Definitely off-topic (but hey news is slow around here).

If you live in the Bay Area (or cali) then you know about Stow, the guy who was beaten up at a Dodgers game and is now looking at a life of disability.

Today, I read about a guy who was at Bay-to-Breakers and got into a fist fight. He got punched, hit his head on the pavement and they just took him off of life support.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/11/BAMS1P02OA.DTL&tsp=1

Fist fights are no new thing. Having lived above Telegraph & Durant, I regularly heard fights coming out of Kips.

I'm not sure if I have a point or a question other than I think it's all very unfortunate that such trivial arguments lead to deaths. I suppose these are the exceptions and most fist fights don't end in people dying.

One thing I wonder is whether American society is more or less violent today than it was in the past. I also think about how this kind of violence happens at different socioeconomic levels.

Reminds me of Dave Chappelle's When keeping it real goes too far

There are a lot more people now, and a lot more coverage.

Stow would not have been news even a few years ago, and if he was, it would have been back page.



OTOH, seems more people are willing to scuffle over trivial things now...

Personally, I blame sites like YouTube for making everyone feel like they are a brawler. Also, a bad economy flips the switch in people to protect what they have (including affiliation to thinks like sports teams). Everyone is a tough guy now.

Bear_Territory;841899421 said:

---

keeping it real

---

Phantomfan;841899425 said:

---

There are a lot more people now, and a lot more coverage.

Stow would not have been news even a few years ago, and if he was, it would have been back page.



OTOH, seems more people are willing to scuffle over trivial things now...

Personally, I blame sites like YouTube for making everyone feel like they are a brawler. Also, a bad economy flips the switch in people to protect what they have (including affiliation to thinks like sports teams). Everyone is a tough guy now.

---

All of the above is true. And, nothing will change: we have the "violence" DNA in our national character and we are all armed to the teeth. It has always "seemed" to me that a lot of folks always have to have "an enemy." For example, and in a macro-sense, if we don't have a hot or cold war going on somewhere, then the militia movement re-surfaces throughout the land.

We could go in many directions, but since this is a sports forum, just contemplate the violence inherent in all our major sports....

Cutting to the chase, it is just the way things are in America; always will be... Or something like that....

freshfunk;841899408 said:

---

Definitely off-topic (but hey news is slow around here).

If you live in the Bay Area (or cali) then you know about Stow, the guy who was beaten up at a Dodgers game and is now looking at a life of disability.

Today, I read about a guy who was at Bay-to-Breakers and got into a fist fight. He got punched, hit his head on the pavement and they just took him off of life support.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/11/BAMS1P02OA.DTL&tsp=1

Fist fights are no new thing. Having lived above Telegraph & Durant, I regularly heard fights coming out of Kips.

I'm not sure if I have a point or a question other than I think it's all very unfortunate that such trivial arguments lead to deaths. I suppose these are the exceptions and most fist fights don't end in people dying.

One thing I wonder is whether American society is more or less violent today than it was in the past. I also think about how this kind of violence happens at different socioeconomic levels.

---

Drinking, dressed in a green troll wig, and arguing with a dozen people. I believe that is not a recipe for a long life these days. The martial arts philosophy is to keep a low profile, don't antagonize anybody, and walk away from trouble. If trouble follows you, then defend yourself to the max. It seems like a lot of people get hurt choosing to mix it up and mouth off when they could have just shut up an walked away. Obviously coming to the assistance of others in need is a different issue.

Violence began ticking up in the 1970s and peaked in the early 90's when it began a downward trend. Violence is much less common in America now than it was 20 - 30 years ago.

This timeperiod of higher violence coincided with the teen / young adult phase of Generation X's lifespan. That would be my generation. We had issues. To generalize, you could say we had less parental supervision than we probably should have (latch key kids anyone?). We will be the most incarcerated generation in American history.

Of course, geography plays a large part in it. In my high school I saw fights almost every week. At Cal I rarely ever saw a fight.

Instant gratification world, shorter attention span thinking = reactionary, impatient people.

Take a reactionary impatient person, mix in a little alcohol or drugs and sprinkle on feelings of "disrespect" ==> leads to sucker punches / mayhem / injury / death.

I find that people who have the least to lose are most apt to take sporting events too seriously to the point of harassment, stupidity.

Violent sports, violent video games, and violent movies.

















:rollinglaugh:

dajo9;841899451 said:

---

.... In my high school I saw fights almost every week. At Cal I rarely ever saw a fight.

---

That's because at Cal combat is generally resticted to a battle of the wits.

It is [U]why[/U] we are football fans! -- A "safe haven" for gladiator style violence - love those hits! ...Want to protect your family and kids? Hungry? Starving? Crazy for your sect or religion? Kill it and display it! But the random-style, do-it-for-fun, or You Tube style of violence is not new, it just makes the various media these days. I once took a football aptitude test (yes, they gave that to us in college in the 70s, Stanford-Binet)..and I came out as "angry and violent." It's here to stay - Ever feel like beating the sh*t out of someone? I do all the time..but I have enough to draw back everytime..Boxing anyone? :p Like the sound of those Zack Follet tackles??

bearister;841899446 said:

---

Drinking, dressed in a green troll wig, and arguing with a dozen people. I believe that is not a recipe for a long life these days. The martial arts philosophy is to keep a low profile, don't antagonize anybody, and walk away from trouble. If trouble follows you, then defend yourself to the max. It seems like a lot of people get hurt choosing to mix it up and mouth off when they could have just shut up an walked away. Obviously coming to the assistance of others in need is a different issue.

---

Or maybe it's just alcohol. In Stow's case the guys were inebriated and/or high.

In this case, probably the same although they've said alcohol is banned during B2B. It doesn't seem to be harshly enforced.

Same thing with Halloween in the Castro. Too much violence from drunk people and they just cancel the whole thing.

In general there seems to be more poor behavior and random/excess violence - and I have to think a lot of the perps of this stuff come from less than ideal homes (with less than ideal upbringings).

You can even see it in all the post-game threads on BI about experiences with [insert school here]'s fans.

Which I don't get. I always thought my job #1 when I watch Cal at home or on the road is to root for Cal and have fun, not to be some kind of vigilante enforcer dude.

freshfunk;841899408 said:

---

Definitely off-topic (but hey news is slow around here).

If you live in the Bay Area (or cali) then you know about Stow, the guy who was beaten up at a Dodgers game and is now looking at a life of disability.

Today, I read about a guy who was at Bay-to-Breakers and got into a fist fight. He got punched, hit his head on the pavement and they just took him off of life support.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/11/BAMS1P02OA.DTL&tsp=1

Fist fights are no new thing. Having lived above Telegraph & Durant, I regularly heard fights coming out of Kips.

I'm not sure if I have a point or a question other than I think it's all very unfortunate that such trivial arguments lead to deaths. I suppose these are the exceptions and most fist fights don't end in people dying.

One thing I wonder is whether American society is more or less violent today than it was in the past. I also think about how this kind of violence happens at different socioeconomic levels.

---

Ten years ago, in response to a certain poster's comments about the decline of civility (hi, David!), I wrote something that may have been the longest post in Cyberbears history (OTB counted the words, or characters, or something). I refuted his assertion that civility was declining, and I argued that what was happening was that higher population and greater urban concentration were creating more opportunities for friction between people, and that the onset of the information revolution was making it possible for people to know about problems that they never would have heard about before. We are also psychologically programmed to make more out of the few events of friction that we see than the countless smooth interactions that we see, because the friction is the stuff that can escalate to potentially deadly levels.*

We're probably much less violent than we used to be, even fifty or a hundred years ago. But there are more of us, concentrated in places where we can rub each other the wrong way, and news media can report bad stuff that happens hundred and thousands of miles away instead of merely reporting the local stuff that we would have heard about a few generations ago. So the perception is that things are getting worse, even though the numbers would probably say otherwise.




* I recently reread Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel, and I recall a passage where he talked about the leading cause of death in tribal communities in New Guinea was killing, both arising from arguments over something and then continuing with revenge and vendetta killings. The point was, I think, that when societies don't have a central authority with law enforcement capabilities, people tend to kill each other at alarming rates when left to settle matters for themselves.

I blame Reagan.

Ive been to some shady cities in my life...Johannesburg, Bangkok, Addis Ababa and I have never been more scared in any of those places than I was walking at night in Baltimore.

CALigulabob;841899576 said:

---

Ive been to some shady cities in my life...Johannesburg, Bangkok, Addis Ababa and I have never been more scared in any of those places than I was walking at night in Baltimore.

---

Bangkok isn't that shady.

Johannesburg, on the other hand... :eek:

Just saw a documentary that gave solid evidence to certain brain scan patterns and genetic makeups common to serial killers, who lacked conscience and showed a propensity toward aggression and ruthlessness. Widespread tests showed that, outside of maximum security prisons, the highest incidence of the serial killer brain scans and genes appeared among the CEOs, presidents and vice presidents of large corporations. Makes a lot of sense. As I recall, the title of the TV documentary was something like "Are you good or bad?"

It's a primal instinct. Only monitored by you know, rules, laws, moral codes, religion and regulated today, by prisons! Is war non-violent? How about when you spank your two year old? Want the bull to win in a bullfight? Hockey doesn't rely on it..nor does boxing! Anyone try to break up a high school fight, between girls? We love it! More Mortal Combat! Bambi vs Godzilla! yay! Alcohol is a bullsh*t alibi for violence..the courts threw that one out a long time ago. Our high school coach wasn't kidding when he told us to make the other team's quarterback "p*ss blood!"

72CalBear;841899604 said:

---

Want the bull to win in a bullfight?

---

Actually, yes.

But I'm not sure if that goes with or against your argument.

The perception that we are living in more violent times and that people are more violent is interesting given that the FBI reports that violent crimes are down 4% in 2011. They do show murder up in towns where the population is 25,000 or less. The perception of more violence may be due to the access of information and the reporting of these recent cases being readily available to the public that creates the perception of more violence.

I suppose one can look at the statistics for violent crime and make the argument that it's down. I've seen the Tipping Point.

Also one could hypothesize that the availability and accessibility of media is up and then conclude that it feels like it's more simply because of that.

I think what bothers me about Stow and this other case is the senseless part of it. Not that other crime has more purpose but I'd say crime is more understandable when there's a clearer motive and is commensurate with that motive (if that makes sense).

For example:
* You killed my friend so I will kill you.
* You robbed me so I'll shoot you.
* You made fun of me so I'll beat you up.

But in these cases it's like:
* You taunted me, now you will die.

Of course murder wasn't the intention (probably). But the causes seem so trivial.

What would be more of a telling metric in regards to this is the number of serious altercations that occurred spontaneously (that is, without prior motive or between people who don't know each other).

Also, these kind of altercations are something I'd more expect hanging out in North Beach on a Saturday night where everyone's drunk and it's totally crowded and testosterone is flooding the air. But ball games and B2B are family events.

CALigulabob;841899576 said:

---

Ive been to some shady cities in my life...Johannesburg, Bangkok, Addis Ababa and I have never been more scared in any of those places than I was walking at night in Baltimore.

---

It sounds like you may have crossed paths with Omar Little.

freshfunk;841899817 said:

---

I suppose one can look at the statistics for violent crime and make the argument that it's down. I've seen the Tipping Point.

Also one could hypothesize that the availability and accessibility of media is up and then conclude that it feels like it's more simply because of that.

I think what bothers me about Stow and this other case is the senseless part of it. Not that other crime has more purpose but I'd say crime is more understandable when there's a clearer motive and is commensurate with that motive (if that makes sense).

For example:
* You killed my friend so I will kill you.
* You robbed me so I'll shoot you.
* You made fun of me so I'll beat you up.

But in these cases it's like:
* You taunted me, now you will die.

Of course murder wasn't the intention (probably). But the causes seem so trivial.

What would be more of a telling metric in regards to this is the number of serious altercations that occurred spontaneously (that is, without prior motive or between people who don't know each other).

Also, these kind of altercations are something I'd more expect hanging out in North Beach on a Saturday night where everyone's drunk and it's totally crowded and testosterone is flooding the air. But ball games and B2B are family events.

---

The 1980s was the era of people being sent to the hospital for accidentally stepping on somebodies shoes. Violent crime is down now from 20 years ago no matter how you slice it.

dajo9;841899894 said:

---

The 1980s was the era of people being sent to the hospital for accidentally stepping on somebodies shoes. Violent crime is down now from 20 years ago no matter how you slice it.

---

Dajo, careful with those metaphors. Statistics are skewed every day, if not outright made up, even by the FBI. It's hard to just accept assertions such as yours, when the empirical evidence seems quite the opposite. The full quote is, "No matter how you slice it, it's still baloney."

I rather think that we don't want there to be violent crime, especially because of where it seems to be concentrated, therefore we will find a way for there not to be. To use another metaphor, it's an "emporer's new clothes" situation.

Rushinbear;841900016 said:

---

Dajo, careful with those metaphors. Statistics are skewed every day, if not outright made up, even by the FBI. It's hard to just accept assertions such as yours, when the empirical evidence seems quite the opposite. The full quote is, "No matter how you slice it, it's still baloney."

I rather think that we don't want there to be violent crime, especially because of where it seems to be concentrated, therefore we will find a way for there not to be. To use another metaphor, it's an "emporer's new clothes" situation.

---

It's always interesting to me how quick people are to accuse stats of being manipulated (skewed). No, your collection of anecdotal biases are more likely to be skewed than the stats. That's why the stats are useful. But here's my anecdotal bias - I grew up in San Bernardino, CA. It has one of the highest crime rates in the state and country. I saw plenty of useless, senseless beatings as a youth. There is still a crime problem there but nobody who lived through the 80's and 90's there would contend that it is as bad now. As a relative of mine said, "the whole flavor of life changed" (she was referring to feeling more safe).

dajo9;841900018 said:

---

It's always interesting to me how quick people are to accuse stats of being manipulated (skewed). No, your collection of anecdotal biases are more likely to be skewed than the stats. That's why the stats are useful. But here's my anecdotal bias - I grew up in San Bernardino, CA. It has one of the highest crime rates in the state and country. I saw plenty of useless, senseless beatings as a youth. There is still a crime problem there but nobody who lived through the 80's and 90's there would contend that it is as bad now. As a relative of mine said, "the whole flavor of life changed" (she was referring to feeling more safe).

---

I'm not quick to accuse stats of being manipulated. I've been saying that for decades as I've seen one interest group after another, on all sides, find ways to define the question after they've found a data set that supports them. As someone once said, "everyone's got their numbers."

But, you are correct that stats can be a rational offset to the knee jerk responses to events seen with ones own eyes. It's just that it's hard to keep those "rational" offsetting statistics in mind when you see day after day of useless, senseless killings reported around the country.

freshfunk;841899817 said:

---

But in these cases it's like:
* You taunted me, now you will die.

---

These cases is more like "You disrespected me by supporting your team" as Stow and co did not taunt anyone.

And that has been going on for a long time. No doubt that those guys are the same turds that target people for the color of their hat outside of ball games, today and in the '80s and '90s.



The more I think about it, the more I think that it is because there are more security cams running, youtube, blogs and 24 hour news...