4 ms·

The sense of entitlement in statements like 'there first', 'previously normal behavior', 'co-opt locals', and 'bury their heads in the sand because the newcomer

by evgen 6y ago

The sense of entitlement in statements like 'there first', 'previously normal behavior', 'co-opt locals', and 'bury their heads in the sand because the newcomers are spending' is palpable. Sorry that you assumed everything was always going to stay the way you happened to like it just because people didn't have other options, but not sorry.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
There's a very wide gulf between "stay the way you happened to like" and "change in ways that pretty much nobody likes but nobody has any power to do anything about"
ardy42 6y ago
> The sense of entitlement in statements like 'there first', 'previously normal behavior', 'co-opt locals', and 'bury their heads in the sand because the newcomers are spending' is palpable. Sorry that you assumed everything was always going to stay the way you happened to like it just because people didn't have other options, but not sorry. Entitlement is people with money thinking they can and should be able to change existing communities to their liking, just because they have money. It's weird, but there seems to be a common blind spot about certain kinds of wealth-enabled antisocial behavior.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
It doesn't have to be a sense of entitlement. Many human societies around the world and through time give more priority to the idea that people build homes and community across time. The fact that we allow free movement into cities, towns and villages doesn't have to mean that "newcomers get an equal say" (although it certainly could). Why shouldn't a multi-generational community be able to say "we like it the way it is, and don't want random/arbitrary migration here to change that" ?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  I can't think of any way to give people more say based on how long they've been invested in a place that couldn't also be trivially used for voter suppression. I guess you could do preferential tax policy but that almost requires high taxes as a prerequisite which is a non-starter in a lot of places.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > I can't think of any way to give people more say based on how long they've been invested in a place that couldn't also be trivially used for voter suppression. I don't think something like that necessarily needs to be some kind of constitutional mechanism. It could be a social norm, kinda like the ones that discourage people from casually insulting others and which punish them if they do. Though I suppose if you're looking for a constitutional mechanism, clearly defined but longish residency requirements for voting probably wouldn't fall under the category of "voter suppression" (which I take to mean policies designed to indirectly disenfranchise certain kinds of voters for partisan political advantage).
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      > clearly defined but longish residency requirements for voting probably wouldn't fall under the category of "voter suppression" (which I take to mean policies designed to indirectly disenfranchise certain kinds of voters for partisan political advantage). Until The Great Migration happens (or something like it), and suddenly the long residency requirements look precisely like racism ... unless, of course, you've had the in place for 300 years already. I think that voting is among the least significant of the acts of "new arrivals", particularly if they have money.

by evgen 6y ago

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

There's a very wide gulf between "stay the way you happened to like" and "change in ways that pretty much nobody likes but nobody has any power to do anything about"

ardy42 6y ago

> The sense of entitlement in statements like 'there first', 'previously normal behavior', 'co-opt locals', and 'bury their heads in the sand because the newcomers are spending' is palpable. Sorry that you assumed everything was always going to stay the way you happened to like it just because people didn't have other options, but not sorry. Entitlement is people with money thinking they can and should be able to change existing communities to their liking, just because they have money. It's weird, but there seems to be a common blind spot about certain kinds of wealth-enabled antisocial behavior.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

It doesn't have to be a sense of entitlement. Many human societies around the world and through time give more priority to the idea that people build homes and community across time. The fact that we allow free movement into cities, towns and villages doesn't have to mean that "newcomers get an equal say" (although it certainly could). Why shouldn't a multi-generational community be able to say "we like it the way it is, and don't want random/arbitrary migration here to change that" ?

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
I can't think of any way to give people more say based on how long they've been invested in a place that couldn't also be trivially used for voter suppression. I guess you could do preferential tax policy but that almost requires high taxes as a prerequisite which is a non-starter in a lot of places.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > I can't think of any way to give people more say based on how long they've been invested in a place that couldn't also be trivially used for voter suppression. I don't think something like that necessarily needs to be some kind of constitutional mechanism. It could be a social norm, kinda like the ones that discourage people from casually insulting others and which punish them if they do. Though I suppose if you're looking for a constitutional mechanism, clearly defined but longish residency requirements for voting probably wouldn't fall under the category of "voter suppression" (which I take to mean policies designed to indirectly disenfranchise certain kinds of voters for partisan political advantage).
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    > clearly defined but longish residency requirements for voting probably wouldn't fall under the category of "voter suppression" (which I take to mean policies designed to indirectly disenfranchise certain kinds of voters for partisan political advantage). Until The Great Migration happens (or something like it), and suddenly the long residency requirements look precisely like racism ... unless, of course, you've had the in place for 300 years already. I think that voting is among the least significant of the acts of "new arrivals", particularly if they have money.