5 ms·

This article is poorly/un- sourced, and ham-handedly forces the class-oppression dynamics in defiance of obvious alternative explanations. This is why it doesn'

This article is poorly/un- sourced, and ham-handedly forces the class-oppression dynamics in defiance of obvious alternative explanations. This is why it doesn't even attempt to seriously explore causes of popular opposition to open and active red light districts, but just broad brush paints them as products of either puritanism or corruption. It's an insubstantial article and I don't see much there to respond to, frankly. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity This article is on HN only for such a reason. There are many better treatments of the history of the Barbary Coast neighborhood, if that's of interest.

benreesman 4y ago
As a protip, assertions like “X is poorly footnoted” that are themselves completely lacking in any links or references or footnotes bum me and a lot of other users out. I would be fascinated to read a substantive contrary viewpoint that clarifies inaccuracies or highlights controversial assertions in TFA, because I don’t know how accurate it is. Write that!
- paisawalla 4y ago
  Sure, but apart from a rebuttal, it's also a valid critique to simply point out that this is a structurally bad article which insults the intelligence of the reader, without responding to the content. The entire field could be occupied by historians who only believe that class dynamics explain every phenomenon -- such that there's no contrary sources to provide -- and it still wouldn't make it an accurate or acceptable historical essay. Here's merely one (of many) better articles that explains why people of San Francisco, than as now, might not favor having an openly lawless neighborhood in their city: https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/california/articles/a-brief-and-bloody-history-of-sfs-barbary-coast/ https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/california/arti...
  - benreesman 4y ago
    So I thank you for the reference and it was also an interesting read. But… as a relatively disinterested observer I feel compelled to point out that the link you provided is at least as loosely footnoted and uses at least as much (if not probably more) charged language. It has the word “Bloody” in the title. TFA is clearly written by someone who believes that prostitution is not inherently bad, bordering on a tacit endorsement of the practice. To its credit it doesn’t use language like “unfortunate men seduced by the temptations of…” If I missed it please correct me, but I didn’t find anything like: “Having been seduced by prostitutes affiliated with the Sydney Ducks, the unfortunate men who entered these brothels…” or “den of violence and vice” or “Gone were the scheming criminals and overarching sense of moral decay”. It’s a bit much with the purple prose about scheming this and degenerate that. It’s only my opinion, but I don’t really see any controversy over which of these things is a relatively sober précis with a subtle but detectable slant, and which is a breathless tale of sin and lawlessness.
    - shzusnwxbwj 4y ago
chockablock 4y ago
As it says at the top of the page, this article is basically a precis of a journal article, which--hurrah! is on Sci-hub: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144205282713 https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144205282713 . As you'd expect that article seems to be better sourced and has citations. Your critique of the posted article as being part of an ideological battle advancing class oppression dynamics seems overblown to me. This particular article reads like museum-pamphlet history to me.

benreesman 4y ago

As a protip, assertions like “X is poorly footnoted” that are themselves completely lacking in any links or references or footnotes bum me and a lot of other users out. I would be fascinated to read a substantive contrary viewpoint that clarifies inaccuracies or highlights controversial assertions in TFA, because I don’t know how accurate it is. Write that!

paisawalla 4y ago
Sure, but apart from a rebuttal, it's also a valid critique to simply point out that this is a structurally bad article which insults the intelligence of the reader, without responding to the content. The entire field could be occupied by historians who only believe that class dynamics explain every phenomenon -- such that there's no contrary sources to provide -- and it still wouldn't make it an accurate or acceptable historical essay. Here's merely one (of many) better articles that explains why people of San Francisco, than as now, might not favor having an openly lawless neighborhood in their city: https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/california/articles/a-brief-and-bloody-history-of-sfs-barbary-coast/ https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/california/arti...
- benreesman 4y ago
  So I thank you for the reference and it was also an interesting read. But… as a relatively disinterested observer I feel compelled to point out that the link you provided is at least as loosely footnoted and uses at least as much (if not probably more) charged language. It has the word “Bloody” in the title. TFA is clearly written by someone who believes that prostitution is not inherently bad, bordering on a tacit endorsement of the practice. To its credit it doesn’t use language like “unfortunate men seduced by the temptations of…” If I missed it please correct me, but I didn’t find anything like: “Having been seduced by prostitutes affiliated with the Sydney Ducks, the unfortunate men who entered these brothels…” or “den of violence and vice” or “Gone were the scheming criminals and overarching sense of moral decay”. It’s a bit much with the purple prose about scheming this and degenerate that. It’s only my opinion, but I don’t really see any controversy over which of these things is a relatively sober précis with a subtle but detectable slant, and which is a breathless tale of sin and lawlessness.
  - shzusnwxbwj 4y ago

chockablock 4y ago

As it says at the top of the page, this article is basically a precis of a journal article, which--hurrah! is on Sci-hub: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144205282713 https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144205282713 . As you'd expect that article seems to be better sourced and has citations. Your critique of the posted article as being part of an ideological battle advancing class oppression dynamics seems overblown to me. This particular article reads like museum-pamphlet history to me.