3 ms·
No. You are thinking about it wrong. By making it cost prohibitive for the poors to move around we will be able to concentrate their populations into designated
by RamshackleJ 10y ago
No. You are thinking about it wrong. By making it cost prohibitive for the poors to move around we will be able to concentrate their populations into designated "bottom feeder" neighborhoods allowing us to more effectively rob them of basic public services like education, healthcare, and potable water.
- MegaButts 10y ago> By making it cost prohibitive for the poors to move around Am I the only person who found the phrase 'the poors' offensive? I'm genuinely asking.
- the_commentary 10y agoI think based on the rest of the context that was kind of the point - to drive home the "screw these people" attitude that policies like this would spring from.
- spcelzrd 10y agoIs that the only thing you found offensive about that comment? Poe's law appears to be in effect here.
- MegaButts 10y agosigh I am surprised how much I misread that comment. I think I just saw 'the poors' and I didn't properly read the rest of the comment at first glance.
- myowncrapulence 10y agoI figured this comment carried enough satire to not need explanation. He was using an offensive tone to carry over the implicated apathy that city planning has on the impoverished.
- CodeWriter23 10y agoYou forgot regressive forms of taxation. So increase the street sweeping to 3x a week in the bottom-feeder neighborhoods, and issue 3x the number of street sweeping violations. Hyperbole aside, when you see gentrification in neighborhoods like Boyle Heights, one has to wonder how numbered are the days of LA's poor neighborhoods.