12 ms·

Human mobility networks reveal increased segregation in large cities

95 points by hunglee2 3y ago

jychang 3y ago
[flagged]
- bigallen 3y ago
  Are you saying evolution prefers a social caste system? And that our destiny is to become more stratified?
  - colonelpopcorn 3y ago
    Sexual selection certainly does. Eggs being expensive and sperm being cheap kind of make winners necessary.
    - Thorrez 3y ago
      The vast majority of people aren't buying or selling eggs and sperm. So I doubt the price of eggs and sperm are creating an economic divide.
      - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
        It is possible for the words "Expensive" and "cheap" to mean or refer to actions other than buying or selling.
        Thorrez 3y ago
        Then what are we talking about? I'm confused. Are we talking about the physical cost to produce eggs and sperm? I don't think that's that high. Also, a woman already has all her eggs at the time she's born. Are we talking about the physical cost to maintain eggs and sperm? I don't think that's that high. Are we talking bout the physical cost of pregnancy? If so, it doesn't make sense to say eggs and sperm. colonelpopcorn should have said pregnancy.
        konschubert 3y ago
        It’s still bullshit. Yes, it takes 9 months to grow a baby and it’s a health toll and a health risk. Fair. But unless you’re planning to abandon your kids, most of the investment comes in the years after and this responsibility is equally on both father and mother.
        jimbob45 3y ago
        But unless you’re planning to abandon your kids, most of the investment comes in the years after and this responsibility is equally on both father and mother. One of the players in this game can freely walk away with no negative consequences. The other player is biologically attuned to lose their mind until they reunite with their child. Also, one player can have children up until 30-50, depending on how well they roll. The other player can have children until the moment they die. One player will have 3-5 years of extremely negative health effects starting with conception. The other player can fulfill their obligation in their sleep and never think about it again.
        konschubert 3y ago
        Most fathers stay with their kids. Something about your tone weirds me out, sorry. EDIT: I think part of of it is: You seem to suggest that a father’s love and responsibility for their child is just an unnatural delusion. Even that it’s a bad thing somehow. My narrow response to that is what I hinted at above: Fathers love their children no less than mothers love their children. My broader response is: Trying to be moral, and sometimes failing at it, is better than never trying and thus always failing. Some people decided that they will just always do what’s best for themselves. Such people like to claim that anyone who tries to be moral is always a lying hypocrite and thus worse than the absolute asshole. Because there is one sin that the absolute asshole can never be accused of: hypocrisy. These people are hard to counter, because anything that is said will be labelled as hypocrisy. The truth is that many, many people in this world sometimes do things because they are right, not because they benefit themselves.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    From an economics and intelligence standpoint it's basically inevitable due to globalization and automation. The US has shifted to high skill tertiary economy. This leaves less opportunities for lower skilled individuals. These lower skilled individuals don't have nearly the same earning power and thus have fewer choices (location, housing, schools, etc) and will naturally end up as a higher percentage in the lower cost choices. In some ways it's also how the work has moved vs the people. Entire regions like Appalachia have seen industries die and have left almost nothing to properly replace them.
    - riskable 3y ago
      > The US has shifted to high skill tertiary economy. I don't think this has anything to do with it. The physical class divides have been around since the beginning of the United States. If anything, it's a symptom of capitalism where those with greater wealth use it to segregate themselves from poorer folks. In effect, capitalism takes advantage of human nature and as a side effect that same human nature self-segregates based on how "nice" any given area is. You want rich folks to mingle with middle class folks? Make the middle class area the nicest place and don't let the rich completely "take it over" (aka gentrification). The way the modern world is becoming though we're self-segregating more and more though so I don't think it's realistic to expect any sort of top-down planning or policies to force mingling. Upper middle class people don't even go to the grocery store anymore and thus, don't end up mingling with lower middle class people. Maybe we should promote more "mixing hobbies" where people physically need to show up and interact with each other? Subsidize board game shops, paintball, indoor rock climbing, and similar? Might help humanity a little bit.
      - yesbut77 3y ago
        Yes, but consider that people of higher SES do not want to mix with people of middle and low SES. And part of that is because they are not fun to be around! People of low SES tend to be meaner, more anti-social in their behaviors like littering, not maintaining their environment, more likely to commit crime, less family formation, etc. Access to well behaved people is not a human right.
  - asow92 3y ago
    > Are you saying evolution prefers a social caste system? Probably, otherwise the natural occurrence of social castes wouldn't require intervention policies. > And that our destiny is to become more stratified? Not necessarily, although consider the possibility that integration may be artificially enforced and unstable without constant intervention.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      It's a little irrelevant what evolution "prefers." We have multiple examples of what has been called "dangerous evolutionary baggage": behaviors that were sensible in the past but in the present, rapidly-changing world actually hinder optimal outcomes for people. Two examples are ingroup-outgroup bias in a densely-connected world where the decisions of someone halfway around the planet can impact your day and scarcity / hoarding behaviors in a world with more than enough stuff in several categories to satisfy every human being more than they could possibly ever consume.
      - asow92 3y ago
        So you agree with the resolution that evolution prefers a social caste system then?
        shadowgovt 3y ago
        I have no idea. My point is it's irrelevant for modern humans. As a social construct: caste could be useful for specialization. But I sort of fail to see the point of making the specialization birth-based (observation seems to indicate that people's interests and skills, particularly in technology spaces which dominate the human condition now, are randomized / environment based more than bred. Give me an interested kid who wants to be a programmer, and I can teach them how to program regardless of who their parents were). Whether there's some natural selective pressure to encourage caste is irrelevant in the modern human condition. Probably better to optimize for letting people have experiences and finding what fits them best under the theory that people do the best work / live the best lives if they're doing what they're into.
- hulitu 3y ago
  That's what a religion historian more or less said: in USA 2 people from 2 different neighborhoods cannot underestand each other (they don't speak the same language).
- dang 3y ago
  "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lucasRW 3y ago
Is that really news, or "counter-intuitive" ? I have lived in several countries and always observed that, irrespective of the political views, people try to flee poor areas when they can, and try to have their kids put in good schools when they can. This is particularly funny in the case of left-wing politicians paying extras bucks to have their kids in elitists white schools with strong discipline, while advocating "diversity" for the other kids when they are interviewed on TV at night.
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  I have never seen non competitive elite class parents regardless they are left or right or races. When it comes to children, all bets are off and the only action is to send the children to the best school that's available
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > This is particularly funny in the case of left-wing politicians paying extras bucks to have their kids in elitists white schools with strong discipline, while advocating "diversity" for the other kids when they are interviewed on TV at night. There is nothing wrong with advocating for a society wide rule change, but still playing the game according to the current rules.
  - ljsprague 3y ago
    We suspect they don't really want the society wide rule change though.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    They aren't playing the game by the rules in this example, they entirely misunderstand the game which shows their biases. The kid with two wealthy parents in a functional household is going to do well in life wherever they get their k-12. Sending them to private school signals you bought into racial fears over actual logic of what factors actually contribute towards these differential outcomes we see among public and private schools.
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
From the article: As plausible as the cosmopolitan mixing hypothesis might seem, big cities also provide new opportunities for self-segregation, because they are large enough to enable people to seek out and find others who are similar to themselves It kind of makes sense that people that earn more or have a higher potential want to mingle with people that are the same. There's no upside for better off individuals to stay in low income neighborhoods. No matter how much subsidized housing or whatever, low income individuals will be priced out of events or social gatherings. And the bigger the city, the more opportunities there are, the more segregated economically they tend to be because just a small percentage will "make it". And the rest I think will follow a half Bell curve.
- kridsdale1 3y ago
  They’re also priced out of basic food in gentrified areas. I posit that rich people actually enjoy having groceries cost double what they do just a few miles away, because it means only the ‘right people’ mingle with them in public. Personally I exemplify this. I make enough to go to the fancy Whole Foods and shop in peace, whereas the local Safeway in the same neighborhood has people screaming and throwing objects and items are locked behind bars. Simple price differentiation keeps those people from bothering to enter WF.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sinkasapa 3y ago
As a non-specialist, I think a surprising statement is that in this particular field, there is an expectation that large, dense cities encourage socioeconomic mixing. That seems counter to everyday experience and policies that are sometimes enacted in cities to counter the trend, like bussing kids in poor neighborhoods into richer school districts. The term "ghetto" famously describes an urban trend to cut off poor enclaves, generally with some racial or ethnic component. I guess I felt like it was "common knowledge" that urbanization increased social stratification, whether in ancient times as agricultural societies developed, as I was taught in high school social studies, or in more modern cases where people leave the land to find opportunities, as in Latin America, for instance, where terms like favela are familiar even to English speakers to describe the cut-off, under-serviced and impoverished neighborhoods that have developed. Common knowledge being what it is, that isn't to say that anyone should believe that cities necessarily increase or decrease stratification without making measurements but stories of urban inequality seems to be so prevalent in popular culture that it seems strange that one would state that the opposite is a popular expectation but they have citations so I'm not questioning that the idea is out there, only that it is surprising that it is so prevalent that they need to open their article as though they are bucking a trend in the literature.
- randomdata 3y ago
  I was definitely taken back by that statement. Marginalized groups, for example, have always noted how cities offer increased isolation away from bigots as compared to smaller towns and rural areas. It may be a prevalent idea in academia, but I'm not sure anyone thinks that way on the streets.
  - emanuele232 3y ago
    Actually i do agree with the statement. I live near the biggest city in my state and my friends are different in ideas, political opinions and preferences (also kinda different in economic possibilities) due to the fact that we all went to the same highschool, and there are few places where the young can socialize. on the contrary my brother lives in that big city and its friends are ALL coming from the same cultural background, with the same ideas and the same political leaning (that he chooses during university)
rahulnair23 3y ago
Washington D.C. is a great example of this. While looking at residential location choice, around 10 years ago, you could discern a boundary (Georgia Ave in those days). Netflix used to show the most popular movies by zip code, and one side of the boundary it was "Mamma Mia" and the other "Tyler Perry".
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Across the river in Alexandria and the surrounding suburbs, this was true as well (not sure about Netflix, but the housing boundaries) The bureaucrats, lawyers, doctors, and career officers (Pentagon) were highly concentrated in a few neighborhoods that border the Potomac (Old Town through Fort Hunt). A few blocks away, the Rt 1 corridor was largely working class or lower class, with some young enlisted families from Ft Belvior. This extended to my high school - there were 3 buildings - first was arts/music, second was STEM and honors, and the third was the gym, auto shop, wood shop, and cooking. It's not hard to imagine there were students who never entered building 1. And the only reason I was ever in building 3 was the weight room and the one semester of auto shop I took.
  - savanx 3y ago
    I also went to West Potomac and spent hardly any time in Gunston.
Lastodon 3y ago
[flagged]
- mistermann 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect Think of how an LLM is trained, should we assume that humans are necessarily different, even if it goes against their scientific principles? If the principles are not in the cognitive context window, then they essentially do not exist. If you try to inject them, the emotional centre is typically invoked (some form of fight or flight I'd think), disallowing the addition. Human cognition is very strange if you watch it carefully with pure curiosity.
- ralusek 3y ago
  I think the goal of attempting to reduce in-group bias is laudable. I generally think that any attempt to remove race as a component from any decision making is a good thing. That being said, I think that if you plot, for example, the black and white American populations for things when it comes to language, interests, economics, education, culture in general, at the population level, these populations diverge pretty dramatically. So if you take a random black person and a random white person and say "go be friends," that is far less likely to be a compatible relationship than if you took two individuals of the same "race." People seem to have problems keeping these thoughts simultaneously. Not being friends with somebody on the basis of their race: bad. Being more likely to be friends with people who happen to share your superficial characteristics because the populations associated with those superficial characteristics happen to be pretty different: fine. As Thomas Sowell has essentially said in virtually every book he's written: it doesn't make sense to take two populations that do not behave the same way and then expect them to produce identical outputs. It doesn't make sense to slap the label of racism on that delta. Attempts to align the circumstances/behaviors etc of different populations, should, in theory, reduce the delta. I think in some cases, it's commendable, and in some cases, it's fundamentally authoritarian and functionally "cultural erasure."
  - kbrannigan 3y ago
    [flagged]

95 points by hunglee2 3y ago

jychang 3y ago

[flagged]

bigallen 3y ago
Are you saying evolution prefers a social caste system? And that our destiny is to become more stratified?
- colonelpopcorn 3y ago
  Sexual selection certainly does. Eggs being expensive and sperm being cheap kind of make winners necessary.
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    The vast majority of people aren't buying or selling eggs and sperm. So I doubt the price of eggs and sperm are creating an economic divide.
    - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
      It is possible for the words "Expensive" and "cheap" to mean or refer to actions other than buying or selling.
      - Thorrez 3y ago
        Then what are we talking about? I'm confused. Are we talking about the physical cost to produce eggs and sperm? I don't think that's that high. Also, a woman already has all her eggs at the time she's born. Are we talking about the physical cost to maintain eggs and sperm? I don't think that's that high. Are we talking bout the physical cost of pregnancy? If so, it doesn't make sense to say eggs and sperm. colonelpopcorn should have said pregnancy.
      - konschubert 3y ago
        It’s still bullshit. Yes, it takes 9 months to grow a baby and it’s a health toll and a health risk. Fair. But unless you’re planning to abandon your kids, most of the investment comes in the years after and this responsibility is equally on both father and mother.
        jimbob45 3y ago
        But unless you’re planning to abandon your kids, most of the investment comes in the years after and this responsibility is equally on both father and mother. One of the players in this game can freely walk away with no negative consequences. The other player is biologically attuned to lose their mind until they reunite with their child. Also, one player can have children up until 30-50, depending on how well they roll. The other player can have children until the moment they die. One player will have 3-5 years of extremely negative health effects starting with conception. The other player can fulfill their obligation in their sleep and never think about it again.
        konschubert 3y ago
        Most fathers stay with their kids. Something about your tone weirds me out, sorry. EDIT: I think part of of it is: You seem to suggest that a father’s love and responsibility for their child is just an unnatural delusion. Even that it’s a bad thing somehow. My narrow response to that is what I hinted at above: Fathers love their children no less than mothers love their children. My broader response is: Trying to be moral, and sometimes failing at it, is better than never trying and thus always failing. Some people decided that they will just always do what’s best for themselves. Such people like to claim that anyone who tries to be moral is always a lying hypocrite and thus worse than the absolute asshole. Because there is one sin that the absolute asshole can never be accused of: hypocrisy. These people are hard to counter, because anything that is said will be labelled as hypocrisy. The truth is that many, many people in this world sometimes do things because they are right, not because they benefit themselves.
- giantg2 3y ago
  From an economics and intelligence standpoint it's basically inevitable due to globalization and automation. The US has shifted to high skill tertiary economy. This leaves less opportunities for lower skilled individuals. These lower skilled individuals don't have nearly the same earning power and thus have fewer choices (location, housing, schools, etc) and will naturally end up as a higher percentage in the lower cost choices. In some ways it's also how the work has moved vs the people. Entire regions like Appalachia have seen industries die and have left almost nothing to properly replace them.
  - riskable 3y ago
    > The US has shifted to high skill tertiary economy. I don't think this has anything to do with it. The physical class divides have been around since the beginning of the United States. If anything, it's a symptom of capitalism where those with greater wealth use it to segregate themselves from poorer folks. In effect, capitalism takes advantage of human nature and as a side effect that same human nature self-segregates based on how "nice" any given area is. You want rich folks to mingle with middle class folks? Make the middle class area the nicest place and don't let the rich completely "take it over" (aka gentrification). The way the modern world is becoming though we're self-segregating more and more though so I don't think it's realistic to expect any sort of top-down planning or policies to force mingling. Upper middle class people don't even go to the grocery store anymore and thus, don't end up mingling with lower middle class people. Maybe we should promote more "mixing hobbies" where people physically need to show up and interact with each other? Subsidize board game shops, paintball, indoor rock climbing, and similar? Might help humanity a little bit.
    - yesbut77 3y ago
      Yes, but consider that people of higher SES do not want to mix with people of middle and low SES. And part of that is because they are not fun to be around! People of low SES tend to be meaner, more anti-social in their behaviors like littering, not maintaining their environment, more likely to commit crime, less family formation, etc. Access to well behaved people is not a human right.
- asow92 3y ago
  > Are you saying evolution prefers a social caste system? Probably, otherwise the natural occurrence of social castes wouldn't require intervention policies. > And that our destiny is to become more stratified? Not necessarily, although consider the possibility that integration may be artificially enforced and unstable without constant intervention.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    It's a little irrelevant what evolution "prefers." We have multiple examples of what has been called "dangerous evolutionary baggage": behaviors that were sensible in the past but in the present, rapidly-changing world actually hinder optimal outcomes for people. Two examples are ingroup-outgroup bias in a densely-connected world where the decisions of someone halfway around the planet can impact your day and scarcity / hoarding behaviors in a world with more than enough stuff in several categories to satisfy every human being more than they could possibly ever consume.
    - asow92 3y ago
      So you agree with the resolution that evolution prefers a social caste system then?
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        I have no idea. My point is it's irrelevant for modern humans. As a social construct: caste could be useful for specialization. But I sort of fail to see the point of making the specialization birth-based (observation seems to indicate that people's interests and skills, particularly in technology spaces which dominate the human condition now, are randomized / environment based more than bred. Give me an interested kid who wants to be a programmer, and I can teach them how to program regardless of who their parents were). Whether there's some natural selective pressure to encourage caste is irrelevant in the modern human condition. Probably better to optimize for letting people have experiences and finding what fits them best under the theory that people do the best work / live the best lives if they're doing what they're into.
hulitu 3y ago
That's what a religion historian more or less said: in USA 2 people from 2 different neighborhoods cannot underestand each other (they don't speak the same language).
dang 3y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lucasRW 3y ago

Is that really news, or "counter-intuitive" ? I have lived in several countries and always observed that, irrespective of the political views, people try to flee poor areas when they can, and try to have their kids put in good schools when they can. This is particularly funny in the case of left-wing politicians paying extras bucks to have their kids in elitists white schools with strong discipline, while advocating "diversity" for the other kids when they are interviewed on TV at night.

gloryjulio 3y ago
I have never seen non competitive elite class parents regardless they are left or right or races. When it comes to children, all bets are off and the only action is to send the children to the best school that's available
lotsofpulp 3y ago
> This is particularly funny in the case of left-wing politicians paying extras bucks to have their kids in elitists white schools with strong discipline, while advocating "diversity" for the other kids when they are interviewed on TV at night. There is nothing wrong with advocating for a society wide rule change, but still playing the game according to the current rules.
- ljsprague 3y ago
  We suspect they don't really want the society wide rule change though.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  They aren't playing the game by the rules in this example, they entirely misunderstand the game which shows their biases. The kid with two wealthy parents in a functional household is going to do well in life wherever they get their k-12. Sending them to private school signals you bought into racial fears over actual logic of what factors actually contribute towards these differential outcomes we see among public and private schools.

ExoticPearTree 3y ago

From the article: As plausible as the cosmopolitan mixing hypothesis might seem, big cities also provide new opportunities for self-segregation, because they are large enough to enable people to seek out and find others who are similar to themselves It kind of makes sense that people that earn more or have a higher potential want to mingle with people that are the same. There's no upside for better off individuals to stay in low income neighborhoods. No matter how much subsidized housing or whatever, low income individuals will be priced out of events or social gatherings. And the bigger the city, the more opportunities there are, the more segregated economically they tend to be because just a small percentage will "make it". And the rest I think will follow a half Bell curve.

kridsdale1 3y ago
They’re also priced out of basic food in gentrified areas. I posit that rich people actually enjoy having groceries cost double what they do just a few miles away, because it means only the ‘right people’ mingle with them in public. Personally I exemplify this. I make enough to go to the fancy Whole Foods and shop in peace, whereas the local Safeway in the same neighborhood has people screaming and throwing objects and items are locked behind bars. Simple price differentiation keeps those people from bothering to enter WF.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sinkasapa 3y ago

As a non-specialist, I think a surprising statement is that in this particular field, there is an expectation that large, dense cities encourage socioeconomic mixing. That seems counter to everyday experience and policies that are sometimes enacted in cities to counter the trend, like bussing kids in poor neighborhoods into richer school districts. The term "ghetto" famously describes an urban trend to cut off poor enclaves, generally with some racial or ethnic component. I guess I felt like it was "common knowledge" that urbanization increased social stratification, whether in ancient times as agricultural societies developed, as I was taught in high school social studies, or in more modern cases where people leave the land to find opportunities, as in Latin America, for instance, where terms like favela are familiar even to English speakers to describe the cut-off, under-serviced and impoverished neighborhoods that have developed. Common knowledge being what it is, that isn't to say that anyone should believe that cities necessarily increase or decrease stratification without making measurements but stories of urban inequality seems to be so prevalent in popular culture that it seems strange that one would state that the opposite is a popular expectation but they have citations so I'm not questioning that the idea is out there, only that it is surprising that it is so prevalent that they need to open their article as though they are bucking a trend in the literature.

randomdata 3y ago
I was definitely taken back by that statement. Marginalized groups, for example, have always noted how cities offer increased isolation away from bigots as compared to smaller towns and rural areas. It may be a prevalent idea in academia, but I'm not sure anyone thinks that way on the streets.
- emanuele232 3y ago
  Actually i do agree with the statement. I live near the biggest city in my state and my friends are different in ideas, political opinions and preferences (also kinda different in economic possibilities) due to the fact that we all went to the same highschool, and there are few places where the young can socialize. on the contrary my brother lives in that big city and its friends are ALL coming from the same cultural background, with the same ideas and the same political leaning (that he chooses during university)

rahulnair23 3y ago

Washington D.C. is a great example of this. While looking at residential location choice, around 10 years ago, you could discern a boundary (Georgia Ave in those days). Netflix used to show the most popular movies by zip code, and one side of the boundary it was "Mamma Mia" and the other "Tyler Perry".

alistairSH 3y ago
Across the river in Alexandria and the surrounding suburbs, this was true as well (not sure about Netflix, but the housing boundaries) The bureaucrats, lawyers, doctors, and career officers (Pentagon) were highly concentrated in a few neighborhoods that border the Potomac (Old Town through Fort Hunt). A few blocks away, the Rt 1 corridor was largely working class or lower class, with some young enlisted families from Ft Belvior. This extended to my high school - there were 3 buildings - first was arts/music, second was STEM and honors, and the third was the gym, auto shop, wood shop, and cooking. It's not hard to imagine there were students who never entered building 1. And the only reason I was ever in building 3 was the weight room and the one semester of auto shop I took.
- savanx 3y ago
  I also went to West Potomac and spent hardly any time in Gunston.

Lastodon 3y ago

[flagged]

mistermann 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect Think of how an LLM is trained, should we assume that humans are necessarily different, even if it goes against their scientific principles? If the principles are not in the cognitive context window, then they essentially do not exist. If you try to inject them, the emotional centre is typically invoked (some form of fight or flight I'd think), disallowing the addition. Human cognition is very strange if you watch it carefully with pure curiosity.
ralusek 3y ago
I think the goal of attempting to reduce in-group bias is laudable. I generally think that any attempt to remove race as a component from any decision making is a good thing. That being said, I think that if you plot, for example, the black and white American populations for things when it comes to language, interests, economics, education, culture in general, at the population level, these populations diverge pretty dramatically. So if you take a random black person and a random white person and say "go be friends," that is far less likely to be a compatible relationship than if you took two individuals of the same "race." People seem to have problems keeping these thoughts simultaneously. Not being friends with somebody on the basis of their race: bad. Being more likely to be friends with people who happen to share your superficial characteristics because the populations associated with those superficial characteristics happen to be pretty different: fine. As Thomas Sowell has essentially said in virtually every book he's written: it doesn't make sense to take two populations that do not behave the same way and then expect them to produce identical outputs. It doesn't make sense to slap the label of racism on that delta. Attempts to align the circumstances/behaviors etc of different populations, should, in theory, reduce the delta. I think in some cases, it's commendable, and in some cases, it's fundamentally authoritarian and functionally "cultural erasure."
- kbrannigan 3y ago
  [flagged]