5 ms·

It's hard to tell if you are making a counterargument to the parent or if you believe inner city residents[0] expect government to solve their problems, lack mo

It's hard to tell if you are making a counterargument to the parent or if you believe inner city residents[0] expect government to solve their problems, lack motivation, and don't work hard. [0] Do the people you are referring to actually live in the inner city?

rayiner 10y ago
Have you ever lived in the "inner city"?
- gamblor956 10y ago
  Yes. I've also lived in rural America. While there are significant populations of lazy dolists in both, the population of do-nothings is much higher in rural America. Rural America really does believe that everyone has forgotten about them, and blame all their problems on other people while they happily do meth or get drunk all day in their trailers. The thing is...they're right. Because they live so far from any place that matters, no one who matters thinks about their situation, so it's much more difficult to leave rural America than it is to leave the inner city.
  - charles-salvia 10y ago
    Well, Donald Trump matters. And he thought about them. And this is where we are.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Indeed. Looking at America from across the Atlantic, it seems that the American inner cities are making themselves heard by drug trade and a fairly large number of homicides, and rural America now made themselves heard through elections. I kind of find the latter approach more constructive, in fact, even if it resulted in Trump.
      - charles-salvia 10y ago
        It's a bit more complicated. Inner-city populations heavily vote Democrat, along with most densely populated areas. In fact, something like ~80% of Americans live in urban areas (which also includes dense suburbs), and therefore we should expect Democrats to win elections most of the time (even in spite of the fact that some dense sub-urban areas heavily lean Republican). However, this doesn't happen in practice because the electoral college system heavily reduces the weight of votes coming from inner-cities and urban areas, and also excludes votes coming from urban areas that lie within a larger, Republican-leaning state. For example, in the last election, probably most people in Philadelphia voted for Clinton, but their votes were nullified because the state over-all went to Trump. So inner-city populations can't reliably make themselves heard on the national level via Presidential elections.
        InitialLastName 10y ago
        It doesn't help when voter suppression efforts make access to voting rights prohibitive to people in cities, especially the poor. 4 hour lines to vote (because there are fewer polling places) are painful even when your livelihood isn't on the line.
        ptaipale 10y ago
        That's is something I don't understand: how come these cities cannot arrange enough polling stations? After all, if they're Democrat majority, it would be in interests of Democrat-elected local officials to arrange enough polling places. (Another thing I have a hard time understanding is that Americans allow people to vote even if they have no ID. Over here, it's a basic requirement for democracy that only those vote who have the right to vote, and they each vote only once.)
        noobiemcfoob 10y ago
        I'd like to see some data for that 80% urban population statement. Unless the definition of "dense suburbs" is outlandish, I can't see the percentage getting that high. Most studies I've seen put the US at a fair rural to urban split that up until very recently has always favored the rural population. It is only in the past 10 years that we've approached 50% urban to rural. I know this to be true in North Carolina, and various readings about elsewhere make me believe it to be the case for the greater US.
noobiemcfoob 10y ago
A little of both, but I'm mostly commenting on the "The thing I've noticed is that it actually is harder to sympathize with the white, rural poor" sentiment. Namely to say that the reasons listed for not sympathizing with the rural poor can and often are applied the same to the urban poor. Going further, urban poor have a stigma of being assisted by the government. It's an odd situation because at the same time that there is resentment for the urban poor receiving more government programs, there's more popular will to help the urban poor. I imagine it's largely a visibility problem. Sweeping generalizations are sweeping. And general. I don't believe all poor people, regardless of residence, lack motivation or are just looking for handouts. If pressed, I'd probably guess no more than 10% of the poor population would fairly deserve those insults. But, you could probably say only 10% of the global population might deserve those insults.

rayiner 10y ago

Have you ever lived in the "inner city"?

gamblor956 10y ago
Yes. I've also lived in rural America. While there are significant populations of lazy dolists in both, the population of do-nothings is much higher in rural America. Rural America really does believe that everyone has forgotten about them, and blame all their problems on other people while they happily do meth or get drunk all day in their trailers. The thing is...they're right. Because they live so far from any place that matters, no one who matters thinks about their situation, so it's much more difficult to leave rural America than it is to leave the inner city.
- charles-salvia 10y ago
  Well, Donald Trump matters. And he thought about them. And this is where we are.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Indeed. Looking at America from across the Atlantic, it seems that the American inner cities are making themselves heard by drug trade and a fairly large number of homicides, and rural America now made themselves heard through elections. I kind of find the latter approach more constructive, in fact, even if it resulted in Trump.
    - charles-salvia 10y ago
      It's a bit more complicated. Inner-city populations heavily vote Democrat, along with most densely populated areas. In fact, something like ~80% of Americans live in urban areas (which also includes dense suburbs), and therefore we should expect Democrats to win elections most of the time (even in spite of the fact that some dense sub-urban areas heavily lean Republican). However, this doesn't happen in practice because the electoral college system heavily reduces the weight of votes coming from inner-cities and urban areas, and also excludes votes coming from urban areas that lie within a larger, Republican-leaning state. For example, in the last election, probably most people in Philadelphia voted for Clinton, but their votes were nullified because the state over-all went to Trump. So inner-city populations can't reliably make themselves heard on the national level via Presidential elections.
      - InitialLastName 10y ago
        It doesn't help when voter suppression efforts make access to voting rights prohibitive to people in cities, especially the poor. 4 hour lines to vote (because there are fewer polling places) are painful even when your livelihood isn't on the line.
        ptaipale 10y ago
        That's is something I don't understand: how come these cities cannot arrange enough polling stations? After all, if they're Democrat majority, it would be in interests of Democrat-elected local officials to arrange enough polling places. (Another thing I have a hard time understanding is that Americans allow people to vote even if they have no ID. Over here, it's a basic requirement for democracy that only those vote who have the right to vote, and they each vote only once.)
      - noobiemcfoob 10y ago
        I'd like to see some data for that 80% urban population statement. Unless the definition of "dense suburbs" is outlandish, I can't see the percentage getting that high. Most studies I've seen put the US at a fair rural to urban split that up until very recently has always favored the rural population. It is only in the past 10 years that we've approached 50% urban to rural. I know this to be true in North Carolina, and various readings about elsewhere make me believe it to be the case for the greater US.

noobiemcfoob 10y ago

A little of both, but I'm mostly commenting on the "The thing I've noticed is that it actually is harder to sympathize with the white, rural poor" sentiment. Namely to say that the reasons listed for not sympathizing with the rural poor can and often are applied the same to the urban poor. Going further, urban poor have a stigma of being assisted by the government. It's an odd situation because at the same time that there is resentment for the urban poor receiving more government programs, there's more popular will to help the urban poor. I imagine it's largely a visibility problem. Sweeping generalizations are sweeping. And general. I don't believe all poor people, regardless of residence, lack motivation or are just looking for handouts. If pressed, I'd probably guess no more than 10% of the poor population would fairly deserve those insults. But, you could probably say only 10% of the global population might deserve those insults.