We are all Slave now.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This isn't factual. The allegation that all white people fight to retain their advantages over non-whites cannot be supported with evidence. It can, however, be refuted with considerable evidence.

To offer one small example, affirmative action did not derive exclusively from the efforts of blacks. To accept your argument, one has to believe that no whites were involved in the Civil Rights movement, or attempts to dismantle Jim Crow. That's simply untrue.

Adder trends into naivete. Everyone agrees his heart is in the right place, but sometimes, he goes too far and says things one might hear during courtesy of the floor at a Berkeley Council Meeting.

I don't see a controversy here. I have distaste for progressives who are all about "awareness" (read "virtue signaling"), enjoy judging non-progressives negatively, but do nothing, and live in segregated communities. But that's not all progressives, and they're certainly not as bad as overt racists.

I don't think you can lay this at the feet of progressives. There are no exclusively progressive neighborhoods. Progressives live among moderates and conservatives.

I think most of this is ridiculous, so I'm not going to bother getting into it with you.

Good day.


TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This isn't factual. The allegation that all white people fight to retain their advantages over non-whites cannot be supported with evidence. It can, however, be refuted with considerable evidence.

Are you basing this on the "all" word in there, and arguing there are a handful of exceptions?

Because outside of that weasel, you've got to be fucking kidding. Every day, in every way, white folk promote other white folk and build a world that keeps the advantages in their tribe. And of the folks you think might be exceptions, most of them are only exceptions some of the time. Hell, I spend a lot of time trying to avoid doing the things that perpetuate this, and still find myself doing them, so I wouldn't claim an exception for myself.

And if you've never called a school you went to to push your kid or your niece or nephew or some clients idiot offspring, never thought on interviewing biff or muffy, oh, hey, they'll "fit in", etc. etc.

Fucking weasel.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Adder

Because the status quo is the result of and perpetuates segregation. Also, maybe it will do something:

link

The status quo is without doubt the result of segregation. But to change zoning across the city when you doubt that it will address racial disparities because "maybe it will do something" seems profoundly stupid. Maybe the something it will do will be to reduce integration even further. And this is what I don't understand about this plan (which I am neither for nor against right now) -- the most cogent arguments I have heard for it are that 1) Minneapolis, largely through the use of racial restrictive covenants, created segregated zones of white affluence and completely shut out minorities intentionally, so 2) we need to do something and this plan is something. And coincidentally, the something that is being proposed, largely by single white Millennials who are frustrated by the lack of apartments in residential neighborhoods, is something that will directly benefit these same single white Millennials. Believe me, I am very open to being persuaded that the 2040 Plan will help address the systematic racism in the Minneapolis housing market. But let's just say that you have not done that for me by first expressing skepticism that the Plan will doing anything to address racial equalities and then, when pressed, saying, "Well, who knows what the plan will do, but maybe it will do something."

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Interesting piece on why you can't pick out the few things Trump has done you agree with to praise.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/andy-...e-moral-ledger

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

But to change zoning across the city when you doubt that it will address racial disparities because "maybe it will do something" seems profoundly stupid.

If addressing racial disparities were the only reason for the change, that would perhaps be profoundly stupid.

But the primary reason for the change is to allow additional housing options that aren't super-expensive single family homes (increasingly tear down McMansions). And to allow more people to live in the city.

Rather than rehash all the other good things it involves, I'll just link.

And coincidentally, the something that is being proposed, largely by single white Millennials who are frustrated by the lack of apartments in residential neighborhoods, is something that will directly benefit these same single white Millennials.

I don't know her marital status, but Heather Worthington, chief author of the plan, is not a Millenial. Probably has some on her staff though.

Maybe the mayor is a Millennial?? Not single though.

Believe me, I am very open to being persuaded that the 2040 Plan will help address the systematic racism in the Minneapolis housing market. But let's just say that you have not done that for me by first expressing skepticism that the Plan will doing anything to address racial equalities and then, when pressed, saying, "Well, who knows what the plan will do, but maybe it will do something."

I purposely hedged because, for example, Gary Cunningham (who lives in W13) has pushed back on the racial disparities point and I think he's right to the degree that he's saying we need to be realistic about how much integration is going to result from simply expanding housing supply. New housing in SW, even if multi-unit, is going to still be relatively expensive for the region and all the rest of our disparities will continue to be a barrier too.

That said, the council is also talking about inclusionary zoning and it's possible some of what gets built in SW (e.g., the Famous Dave's sight, were it still in the future) will be low income housing, which would further help.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I haven't and am not planning on digging into this that deep. But I'm not talking about delivery vs. walk-in food. I'm talking about fully self-contained companies that are essentially closed off campuses in the city. Google does it in NY. It destroys local businesses and if companies are promising a huge benefit to local economies, I don't think eliminating cafeterias for businesses of a certain size is out of control protectionism stifling progress.

TM

I personally don't need to get outside at lunchtime and don't need to eat food from a restaurant every day. My last employer brought food in three days a week and I ate the leftovers from that the other two. Subsidizing restaurants by prohibiting their competition seems like a lousy idea to me, even though I love vibrant cities. YMMV, and we can agree to disagree about this one also.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Interesting piece on why you can't pick out the few things Trump has done you agree with to praise.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/andy-...e-moral-ledger

TM

Not even the oat milk thing? Because oat milk isn't milk.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Adder

If addressing racial disparities were the only reason for the change, that would perhaps be profoundly stupid.

But the primary reason for the change is to allow additional housing options that aren't super-expensive single family homes (increasingly tear down McMansions). And to allow more people to live in the city.

Rather than rehash all the other good things it involves, I'll just link.



I don't know her marital status, but Heather Worthington, chief author of the plan, is not a Millenial. Probably has some on her staff though.

Maybe the mayor is a Millennial?? Not single though.



I purposely hedged because, for example, Gary Cunningham (who lives in W13) has pushed back on the racial disparities point and I think he's right to the degree that he's saying we need to be realistic about how much integration is going to result from simply expanding housing supply. New housing in SW, even if multi-unit, is going to still be relatively expensive for the region and all the rest of our disparities will continue to be a barrier too.

That said, the council is also talking about inclusionary zoning and it's possible some of what gets built in SW (e.g., the Famous Dave's sight, were it still in the future) will be low income housing, which would further help.

O.K., that blog post is a bit anecdotal, but I tend to agree with at least the notions behind it. So there may be other, non-racial-integration reasons that may make the Plan a good one. But, going back to my original question, given the admitted uncertainty and even skepticism about whether or not this will do much, if anything, to improve the racial segregation problem in the city, how is it that you can accuse those who oppose the plan of "standing up for racism." The blog post you linked to does not even discuss segregation or race issues at all, other than to note that 35W decimated black neighborhoods, which is true but a different issue.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I'm not nearly as up to speed on the 2040 Plan debate as many are. But if you are conceding that adding a greater variety of housing to those neighborhoods might not do much, if anything, to address racial disparities, why is it "standing up for racism" to complain about a plan that might not do much if anything to address racial disparities? This is a serious question because most people I know have extremely strong opinions (on both sides) about the 2040 Plan, but not a lot of facts or evidence backing up the opinions.

Maybe you should pay more attention to local affairs instead of frolicking on your fancy bicycle.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Are you basing this on the "all" word in there, and arguing there are a handful of exceptions?

Because outside of that weasel, you've got to be fucking kidding. Every day, in every way, white folk promote other white folk and build a world that keeps the advantages in their tribe. And of the folks you think might be exceptions, most of them are only exceptions some of the time. Hell, I spend a lot of time trying to avoid doing the things that perpetuate this, and still find myself doing them, so I wouldn't claim an exception for myself.

And if you've never called a school you went to to push your kid or your niece or nephew or some clients idiot offspring, never thought on interviewing biff or muffy, oh, hey, they'll "fit in", etc. etc.

Fucking weasel.

Are you seriously suggesting anyone here does not try to hook up friends of all backgrounds? You only do it for your white friends? Really?

I’m not of any tribe but people I know and like. I don’t give a fuck where you’re from, your skin color, your religion, or anything else... if you’re a friend and I can hook you up, I’ll try to do so.

And that includes dumb white kids, yes. And dumb black ones, Asian ones, Indian ones, gay ones.

You misunderstand how the inside handshakes work, and how the “tribe” is defined.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Maybe you should pay more attention to local affairs instead of frolicking on your fancy bicycle.

There's is absolutely no reason not to do both. (Although I'm sure his bicycle is fancier than mine).

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Adder

There's is absolutely no reason not to do both. (Although I'm sure his bicycle is fancier than mine).

All of my bicycles are fancier than yours.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I personally don't need to get outside at lunchtime and don't need to eat food from a restaurant every day. My last employer brought food in three days a week and I ate the leftovers from that the other two. Subsidizing restaurants by prohibiting their competition seems like a lousy idea to me, even though I love vibrant cities. YMMV, and we can agree to disagree about this one also.

Very few people eat out every day for lunch. Throughout history people have managed to feed themselves through a combination of eating out, bringing lunch, and going to the company cafeteria. Traditionally, company cafeterias have mostly existed in areas with otherwise very limited outside options.

The new trend by these huge companies with endless cash is to keep everyone inside. Google in Chelsea owns a full city block (and then some). I've visited their cafeteria. It's insane. Anything and everything you could possibly imagine. No one leaves that building and the surrounding businesses, which flourished before they arrived, have turned over at a rate that is way out of proportion for the neighborhood. I imagine it's even worse in areas of the country that aren't as dynamic as the west side of NYC.

The other problem these massive cafeterias have apparently caused is that they are taking chefs away from businesses, which is also driving them to fail. And it creates a culture of exclusivity. The people who work at these behemoths aren't connected to the community. It breeds animosity, distrust, and separation. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/t...ant-scene.html

I don't see a fix like this as some slippery slope to the end of innovation and progress. It seems like a fairly sensible solution to keep the balance of a neighborhood and something that businesses should have to consider when they basically take over a neighborhood.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Are you seriously suggesting anyone here does not try to hook up friends of all backgrounds? You only do it for your white friends? Really?

I’m not of any tribe but people I know and like. I don’t give a fuck where you’re from, your skin color, your religion, or anything else... if you’re a friend and I can hook you up, I’ll try to do so.

And that includes dumb white kids, yes. And dumb black ones, Asian ones, Indian ones, gay ones.

You misunderstand how the inside handshakes work, and how the “tribe” is defined.

Surely you get that people treat their friends better than strangers, and that people's friends tend to share their background. We're having a conversation here about how white people resist the idea that racism is pervasive and not just a quest of Bad people with Bad intent, and your answer is to say you're not Bad. Uh, try again. You are unintentionally proving the point.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Maybe you should pay more attention to local affairs instead of frolicking on your fancy bicycle.

TM