> Well, suburbs are actually pretty interesting, more interesting is that you might've skipped over the fact I gave explicit examples where white flight has con

> Well, suburbs are actually pretty interesting, more interesting is that you might've skipped over the fact I gave explicit examples where white flight has contributed to politically changing to be against public services that benefit society simply because they had to share it with black people. I touched on it. That's where I acknowledge it happened, but that it'd be a low-resolution view to apply it to everyone today. Unfalsifiable claims of racism are... unfalsifiable. > When a suburb becomes an island to retreat, and the populace there is established in order to maneuver against broader social support is it really that different than a single wealthy person leaving to an island and not paying taxes? Yes. Disliking high crime, bad schools, chronic homelessness, high taxes, and an unwillingness to acknowledge the policies that contribute to them is different from hiding wealth to avoid social responsibilities. Your argument seems to be based on the premise that city governments are always doing what is good, moral, and effective for the best of society. They're not, though, and that's why people move elsewhere. Sometimes (shocker) there's more to it than racism and white supremacy. > Additionally, not evaluating how this phenomenon affects today is quite strange. Redlining (the refusal of offering financial services to neighborhoods of black or brown people) is something that's being discovered as still happening as recently as a few years ago. It's illegal and wrong, and anyone who does it should be punished severely. But it does not imply that someone today choosing to move to the suburbs is making an immoral decision.