I'm saying "politically correct" meaning how people don't ever want to admit they treat any group differently, whether it be due to wealth, status, race, etc. Weedy trying to say the intentions of my post was to say all wealthy should stay away from all poor is simplistic and ridiculous. My point is the vast majority of people make decisions for themselves and their families all the time about which people or places to either stay away from or avoid, based on how safe they may feel. Anyone who has lived in the inner city, in some of the less-attractive areas, understands this. There's a certain element who will always look to rob and steal whenever the opportunity arises, and Taylor unknowingly made his own home a target of some of these individuals. His father has pretty much said the same thing, referring to the "thugs" who were associating with his half-sister. Just because Taylor grew up in such an environment doesn't mean he's still considered part of it now. He probably was resented, even among former "friends" because he achieved success. That likely has something to do with what Antrelle Rolle said about him (Taylor) now being scared to live in Miami.
The term "politically correct" adds more heat than light, dyams. Too many people have used it to mean too many things, for it to be of any use in communication any more. All it's useful for is as a pejorative. There's no doubt that people make decisions based on their perception of how unsafe a situation is -- the key word there, however, is "perception". Your beliefs and conclusions come from your perception, and to state them as universal is just not correct. Furthermore, because we're dealing in the medium of the internet, we are dealing in labels rather than actual experiences. You use the phrases "inner city", "less-attractive areas", "certain element", etc., and if you've actually had that experience yourself, you have certain specifics that you attach to those phrases. Others who have also had the "inner city" or "less-attractive area" experience see it differently. It's not to say that you're wrong or that they're right or vice versa, but a)different people see different things in the same situation, and b)the same label can be applied to two very different situations, one dangerous, the other not. I think Weedy has a point, not so much about your intentions, but I think he was trying to ask where the line gets drawn. The majority of people who live in a high-crime area aren't there because they love living in a high-crime area -- they're there because they lack options. That's what happens to poor people -- they don't get their pick of the nice neighborhoods. So, while you're not saying avoid all poor people, I wonder where in today's reality you're going to find honest, hard-working, decent poor people who aren't living in an area that also includes some no-goods. I don't think you are -- and given that that is the case, and that you are "mak[ing] decisions...all the time about which people or places to either stay away from or avoid", I wonder if this approach doesn't effectively add up to "avoid all poor people".
My point is the vast majority of people make decisions for themselves and their families all the time about which people or places to either stay away from or avoid, based on how safe they may feel. Anyone who has lived in the inner city, in some of the less-attractive areas, understands this. There's a certain element who will always look to rob and steal whenever the opportunity arises, and Taylor unknowingly made his own home a target of some of these individuals. And my point is that the idea that you can insulate yourself from criminals by selective contact, beyond the risk of alienating yourself from the only people who probably actually like you for you, is a false security. You cannot safeguard yourself that way. You can't. Not really. Not when you're a famous, rich person. You think that Jennifer Aniston runs around with security personnel because she knew some bad people back in the day? No - she's rich and famous. Celebrity robberies are not uncommon at all. Neither are celebrity break-ins. Neither is casing a joint (as one could suggest with the evidence that one of the accused had been there prior). Taylor needed a panic alarm, a dog, or other permiter sercurity measures. I mean, I look at the list of celebrities who have risen from the ghetto and I'm not looking at a who's who of high profile vicitims of robbery, murder and violent deaths. Some were victims, sure - but so are high profile people from all walks. And we need to possibly recognize that we, from what I can glean, justify his death easier because it makes sense that rich black athelete would know criminals. I'm not trying to be naive, here. As soon as Taylor saw the knife in the bedroom he should have upped the security 1000%. Much the way I'm sure many other rich and famous people would. But as a black man, he appears to be subject to some additional responsibility in his murder that I think is a collection of half-truths, some partial truths, but certainly says more about us (whitey) than anything to do with his case.
