injured or killed" are not arbitrary. They make a real, concrete difference in my life.

[kennywinker]

I was more hinting at the idea that places that are "safe" for one group of people (often white middle-class people) are incredibly unsafe for other groups of people.

If safe/unsafe is dependant on who you are, then calling a place "safe" or even "safer" needs lots of provisos.

Anyway, bad choice of words. In retrospect "safe is a relative thing" gets closer to what I mean.

[AnimalMuppet]

Ah. I hadn't thought about who is safe. Good point.

And I agree that "safe is a relative thing".