SamuelRSmith said:
Such places don't exist anywhere on the globe, except perhaps straight up warzones.
I've been through some of the shadier parts of Harlem and everything went fine, but let's not pretend that by going through there I did not accept an elevated risk of crime, and if I were to continually navigate that part of town my likelihood of being a victim would be much higher than if I chose to be in Chelsea. Here's the problem, though. You used a definition of no-go zone which is not the definition. "A "no-go area" (or "no-go zone") is an area that has a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area It does not mean that going into the area warrants immediate attack, that's you putting your own definition onto the word. |
Except that is not how it is portraid to the public and why it sparked such a controversy.
