3 ms·

So, not to put too fine a point on it, in your mind there's a privileged class that deserves to have housing they can afford and an unprivileged class that does

by Kalium 9y ago

So, not to put too fine a point on it, in your mind there's a privileged class that deserves to have housing they can afford and an unprivileged class that does not. And this privilege is largely hereditary. Do I follow you correctly? I have to assume not, because such a notion is an affront to equity, fairness, and progressive principles. I would very much like to know where I erred in following your logic.

watwut 9y ago
His point was not inheritance, it was being part of community for years. If your parents lived there, but you did not, you don't count. It is disingenuous to call that hereditary. I dont care about SF, the best would be for tech to move away from there. It just dont fit in, spacewise. Companies should more to place where they fit. But I find it funny that the same forum that yap and cry about lack of community or loneliness in every single loosely related topic (and especially when it is possible to blame women not being at home anymore), puts exactly zero value on it when it comes to people who were born in San Francisco and are not one of us. The parent you complain about here is literally about social ties and community. Newcomers don't have it and young tech people don't really value it, so maybe it would make sense for us to move away. Unless we make it about entering contracts and all that, in which case people who been there first has the same right to make rules they do like.
- Kalium 9y ago
  This may sound weird: I love community. It's incredibly important to me! I value community that is willing to include me. I do not value community that rejects me, especially after I make sincere efforts. Someone else's insular community is irrelevant to my decision-making processes. Generally, I'm content to live and let live, as much as it irks to be excluded because I lack some shibboleth. I know they're not going to start caring about me because I stand with them in solidarity, so I spare myself the effort. This changes when insular communities seek to leverage their position against my interests and those of my community. I understand where you're coming from. You see a comment about social ties, community, and cohesion and someone else accusing them of trying to create an aristocracy. It looks spurious, like this joker refuses to care, think, or understand why someone might care about such things. I see someone looking to legitimize a system of exclusion of my community on supposedly progressive grounds. With the idea being that they can protect their privilege - without ever using the p-word - by encouraging exclusion. I find it hypocritical and distasteful. I understand why they want to do it. I do. I understand their pain, their sense of loss, their fears for the future. I simply do not agree with what they would do about these.
- closeparen 9y ago
  >It just dont fit in, spacewise. Sure they do. There is tons of space on the vertical axis that we're choosing not to use. It doesn't fit in spacewise if everyone needs a detached house and a car.
wffurr 9y ago
That's an interesting notion of equity, fairness, and progressive principles. Where does it follow from those principles that it is in any way fair, equitable, or progressive that people born into a community, with friends, family, and community there, should have to move out because they can't find a good job or afford housing in that community? Similarly, how does it follow that some other young person should have to completely uproot themselves and move to a strange city just to get a decent-paying job? "Labor mobility" is for the convenience of capitalists, not workers.
- Kalium 9y ago
  > Where does it follow from those principles that it is in any way fair, equitable, or progressive that people born into a community, with friends, family, and community there, should have to move out because they can't find a good job or afford housing in that community? You're absolutely right. That isn't fair or equitable in any way, shape, form, or manner. Forcing people to move isn't fair or equitable. > Similarly, how does it follow that some other young person should have to completely uproot themselves and move to a strange city just to get a decent-paying job? You're absolutely right. That isn't fair or equitable in any way, shape, form, or manner. Forcing people to move isn't fair or equitable. With all that said, don't you think people should have the right to live where they choose? I do. I think it's a basic human right for people to have the ability to emigrate where and when they choose. I think it's unfair and inequitable to stand in the way of this. Though I understand where some people might otherwise. After all, new people are scary! They might have more/less money, more/less melanin, speak different languages, pray differently, and so on. The urge to exclude The Other is basic, deep-seated, and very human one. I understand that some people have no wish to over come it. They'd rather raise walls than open their arms. But I'm hoping that the best among us can. Maybe I hope too much.

by Kalium 9y ago

watwut 9y ago

His point was not inheritance, it was being part of community for years. If your parents lived there, but you did not, you don't count. It is disingenuous to call that hereditary. I dont care about SF, the best would be for tech to move away from there. It just dont fit in, spacewise. Companies should more to place where they fit. But I find it funny that the same forum that yap and cry about lack of community or loneliness in every single loosely related topic (and especially when it is possible to blame women not being at home anymore), puts exactly zero value on it when it comes to people who were born in San Francisco and are not one of us. The parent you complain about here is literally about social ties and community. Newcomers don't have it and young tech people don't really value it, so maybe it would make sense for us to move away. Unless we make it about entering contracts and all that, in which case people who been there first has the same right to make rules they do like.

Kalium 9y ago
This may sound weird: I love community. It's incredibly important to me! I value community that is willing to include me. I do not value community that rejects me, especially after I make sincere efforts. Someone else's insular community is irrelevant to my decision-making processes. Generally, I'm content to live and let live, as much as it irks to be excluded because I lack some shibboleth. I know they're not going to start caring about me because I stand with them in solidarity, so I spare myself the effort. This changes when insular communities seek to leverage their position against my interests and those of my community. I understand where you're coming from. You see a comment about social ties, community, and cohesion and someone else accusing them of trying to create an aristocracy. It looks spurious, like this joker refuses to care, think, or understand why someone might care about such things. I see someone looking to legitimize a system of exclusion of my community on supposedly progressive grounds. With the idea being that they can protect their privilege - without ever using the p-word - by encouraging exclusion. I find it hypocritical and distasteful. I understand why they want to do it. I do. I understand their pain, their sense of loss, their fears for the future. I simply do not agree with what they would do about these.
closeparen 9y ago
>It just dont fit in, spacewise. Sure they do. There is tons of space on the vertical axis that we're choosing not to use. It doesn't fit in spacewise if everyone needs a detached house and a car.

wffurr 9y ago

That's an interesting notion of equity, fairness, and progressive principles. Where does it follow from those principles that it is in any way fair, equitable, or progressive that people born into a community, with friends, family, and community there, should have to move out because they can't find a good job or afford housing in that community? Similarly, how does it follow that some other young person should have to completely uproot themselves and move to a strange city just to get a decent-paying job? "Labor mobility" is for the convenience of capitalists, not workers.

Kalium 9y ago
> Where does it follow from those principles that it is in any way fair, equitable, or progressive that people born into a community, with friends, family, and community there, should have to move out because they can't find a good job or afford housing in that community? You're absolutely right. That isn't fair or equitable in any way, shape, form, or manner. Forcing people to move isn't fair or equitable. > Similarly, how does it follow that some other young person should have to completely uproot themselves and move to a strange city just to get a decent-paying job? You're absolutely right. That isn't fair or equitable in any way, shape, form, or manner. Forcing people to move isn't fair or equitable. With all that said, don't you think people should have the right to live where they choose? I do. I think it's a basic human right for people to have the ability to emigrate where and when they choose. I think it's unfair and inequitable to stand in the way of this. Though I understand where some people might otherwise. After all, new people are scary! They might have more/less money, more/less melanin, speak different languages, pray differently, and so on. The urge to exclude The Other is basic, deep-seated, and very human one. I understand that some people have no wish to over come it. They'd rather raise walls than open their arms. But I'm hoping that the best among us can. Maybe I hope too much.