Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

My first time in LA I got laid in like 60 seconds after walking into the Rainbow.

If we count masturbation, I was close to that after getting to my hotel room first time there! Unless you're on a reunion tour, reduce your expectations for next time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I like density as much as the next guy, probably more, but you need to expand your horizons. LA is one of the great cities of the world.

Please do not think I dislike LA. Quite to the contrary. (I'm not on Randy Newman's page, but I dig the town, and the eye candy on endless display.) My sole issue was with it being called a city when it really feels more like a collection of little cities loosely linked together.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I've seen countless accounts like these on various platforms. They don't seem to have much of an impact outside of confirming what most of the people who read them already knew or suspected.

There's a show called Dear White People out now. I have not seen it. But the title is great. I think a book or, better, a show, in which black people complain, perhaps in a sarcastic, ironic, but also earnest way (humor + earnestness conveys a bit more than earnestness alone) how annoying it can be to be ignored, or have dumb shit said to you ("You're here to fix the copier?") could get a much needed message across.

White people talk about the extremes of racism. The subtle little forms of it Diangelo mentions in the book are overlooked. Even talking about her book with white people, the conversation quickly shifts to justice reform, Jim Crow, etc. Those things need to be discussed, of course, but those are so extreme, most white people can distance themselves from them pretty quickly (often absurdly... "I never aimed a hose at black protestors as did Bull Connor!").

I really do not think many white people appreciate the irritating things they do to minorities. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it won't resonate. But I haven't really seen it attempted. I've never seen a show that either acts out or describes the "white women's tears" phenomenon outlined by Diangelo.

It could be done straight, or it could be delivered ironically. Or both. It just has to be done right, on a platform where it goes viral among whites.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

My first time in LA I got laid in like 60 seconds after walking into the Rainbow.

Panama City, Panama. I've friends down there. You basically walk into a bar, smile, and it's on.

I've not visited despite a standing invite. I tend to avoid places where the power goes out twice a day.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There's a show called Dear White People out now. I have not seen it. But the title is great. I think a book or, better, a show, in which black people complain, perhaps in a sarcastic, ironic, but also earnest way (humor + earnestness conveys a bit more than earnestness alone) how annoying it can be to be ignored, or have dumb shit said to you ("You're here to fix the copier?") could get a much needed message across.

White people talk about the extremes of racism. The subtle little forms of it Diangelo mentions in the book are overlooked. Even talking about her book with white people, the conversation quickly shifts to justice reform, Jim Crow, etc. Those things need to be discussed, of course, but those are so extreme, most white people can distance themselves from them pretty quickly (often absurdly... "I never aimed a hose at black protestors as did Bull Connor!").

I really do not think many white people appreciate the irritating things they do to minorities. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it won't resonate. But I haven't really seen it attempted. I've never seen a show that either acts out or describes the "white women's tears" phenomenon outlined by Diangelo.

It could be done straight, or it could be delivered ironically. Or both. It just has to be done right, on a platform where it goes viral among whites.

This is why representation matters. Having diverse folks on tv and movies that are aimed at the population as a whole gives an opportunity to highlight some of these issues in a context that makes sense rather than having it rammed down their throats. And not just on screen but in the writers rooms where people who ACTUALLY experience life as a person of color can point out that writing the black main character the same way they would the white main character doesn't really do anything.

I think Brooklyn 99 is REALLY good at it. Two of the seven main cast members are white men and one is a white woman. Two black men, one of whom is gay. Two Hispanic women, one of whom is bisexual. The show's main aim is to be funny as hell (which I think it succeeds at wildly), but having a diverse cast that are written with their diversity in mind allows the show to subtly and not so subtly drive some of these points home. Superstore also gets a lot of diversity kudos from me.

There's plenty of content out there that highlights minority experience. It just doesn't get the publicity or following that "mainstream" (i.e. white focused) content gets. If you want to see the world through the lens of other people, look for their content. A few years ago I started reading verysmartbrothas, mainly because someone linked me to a very accurate post Damon Young wrote about Houston. I loved the writing and started following the blog, and then I shut up and listened and learned a lot about an experience I don't have.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

A few years ago I started reading verysmartbrothas, mainly because someone linked me to a very accurate post Damon Young wrote about Houston.

The stuff about Houston being too big is right up Sebby's alley.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The stuff about Houston being too big is right up Sebby's alley.

Houston is stupid big, and poorly signed. As a city it is like LA- not really one.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Houston is stupid big, and poorly signed. As a city it is like LA- not really one.

Eons ago, Houston made the decision to incorporate the crap out of the outlying areas, so it's not a collection of small cities or towns but under a single municipality. The suburbs, early on, got absorbed into the tax base. Places like the Woodlands, Sugar Land, and Katy are anomalies rather than the norm.

About 18 months ago, some east coast writers tried and failed to describe LA in the New York Times. There was much derision and scorn, but my favorite response article in the LA Times was a missive on Houston, because we are similar.

If I had to put my finger on what unites Houston and Los Angeles, it is a certain elusiveness as urban object. Both cities are opaque and hard to read. What is Houston? Where does it begin and end? Does it have a center? Does it need one? It’s tough to say, even when you’re there — even when you’re looking directly at it.

The same has been said of Los Angeles since its earliest days. Something Carey McWilliams noted about L.A. in 1946 — that it is a place fundamentally ad hoc in spirit, “a gigantic improvisation” — is perhaps even more true of Houston. Before you can pin either city down, you notice that it’s wriggled out of your grasp.

People who are accustomed to making quick sense of the world, to ordering it into neat and sharply defined categories, tend to be flummoxed by both places. And reporters at the New York Times are certainly used to making quick sense of the world. If there’s one reason the paper keeps getting Los Angeles so spectacularly wrong, I think that’s it. Smart, accomplished people don’t like being made to feel out of their depth. Los Angeles makes out-of-town reporters feel out of their depth from their first day here.

Their reaction to that feeling, paradoxically enough, is very often to attempt to write that feeling away — to conquer that sense of dislocation by producing a story that sets out to explain Los Angeles in its entirety. Because it’s a challenge, maybe, or because they simply can’t be convinced, despite all the evidence right in front of them, that Los Angeles, as cities go, is an especially tough nut to crack.
***
That tendency — to attempt the moon shot, the overarching analysis, too soon — is equal parts hubris and panic. It usually goes about as well as it went this time around for Arango, not incidentally a brand-new arrival in the New York Times bureau here, and Nagourney.

Among the most dedicated scholars of Houston’s urban form in recent years has been Lars Lerup, former dean of the Rice University School of Architecture. In his new book of essays, “The Continuous City,” he argues that the first step in understanding Houston and cities like it is to begin with a certain humility about the nature and scale of the task.

This kind of city has grown so large — in economic and environmental as well as physical reach — that it begins to stretch beyond our field of vision. The best way to grasp it, according to Lerup, is to understand that it is not Manhattan, Boston, San Francisco or Chicago — to recognize it instead as “a vast field with no distinct borders.”

“The old city was a discrete object sitting on a Tuscan hill surrounded by a collectively constructed wall; the new city is everywhere,” he writes. “Only when we accept that we can only attain a partial understanding can work begin.”

Lerup stresses that huge, spread-out cities like Houston — which he also calls “distributed cities,” places where “the spiky downtown is just a blip in the flatness” — have long been tough to read, in part because they are “always in the throes of change.” But the relationship between urbanization and climate change has added a new layer of complexity, because big metro regions and their pollution are exacerbating the ecological crisis. The city now “owns everything” and must answer for everything, “even the raging hurricane bearing down on its coast.” The vast city has grown vaster still.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Eons ago, Houston made the decision to incorporate the crap out of the outlying areas, so it's not a collection of small cities or towns but under a single municipality. The suburbs, early on, got absorbed into the tax base. Places like the Woodlands, Sugar Land, and Katy are anomalies rather than the norm.

About 18 months ago, some east coast writers tried and failed to describe LA in the New York Times. There was much derision and scorn, but my favorite response article in the LA Times was a missive on Houston, because we are similar.

I once spent a month in "downtown" LA for depositions. It was horrible. Empty after dark. But I love parts of the area- Santa Monica in particular. AM Homes, one of favorite authors, has a book of essays about her experiences getting to know LA. Quite good. Houston absorbed a ton of Michiganders in the late 70s and early 80s. I expect I would feel at home there once I figured out HOW TO GET TO THE AIRPORT ON EXPRESSWAYS WITH NO SIGNS!!!! Also, corollary, I've been driving in Dallas lately, and the fact that every other one of the people are armed makes driving that much more stressful.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

"This kind of city has grown so large — in economic and environmental as well as physical reach — that it begins to stretch beyond our field of vision. The best way to grasp it, according to Lerup, is to understand that it is not Manhattan, Boston, San Francisco or Chicago — to recognize it instead as 'a vast field with no distinct borders.'”

'The old city was a discrete object sitting on a Tuscan hill surrounded by a collectively constructed wall; the new city is everywhere,' he writes. 'Only when we accept that we can only attain a partial understanding can work begin.'”

The archetype that Sebby and Hank have in their heads is a little more than a century old. Before Chicago and New York started building skyscrapers in the 1880s, larger cities spread out instead of growing up, and if you didn't have a car then it took much longer to get around them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

"Trump's low approval provides a unique challenge for Democrats"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The archetype that Sebby and Hank have in their heads is a little more than a century old. Before Chicago and New York started building skyscrapers in the 1880s, larger cities spread out instead of growing up, and if you didn't have a car then it took much longer to get around them.

1 I am an award winning story teller and have published more short fiction than the rest of you combined. The only one close is Sebby.

2 I work in IP and regularly litigate punctuation specific matters.

The “word in my head” is thus the correct one. The only person with chops to question is sebby.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

1 I am an award winning story teller and have published more short fiction than the rest of you combined. The only one close is Sebby.

2 I work in IP and regularly litigate punctuation specific matters.

The “word in my head” is thus the correct one. The only person with chops to question is sebby.

I think you mean punctuation-specific matters.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think you mean punctuation-specific matters.

Since you are referring to a past choice I made I believe you should have used the word “ meant” instead of “mean,” which is present tense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Since you are referring to a past choice I made I believe you should have used the word “ meant” instead of “mean,” which is present tense.

That thought occurred, but it seemed to correct to use the present tense since I expected that your intention, or at least hope, to use proper punctuation continues to the present, given that you are bragging about it as an area of particular expertise. But I don't mean to crowd you on your corner.