Why was New York so grimy and dangerous 30 years ago?
>>17281346It was simply the lingering effects of 70s malaise and rising drug use. Combine that with NYC being a hot spot for organized crime.
>>17281346The city was legit bankrupt by the 70s.Lead pipes.Oil shock.It was kino doe.
it wasnt. this time 30 years ago, giuliani’s “civic cleanup” was well underway. did you mean to say 40 years ago?t. 4th generation new yorker (it sucks)
>>17281346Blacksnext question
>>17281360Why does it suck? What did Giuliani do?
>>1728135270s-90s New York was pure misery kino
>>17281346>30 years agoNew York was pretty faggified and full of hipsters by the mid 90s. You mean the 70s-early 80s.
>>17281346It still is, it's just isn't hell on earth anymore.
>>17281397same murder rate in 1974 as 1994
>>17281346Liberals ran it into the ground. It took the tough on crime administrations of Guiliani and Bloomberg to clean it up.
New York City was safer when the mob ran the show but they got rid of the mob in favor of black and latino gangs
>>17281419This movies dumb because straight people hardly transmit AIDS to one another. AIDS mostly spreads from anal (gays) and needles (junkies).
>>17281446>>17281457Bisexuals transmitted it to hets.You are literally a Filipino manlet living on welfare in California that gets bullied by niggers out of his rice bowl.
>>17281475AIDS has a minuscule transmission rate from straight sex. Astronomically low.It’s a disease for fags and junkies.
>>17281387>Why does it suck?brown people and transplants who worship brown people >What did Giuliani do?put the brownoids in their place, bloomberg was fine too, deblasio was the most incompetent retard imaginable, current burghmaster nigger is also very bad but may be turning babyface now
>>17281442It was fine by 1994. Pic related is from 1992. Also I was born here in the 80s and lived here in the 90s. I am telling you it was astronomically better by the mid 90s than the previous decades. You are the same kind of person who says the city is fine now cause the statistics say so (its not, its very bad)
Democrat socialists sold out most major cities at the turn of the century to the ethnic mobs which ran rackets on entertainment and were more rich than the country itself who installed corrupt politicians that used their public positions to write blank checks for their own benefit under the guise of "new deal spending" which sucked the life out of the cities for the next 50-60 years causing massive amounts of working class white flight from the cities to suburbs. The flight of the tax base and the influx of negroes and other undesirables cased the government and the mob to collapse as the ethnic mobs relied on preying on their own ethnicity which were now fleeing to the suburbs and being replaced by brown people. This large influx of poor people and the flight of the working class whites saw most of the living spaces in the city to fall into dilapidation and many landlords set their buildings on fire and fled the city as it was no longer profitable
>>17281346Would NYC be orderly and clean like a megasized Munich, Edinburgh or Utrecht if it had been kept majority Anglo-Dutch forever?
>>17281670they'd become decadent modernoids eventually
>>17281693yeah but modern day Munich and Amsterdam are still safe, clean and well kept cities though
>>17281670>would it be cleaner if it was white peopleNo shit
>>17281763Glasgow and Athens are predominantly white but filthy Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong are non-white but clean. These things vary. White Americans tend to be quite filthy in general, by Central and Northern European's standards.
>>17281824No one’s arguing East Asians are the minorities shitting up western cities
>>17281706Amsterdam is a filthy city of vice and organized crime.
>>17281457>AIDS mostly spreads from anal (gays)>>17281494Straight men & women would do anal, Anon. Even if nobody said anything.
>>17281847>Straight men & women would do anaMaybe the porn sick ones
>>17281590>landlords set their buildings on fire and fled the city as it was no longer profitableFucking boomers...
>>17281706What's with this obsession in some people that: cleanliness = safe?Where the fuck do you useless amoebas come from with this thinking?
>>17281851Nope. People knew how to do anal sex for a long time, including the straight people.
>>17281866Clean and safe were listed separately. Cleanliness is just a nice thing to have as it improves quality of life directly (not stepping in literal dogpoo everywhere, less rats in the subway, no bad smells, etc.) and it's a great barometer for the general educational level and sense of decorum which the population possess.
Kino setting for movies.
>>17281861To be fair the buildings were untenable and the city was jacking up property taxes to the point that it was draining their bank accounts so instead of dumping even more money into the city they committed insurance fraud and burned their empty buildings down. It's smart
>>17281494For men maybe. It's still not safe. For women it's a major risk.
drugs, middle class people moving to the 'burbs and whole neighborhoods crumbling and going unpoliced.. also desegregation, most muggings were by gangs of black youth who would become the norm in cities across America, authorities didn't know quite how to deal with it, the film "warriors" was based on a book about all these black gangs, not a multicultural mix of hippies
>>17281824Glasgow doesn't count because it's full of irish. All the major uk cities with large irish diaspora are inexcusable shitholes. Liverpool, east london, manchester, glasgow, Birmingham. I don't know why but it's very clearly observable. probably because they are more likely to be alcoholics, junkies or general scum.
>>17281346In the 1990s? The US and West in general saw violent crime rates peak in the early 90s.
>>17281879>We have Wall Street and its negative impacts against our interests >At least they have clean roads
>>17282061I don't follow your logic here. What does Wall Street have to do with any of this? NYC is explicitly NOT a clean city so I don't know what you mean by "at least they have clean roads" either
>>17281879Wait, but you can absolutely have cleanliness in a city full of crime & murderers.Again, how is that an indication of “better”? “Al Capone murdered some people but at least he dresses up as Santa for the needy kids.”
>>17282061>We have a corrupt mayor in our town >He's elected solely for keeping the shit out of the streetsBetter? Now answer my question, where do you amoebas come from with this dictum of: cleanliness = safe, safety?
>>17282063>>17282079
>>17281346soft of crime democratic policies. Reminder that it wasnt until NYC reached its breaking point and elected a Republican mayor out of spite that things changed. Turns out arresting criminals and racial profiling works. From there, the streets are safe and people with money like living there, and also like starting up businesses.
>>17282064I'm saying it would be nice to have both. I'd also like to be strong *and* attractive; being strong doesn't necessarily make you attractive. Why the fuck are you even getting mad about this, who in their right minds does NOT want a cleaner city anyway?
>>17282093>the streets are safe and people with money like living there, and also like starting up businessesused to be, not anymore
>>17282151If a “clean” city prerequisites organized crime, respectively collar crime, then I don't want it.
>>17282189When the fuck did I say it requires that? Again, what the hell are you going on about dude
>>17282093"Soft on crime" is an emotional buzzword referring to imaginary positions.
>>17282093The united states puts more people into prison than Russia under stalin,
>>17283378I crunched the numbers at one point. On the national level we're lower than the USSR rate wise. Some states are similar, like certain Southern states. One or two states are actually similar to the other developed countries.
>>17281568I grew up in the 90s in NYC too, and yeah, it was nice.Safe, relatively affordable, lots of things to do.
