Salon Article - Gentrification / Racism / White Supremacy (1 Viewer)

[johnjohn]

White people may be targeted in black neighborhoods , not by the majority, which are good people, but by the angry black people living in that area. All those black people hear in the media is how racist white people are and combine that with anger for whatever reason, why then wouldn't a white person be more likely to get attacked by said angry black person.

Now this thread is derailed.

Please reply to my post logically and lets keep the bullying out of it.

Thanks

Nobody is bullying you. That's about as logical as it's worthy.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbmUilQm58o explain that t hen. clearly the media feeding constant BS about white people being racist played a major part in that

Ok, it's either time to shed the schtick and reveal that you are some artisan designer living in Vermont, or explain why you think a cell video of a crazy student at FIU = the media.

I didn't say that the video represented the media I said thats the result of what happens when the media constantly try to make white people come off as constantly racist. Think George Zimmerman if you are having trouble understanding what im saying.

Guy isn't white but yet he was referred to as white constantly because it played into the medias agenda of labeling white people racist.

oh, and if you say he is white then Obama is white and we still haven't had a black president.

 

[humpback]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

What is this based on again?

 

[Clifford]

And where do those people whose families have lived in that neighborhood for generations go? I mean, sure, they probably got a fair price for their houses. But now they're nomads, culturally speaking.

Welcome to being white.

I don't know if this is shtick or if you really think that but elaborate more on what you mean instead of just throwing out things like that. Thanks.

J

What I mean is that white people have no culture. There's no culture in a neighborhood where I can bond with another white person over our similar ancestry. Maybe it's still like that in some Irish or Italian neighborhoods, but not anywhere I've ever lived. So as a white person I mainly shop for a neighborhood by what it provides rather than any sense of identity. Essentially, a nomad.

That's absurd.

Not really. Irish have a culture, Italians, Polish, etc. If you can trace it back to a country there is a culture. But there is no white culture because there is no common ancestry. Even in a purely 21st century sense I don't see any themes, music, or philosophy uniting white people.

Come to Louisiana. I promise there are still white people with a culture.

Cajun is not white culture. It's different, unique, and based on a shared history, just like the Italians, Polish, Irish, etc. I have zero in common with a Cajun dude other than the color of our skin, and likely a shared affinity for Cajun cuisine.

 

[Clifford]

White people may be targeted in black neighborhoods , not by the majority, which are good people, but by the angry black people living in that area. All those black people hear in the media is how racist white people are and combine that with anger for whatever reason, why then wouldn't a white person be more likely to get attacked by said angry black person.

Now this thread is derailed.

Please reply to my post logically and lets keep the bullying out of it.

Thanks

Nobody is bullying you. That's about as logical as it's worthy.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbmUilQm58o explain that t hen. clearly the media feeding constant BS about white people being racist played a major part in that

Ok, it's either time to shed the schtick and reveal that you are some artisan designer living in Vermont, or explain why you think a cell video of a crazy student at FIU = the media.

I didn't say that the video represented the media I said thats the result of what happens when the media constantly try to make white people come off as constantly racist. Think George Zimmerman if you are having trouble understanding what im saying.

Guy isn't white but yet he was referred to as white constantly because it played into the medias agenda of labeling white people racist.

oh, and if you say he is white then Obama is white and we still haven't had a black president.

Pretty sure George Zimmerman was labeled a racist for profiling, following, and ultimately killing an unarmed black teenager he assumed was a "f'ng punk". I agree the media labeled him a "white hispanic" and I won't contest that the media is pretty quick to cry racist. But I disagree that there is a concerted effort to brand white people as racist.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I think there has been a growing acceptance that white people are generally racist, at least white conservatives. Steve Israel was on Candy Crowley's show this weekend and when she asked him if his republican counterparts were racist, he said "not all of them". Nobody really batted an eye about that.

The fact that the question was even asked shows what the impression is to some people about almost half the country.

 

[Da Guru]

White people may be targeted in black neighborhoods , not by the majority, which are good people, but by the angry black people living in that area. All those black people hear in the media is how racist white people are and combine that with anger for whatever reason, why then wouldn't a white person be more likely to get attacked by said angry black person.

Now this thread is derailed.

Please reply to my post logically and lets keep the bullying out of it.

Thanks

Nobody is bullying you. That's about as logical as it's worthy.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbmUilQm58o explain that t hen. clearly the media feeding constant BS about white people being racist played a major part in that

Ok, it's either time to shed the schtick and reveal that you are some artisan designer living in Vermont, or explain why you think a cell video of a crazy student at FIU = the media.

I didn't say that the video represented the media I said thats the result of what happens when the media constantly try to make white people come off as constantly racist. Think George Zimmerman if you are having trouble understanding what im saying.

Guy isn't white but yet he was referred to as white constantly because it played into the medias agenda of labeling white people racist.

oh, and if you say he is white then Obama is white and we still haven't had a black president.

Well you are half right..or as Elmer Fudd would say "Half White"

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think there has been a growing acceptance that white people are generally racist, at least white conservatives. Steve Israel was on Candy Crowley's show this weekend and when she asked him if his republican counterparts were racist, he said "not all of them". Nobody really batted an eye about that.

The fact that the question was even asked shows what the impression is to some people about almost half the country.

I think the question and the pass on the answer reflects more on Crowley's lack of objectivity and CNN's editorial stance. That's not professionaly journalistism IMO, that's the stuff of punditry and message boards.

 

[Henry Ford]

And where do those people whose families have lived in that neighborhood for generations go? I mean, sure, they probably got a fair price for their houses. But now they're nomads, culturally speaking.

Welcome to being white.

I don't know if this is shtick or if you really think that but elaborate more on what you mean instead of just throwing out things like that. Thanks.

J

What I mean is that white people have no culture. There's no culture in a neighborhood where I can bond with another white person over our similar ancestry. Maybe it's still like that in some Irish or Italian neighborhoods, but not anywhere I've ever lived. So as a white person I mainly shop for a neighborhood by what it provides rather than any sense of identity. Essentially, a nomad.

That's absurd.

Not really. Irish have a culture, Italians, Polish, etc. If you can trace it back to a country there is a culture. But there is no white culture because there is no common ancestry. Even in a purely 21st century sense I don't see any themes, music, or philosophy uniting white people.

Come to Louisiana. I promise there are still white people with a culture.

Cajun is not white culture. It's different, unique, and based on a shared history, just like the Italians, Polish, Irish, etc. I have zero in common with a Cajun dude other than the color of our skin, and likely a shared affinity for Cajun cuisine.

I'm making a tongue-in-cheek reference to white people's attitudes toward race in the deep south.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

What is this based on again?

I don't know if the writer and tim are right. I just know that jon_mx's response didn't adequately rebut the assertion.

 

[jon_mx]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

What is this based on again?

I think because minorities stand out in minority neighborhoods like a sore thumb.

 

[jon_mx]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

What is this based on again?

I don't know if the writer and tim are right. I just know that jon_mx's response didn't adequately rebut the assertion.

You seriously believe the assertion in the article? I can provide better ancedotal evidence than the article provided. I had a white friend play poker in a not so nice neighborhood. His buddy told him to call before he got there so he could escort him inside. He said it was not safe for a white person to be in the neighborhood at night.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

What is this based on again?

I don't know if the writer and tim are right. I just know that jon_mx's response didn't adequately rebut the assertion.

You seriously believe the assertion in the article? I can provide better ancedotal evidence than the article provided. I had a white friend play poker in a not so nice neighborhood. His buddy told him to call before he got there so he could escort him inside. He said it was not safe for a white person to be in the neighborhood at night.

Excellent work as always, jon_mx.

 

[jon_mx]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

What is this based on again?

I don't know if the writer and tim are right. I just know that jon_mx's response didn't adequately rebut the assertion.

You seriously believe the assertion in the article? I can provide better ancedotal evidence than the article provided. I had a white friend play poker in a not so nice neighborhood. His buddy told him to call before he got there so he could escort him inside. He said it was not safe for a white person to be in the neighborhood at night.

Excellent work as always, jon_mx.

Oh boy, are we being a bit anal. Ok...You seriously give the asserion in the article any merit.

 

[Clifford]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

What is this based on again?

I don't know if the writer and tim are right. I just know that jon_mx's response didn't adequately rebut the assertion.

You seriously believe the assertion in the article? I can provide better ancedotal evidence than the article provided. I had a white friend play poker in a not so nice neighborhood. His buddy told him to call before he got there so he could escort him inside. He said it was not safe for a white person to be in the neighborhood at night.

I could add a few to this. I can't believe anyone would actually take that at face value. Dude probably looked at crime stats and saw that more black people are murdered in ghettos and took that to mean that white people are safer there than minorities. Like I said, a very biased, porrly written article that does more to stifle debate than create it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

What is this based on again?

I don't know if the writer and tim are right. I just know that jon_mx's response didn't adequately rebut the assertion.

You seriously believe the assertion in the article? I can provide better ancedotal evidence than the article provided. I had a white friend play poker in a not so nice neighborhood. His buddy told him to call before he got there so he could escort him inside. He said it was not safe for a white person to be in the neighborhood at night.

Excellent work as always, jon_mx.

Oh boy, are we being a bit anal. Ok...You seriously give the asserion in the article any merit.

 

[jon_mx]

I could add a few to this. I can't believe anyone would actually take that at face value. Dude probably looked at crime stats and saw that more black people are murdered in ghettos and took that to mean that white people are safer there than minorities. Like I said, a very biased, porrly written article that does more to stifle debate than create it.

That is the logic Tim uses. This guy tried to explain in his years of experience as a medic in Williamsburg, he only saw one victim of black on white crime. How can you argue with that rock solid proof?

 

[jon_mx]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

What is this based on again?

I don't know if the writer and tim are right. I just know that jon_mx's response didn't adequately rebut the assertion.

You seriously believe the assertion in the article? I can provide better ancedotal evidence than the article provided. I had a white friend play poker in a not so nice neighborhood. His buddy told him to call before he got there so he could escort him inside. He said it was not safe for a white person to be in the neighborhood at night.

Excellent work as always, jon_mx.

Oh boy, are we being a bit anal. Ok...You seriously give the asserion in the article any merit.

I am missing your point then. The article gives a baseless assertion, Tim responds thinking it was a great point again giving no evidence or logic, and it is up to me to disprove the point which is obviously false by anyone who is grounded in reality?

 

[humpback]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

What is this based on again?

I don't know if the writer and tim are right. I just know that jon_mx's response didn't adequately rebut the assertion.

Gotcha, although that's the case with the majority of posts (I did ask Tim earlier what he was basing it on, just curious).

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

What is this based on again?

I don't know if the writer and tim are right. I just know that jon_mx's response didn't adequately rebut the assertion.

You seriously believe the assertion in the article? I can provide better ancedotal evidence than the article provided. I had a white friend play poker in a not so nice neighborhood. His buddy told him to call before he got there so he could escort him inside. He said it was not safe for a white person to be in the neighborhood at night.

Excellent work as always, jon_mx.

Oh boy, are we being a bit anal. Ok...You seriously give the asserion in the article any merit.

I am missing your point then. The article gives a baseless assertion, Tim responds thinking it was a great point again giving no evidence or logic, and it is up to me to disprove the point which is obviously false by anyone who is grounded in reality?

You weren't responding to Tim. You responded to fatguy, who said clear as day that he didn't know if the assertion is correct, by challenging why he thought the assertion was correct. It's a harmless reading comprehension error, but it kind of makes it obvious that you're more interested in a fight than in listening to what other people actually say. Which you then confirm in this post here with a statement like "the point which is obviously false by anyone who is grounded in reality"

 

[jon_mx]

You weren't responding to Tim. You responded to fatguy, who said clear as day that he didn't know if the assertion is correct, by challenging why he thought the assertion was correct. It's a harmless reading comprehension error, but it kind of makes it obvious that you're more interested in a fight than in listening to what other people actually say. Which you then confirm in this post here with a statement like "the point which is obviously false by anyone who is grounded in reality"

I was not trying to start a fight. I understood fatguy's point. I just found it odd that the burdon of proof was on me to disprove an unproven point, especially to a point which is contrary to most everyone's experience.

 

[Henry Ford]

You weren't responding to Tim. You responded to fatguy, who said clear as day that he didn't know if the assertion is correct, by challenging why he thought the assertion was correct. It's a harmless reading comprehension error, but it kind of makes it obvious that you're more interested in a fight than in listening to what other people actually say. Which you then confirm in this post here with a statement like "the point which is obviously false by anyone who is grounded in reality"

I was not trying to start a fight. I understood fatguy's point. I just found it odd that the burdon of proof was on me to disprove an unproven point, especially to a point which is contrary to most everyone's experience.

Got to agree here on some level. Pretty hard to prove a negative where the positive doesn't have any stated proof or basis to attack.

 

[RCon]

You weren't responding to Tim. You responded to fatguy, who said clear as day that he didn't know if the assertion is correct, by challenging why he thought the assertion was correct. It's a harmless reading comprehension error, but it kind of makes it obvious that you're more interested in a fight than in listening to what other people actually say. Which you then confirm in this post here with a statement like "the point which is obviously false by anyone who is grounded in reality"

I was not trying to start a fight. I understood fatguy's point. I just found it odd that the burdon of proof was on me to disprove an unproven point, especially to a point which is contrary to most everyone's experience.

No one said the burden of proof was on you. However, when you disputed the original assertion via anecdote (without actual proof), fatguy was rightly calling you out just as several others had previously done to the author of the article and timschochet re: their assertions.

 

[Clifford]

I could add a few to this. I can't believe anyone would actually take that at face value. Dude probably looked at crime stats and saw that more black people are murdered in ghettos and took that to mean that white people are safer there than minorities. Like I said, a very biased, porrly written article that does more to stifle debate than create it.

That is the logic Tim uses. This guy tried to explain in his years of experience as a medic in Williamsburg, he only saw one victim of black on white crime. How can you argue with that rock solid proof?

I think you can basically say that the author has no proof and used his own experience in place of easily available statistics. A hallmark of lazy, poor writing. But I don't think there's any point delving further into the many baseless claims the author makes, which are obviously driven by an agenda close to the author's heart, that gentrification is basically a race war pitting rich, well-connected whites against minorities in some sort of expansionist land grab.

It's the logic that the writer uses. We all know Tim is not the most skeptical person. He believes politicians. He often states things that seem completely nonsensical for a grown man to believe, and then quickly changes his positions. I think it's not so much logic, it's just that Tim is very open to new ideas, really any ideas. He accepts them fairly readily with the mindset that he will change his position when presented with evidence that conflicts with them. Basically instead of using skepticism as a filter at the beginning, he uses facts to check ideas after he takes them in.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You weren't responding to Tim. You responded to fatguy, who said clear as day that he didn't know if the assertion is correct, by challenging why he thought the assertion was correct. It's a harmless reading comprehension error, but it kind of makes it obvious that you're more interested in a fight than in listening to what other people actually say. Which you then confirm in this post here with a statement like "the point which is obviously false by anyone who is grounded in reality"

I was not trying to start a fight. I understood fatguy's point. I just found it odd that the burdon of proof was on me to disprove an unproven point, especially to a point which is contrary to most everyone's experience.

Got to agree here on some level. Pretty hard to prove a negative where the positive doesn't have any stated proof or basis to attack.

Whether the statement was true or nor or who should have the burden of proof wasn't really my point. But I'd say both the author and jon_mx are wrong for making conclusive statements without providing a shred of evidence to support them.

 

[jon_mx]

You weren't responding to Tim. You responded to fatguy, who said clear as day that he didn't know if the assertion is correct, by challenging why he thought the assertion was correct. It's a harmless reading comprehension error, but it kind of makes it obvious that you're more interested in a fight than in listening to what other people actually say. Which you then confirm in this post here with a statement like "the point which is obviously false by anyone who is grounded in reality"

I was not trying to start a fight. I understood fatguy's point. I just found it odd that the burdon of proof was on me to disprove an unproven point, especially to a point which is contrary to most everyone's experience.

No one said the burden of proof was on you. However, when you disputed the original assertion via anecdote (without actual proof), fatguy was rightly calling you out just as several others had previously done to the author of the article and timschochet re: their assertions.

That is fine. But my point was not one to which was to build a much larger generalized arguement condemning all white people for creating some mystical Insititutionalized Racism in some intellectual national news journal.

 

[Henry Ford]

You weren't responding to Tim. You responded to fatguy, who said clear as day that he didn't know if the assertion is correct, by challenging why he thought the assertion was correct. It's a harmless reading comprehension error, but it kind of makes it obvious that you're more interested in a fight than in listening to what other people actually say. Which you then confirm in this post here with a statement like "the point which is obviously false by anyone who is grounded in reality"

I was not trying to start a fight. I understood fatguy's point. I just found it odd that the burdon of proof was on me to disprove an unproven point, especially to a point which is contrary to most everyone's experience.

Got to agree here on some level. Pretty hard to prove a negative where the positive doesn't have any stated proof or basis to attack.

Whether the statement was true or nor or who should have the burden of proof wasn't really my point. But I'd say both the author and jon_mx are wrong for making conclusive statements without providing a shred of evidence to support them.

Got to agree with this on every level.

 

[jon_mx]

You weren't responding to Tim. You responded to fatguy, who said clear as day that he didn't know if the assertion is correct, by challenging why he thought the assertion was correct. It's a harmless reading comprehension error, but it kind of makes it obvious that you're more interested in a fight than in listening to what other people actually say. Which you then confirm in this post here with a statement like "the point which is obviously false by anyone who is grounded in reality"

I was not trying to start a fight. I understood fatguy's point. I just found it odd that the burdon of proof was on me to disprove an unproven point, especially to a point which is contrary to most everyone's experience.

Got to agree here on some level. Pretty hard to prove a negative where the positive doesn't have any stated proof or basis to attack.

Whether the statement was true or nor or who should have the burden of proof wasn't really my point. But I'd say both the author and jon_mx are wrong for making conclusive statements without providing a shred of evidence to support them.

Got to agree with this on every level.

Do I need footnotes for posting here? Is one source enough or should I try to have multiple sourcing? Who knew posting on a football forum was so complicated.

 

[cstu]

I didn't say that the video represented the media I said thats the result of what happens when the media constantly try to make white people come off as constantly racist. Think George Zimmerman if you are having trouble understanding what im saying.

Guy isn't white but yet he was referred to as white constantly because it played into the medias agenda of labeling white people racist.

oh, and if you say he is white then Obama is white and we still haven't had a black president.

Well you are half right..or as Elmer Fudd would say "Half White"

The media uses race how it's most beneficial to them - Zimmerman is white despite having Hispanic parents and Obama is black despite having a white mother and raised by white grandparents.

The whole notion of race is nonsense anyway but let's at least be honest about it instead of trying to pigeonhole people to boost ratings.

 

[Clifford]

FWIW I find the schtick of asking for a link to prove every single observation or opinion is the most tiring in the FFA. While it does some good qualifying POVs it is used way too broadly. I was lambasted for not having facts to back up my opinion of Pink despite being asked for my opinion. I think it's fine to simply call BS on something because it looks and smells like BS.

 

[TobiasFunke]

FWIW I find the schtick of asking for a link to prove every single observation or opinion is the most tiring in the FFA. While it does some good qualifying POVs it is used way too broadly. I was lambasted for not having facts to back up my opinion of Pink despite being asked for my opinion. I think it's fine to simply call BS on something because it looks and smells like BS.

If you're talking about jon_mx, there's a difference between posting without support and declaring that anyone who disagrees with you is "nutty" and their view is "obviously false for anyone grounded in reality" without support. The former is a person offering their opinion; the latter is pretty dooshy. In my opinion.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

I think the fair inference from jon_mx's post is that the police will warn white people, but not black people, because white people are at greater risk. If that's what he meant, I don't know whether it's right or wrong, but it does contradict what Tim said.

 

[Loan Sharks]

And where do those people whose families have lived in that neighborhood for generations go? I mean, sure, they probably got a fair price for their houses. But now they're nomads, culturally speaking.

Welcome to being white.

I don't know if this is shtick or if you really think that but elaborate more on what you mean instead of just throwing out things like that. Thanks.

J

What I mean is that white people have no culture. There's no culture in a neighborhood where I can bond with another white person over our similar ancestry. Maybe it's still like that in some Irish or Italian neighborhoods, but not anywhere I've ever lived. So as a white person I mainly shop for a neighborhood by what it provides rather than any sense of identity. Essentially, a nomad.

Hi CTSU,

Don't know if you're fishing here but if you're not, that's pretty interesting.

What general area of the country do you live in? What is your neighborhood like?

I guess I've never really thought of any neighborhood having no culture. Now maybe it's kind of a boring culture or not a great story but I'm not seeing no culture.

Maybe it's how we're defining culture. How do you define culture?

J

I agree with cstu %100. I couldn't tell you the name of a single neighbor I have had in the last 15 years other than "the old guy, the guy with the motorcycle the black family etc."

You live in a nice suburb with a good school and a park. Your friends and the people you hang out with are your co workers.

Most of "my culture of people" are migrant professionals. We go where the work is and find a nice neighborhood and that nice neighborhood has nothing to do with the people or culture because they will be shed with the next move in a couple of years.

 

[cstu]

Don't know if you're fishing here but if you're not, that's pretty interesting.

Hey Joe, I may seem crazy most of the time but I never fish.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

I think the fair inference from jon_mx's post is that the police will warn white people, but not black people, because white people are at greater risk. If that's what he meant, I don't know whether it's right or wrong, but it does contradict what Tim said.

I don't think that's the most likely inference. If a cop sees a white guy walking into a dangerous neighborhood populated mostly by black people, he might assume the white person is unaware of the risks and say something. If the cop sees a black person entering that neighborhood, he would probably just assume the black guy lives there.

 

[cstu]

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

cstu seems bothered that he can't bond with his neighbors over their shared racial identity. Considering all the other stuff that white people in America experience in common, that strikes me as a really odd complaint.

I'm not talking racial identity, even though what we define as a 'culture' tends to stem from that. Someone mentioned pop culture being interchangeable with white culture - that's no bond since the guy at work feels just as comfortable discussing The Walking Dead with me as he does a black or Hispanic co-worker.

I don't perceive there being 'white culture' outside of groups who have chosen to separate themselves based on ideology, in which case they are sub-groups of white culture rather than one common culture.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Your argument doesn't contradict what Tim (and the author) said. It might be dangerous for white people to go into those areas, but even more dangerous for black people to go in those areas.

I think the fair inference from jon_mx's post is that the police will warn white people, but not black people, because white people are at greater risk. If that's what he meant, I don't know whether it's right or wrong, but it does contradict what Tim said.

I don't think that's the most likely inference. If a cop sees a white guy walking into a dangerous neighborhood populated mostly by black people, he might assume the white person is unaware of the risks and say something. If the cop sees a black person entering that neighborhood, he would probably just assume the black guy lives there.

He's probably assuming the white guy is trying to buy drugs. That's been my experience.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

cstu seems bothered that he can't bond with his neighbors over their shared racial identity. Considering all the other stuff that white people in America experience in common, that strikes me as a really odd complaint.

I'm not talking racial identity, even though what we define as a 'culture' tends to stem from that. Someone mentioned pop culture being interchangeable with white culture - that's no bond since the guy at work feels just as comfortable discussing The Walking Dead with me as he does a black or Hispanic co-worker.

I don't perceive there being 'white culture' outside of groups who have chosen to separate themselves based on ideology, in which case they are sub-groups of white culture rather than one common culture.

I guess I'm not seeing why this is bad. When I meet another white person, we almost never exchange the secret white handshake or talk about our whiteness. We just talk about stuff we have in common as people who live in 21st century America. I get creeped out when people talk about wanting to forge a "white identity," and I know that's not what you mean, but I'm just not getting it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Maybe a different way to put it is that when you're a member of the dominant majority, you don't perceive yourself as having a special "culture," but that's only because the culture you live in is as invisible to you as water is to a fish.

For example, if you and I picked up an moved to Tehran, we would probably bond because we would both be American ex-pats living in a relatively alien civilization. Our Iranian neighbors would probably view us as having our own unique "western" culture, whereas they would just see their culture as "everyday life in Iran."

 

[rockaction]

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

cstu seems bothered that he can't bond with his neighbors over their shared racial identity. Considering all the other stuff that white people in America experience in common, that strikes me as a really odd complaint.

I'm not talking racial identity, even though what we define as a 'culture' tends to stem from that. Someone mentioned pop culture being interchangeable with white culture - that's no bond since the guy at work feels just as comfortable discussing The Walking Dead with me as he does a black or Hispanic co-worker.

I don't perceive there being 'white culture' outside of groups who have chosen to separate themselves based on ideology, in which case they are sub-groups of white culture rather than one common culture.

I guess I'm not seeing why this is bad. When I meet another white person, we almost never exchange the secret white handshake or talk about our whiteness. We just talk about stuff we have in common as people who live in 21st century America. I get creeped out when people talk about wanting to forge a "white identity," and I know that's not what you mean, but I'm just not getting it.

I was wondering if this was going there. So do I. An ethnic identity, maybe. But a "white" one? LOL.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Maybe a different way to put it is that when you're a member of the dominant majority, you don't perceive yourself as having a special "culture," but that's only because the culture you live in is as invisible to you as water is to a fish.

For example, if you and I picked up an moved to Tehran, we would probably bond because we would both be American ex-pats living in a relatively alien civilization. Our Iranian neighbors would probably view us as having our own unique "western" culture, whereas they would just see their culture as "everyday life in Iran."

But would we write a article proclaiming that the Iranians were attacking our culture when the Iranian culture mixed into our self defined western culture cell?

 

[cstu]

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

cstu seems bothered that he can't bond with his neighbors over their shared racial identity. Considering all the other stuff that white people in America experience in common, that strikes me as a really odd complaint.

I'm not talking racial identity, even though what we define as a 'culture' tends to stem from that. Someone mentioned pop culture being interchangeable with white culture - that's no bond since the guy at work feels just as comfortable discussing The Walking Dead with me as he does a black or Hispanic co-worker.

I don't perceive there being 'white culture' outside of groups who have chosen to separate themselves based on ideology, in which case they are sub-groups of white culture rather than one common culture.

I guess I'm not seeing why this is bad. When I meet another white person, we almost never exchange the secret white handshake or talk about our whiteness. We just talk about stuff we have in common as people who live in 21st century America. I get creeped out when people talk about wanting to forge a "white identity," and I know that's not what you mean, but I'm just not getting it.

I was wondering if this was going there. So do I. An ethnic identity, maybe. But a "white" one? LOL.

You're guys are misunderstanding my intention here. My original intent was to downplay the importance of other cultures and the fact that I'm not going to cry over other's people's lost culture (hence the 'welcome to being white' line). I don't need a culture myself and don't think others need one either.

 

[rockaction]

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

cstu seems bothered that he can't bond with his neighbors over their shared racial identity. Considering all the other stuff that white people in America experience in common, that strikes me as a really odd complaint.

I'm not talking racial identity, even though what we define as a 'culture' tends to stem from that. Someone mentioned pop culture being interchangeable with white culture - that's no bond since the guy at work feels just as comfortable discussing The Walking Dead with me as he does a black or Hispanic co-worker.

I don't perceive there being 'white culture' outside of groups who have chosen to separate themselves based on ideology, in which case they are sub-groups of white culture rather than one common culture.

I guess I'm not seeing why this is bad. When I meet another white person, we almost never exchange the secret white handshake or talk about our whiteness. We just talk about stuff we have in common as people who live in 21st century America. I get creeped out when people talk about wanting to forge a "white identity," and I know that's not what you mean, but I'm just not getting it.

I was wondering if this was going there. So do I. An ethnic identity, maybe. But a "white" one? LOL.

You're guys are misunderstanding my intention here. My original intent was to downplay the importance of other cultures and the fact that I'm not going to cry over other's people's lost culture (hence the 'welcome to being white' line). I don't need a culture myself and don't think others need one either.

Nah, mang, that's why I put an LOL next to it. I've read enough of your stuff to know that's not the issue. At all.

 

[Zasada]

So let me get this straight.

"White flight" to the suburbs in the 70s was "bad". This is why the inner cities crumbled and is a contributor to the spiral cities like Detroit got into.

Fast forward to today, and "White return" is the boomerang coming back. Yet that is bad too because it pushes-out the lower incomes.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The article to me just reeks of rich guilt trying to pin blame on the middle/upper-class for the plight of the lower class, no matter what it is that is happening. It doesn't matter, it's the rich's fault. Either they're leaving the urban areas or returning to it. Both trod on the lower class.

Ask Detroit if they would take heaping buckets full of gentrification today and I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is.

 

[Henry Ford]

Why can't you have cake and eat it?

 

[cstu]

So let me get this straight.

"White flight" to the suburbs in the 70s was "bad". This is why the inner cities crumbled and is a contributor to the spiral cities like Detroit got into.

Fast forward to today, and "White return" is the boomerang coming back. Yet that is bad too because it pushes-out the lower incomes.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The article to me just reeks of rich guilt trying to pin blame on the middle/upper-class for the plight of the lower class, no matter what it is that is happening. It doesn't matter, it's the rich's fault. Either they're leaving the urban areas or returning to it. Both trod on the lower class.

Ask Detroit if they would take heaping buckets full of gentrification today and I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is.

White flight has always been nonsense, just as gentrification is.

What happened was that people who could afford it decided to move away from the city to less congested places where they could have a big backyard.

Now that those places are congested and commutes are hell those that can afford it are moving back to the city and buying newly remodeled condos and sacrificing their backyards.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think there's probably a lot of generational "grass is always greener" stuff going on, too. People who grew up in cities moved to the suburbs. People who grew up in suburbs moved to the city.

 

[jon_mx]

Why can't you have cake and eat it?

Well you can have your cake. And then you can eat your cake. But then you will not have it anymore.

 

[Henry Ford]

Why can't you have cake and eat it?

Well you can have your cake. And then you can eat your cake. But then you will not have it anymore.

You can't eat your cake and have it, too.

Great, now I'm on the Unabomber list.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Another way to look at white flight / gentrification:

- 1954 suburban lots are going for ~$500

- 2014 downtown lots, condos and brownstones are going for around $200-300K and going up. Plus you get architecture, businesses nearby, culture, restaurants/bars, etc.

You go where the value is.

Also gas is more expensive again, if you can walk or take the streetcar, or at least minimize your drive, you do that.

 

[Eephus]

Here's a really good article from Techcrunch about the tech boom and its impact on the SF housing market. It's a long piece in which the author discusses a lot of issues including rent control, the municipal government's planning process, taxation of stock options and burrowing owls on the Peninsula. But there's no mention of racism or white supremacy.