Sorry if it came across that way, wasn't my intent.

I live in the city, and travel through all parts -- including the less desirable parts. I ride down Market every day. I go to the central library at Civic Center. I do bike loops through Candlestick. I frequent bars in the Tenderloin.

So no, it's not just because I can avoid "crime-ridden areas". It's because I don't find those areas fundamentally unsafe.

It seems to me like a lot of the people claiming to feel unsafe are equally affluent.

Thanks for calling out privilege, but I think we should assume good faith. I don't think they were trying to say that everything is good, they're just saying the narrative isn't as simple as the media is making it look.

Depends on what media you're reading I suppose. Quite a lot of it paints SF is a city of haves and have-nots which fits nicely into the above poster's experience.

I've lived in a lot of places with, in many states, in many countries, all with different population densities and economic diversity... and that statement holds true for all of them.

One of these days the sheer weight and remaining shelter of class consciousness will break through the cognitive dissonance. One of these days.

Affluence is not always privilege. It can be hard earned.

> Affluence is not always privilege. It can be hard earned.

But once you're affluent, you're almost by definition privileged, surely?

My Google results defined it as follows:

“ A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis”