6 ms·

In case you had any doubt lmfao

by alexb_ 3y ago

DiggyJohnson 3y ago
Why are you so quick to lump. Disagree with this individual, sure, but they gave you a lot of specific claims that you can argue against. Additionally, you’re implying that this person represents everyone that you disagree with, which is childish and crazy.
- alexb_ 3y ago
  > since neighborhoods are not allowed to screen prospective buyers on an individual basis, using building restrictions and high-prices is the blunt tool available for limiting influxes from populations that have much higher rates of crime. Let's translate. "screen prospective buyers on an individual basis": neighborhoods cant deny certain people from having housing "limiting influxes from populations that have much higher rates of crime": gives the first paragraph defines black people as a population that has a higher rate of crime, this is pretty much explicitly saying "building restrictions are a tool to limit influxes of black people". The parent comment is agreeing with me.
  - chlodwig 3y ago
    > "limiting influxes from populations that have much higher rates of crime": gives the first paragraph defines black people as a population that has a higher rate of crime, this is pretty much explicitly saying "building restrictions are a tool to limit influxes of black people". No, I'm saying you are getting the causality inverted. You then "translate" what I am saying by inverting what I am saying and then call me names. How about you argue with exactly what I write rather than trying to "translate" it.
  - chlodwig 3y ago
    To clarify, the actual causality is this: 1) YIMBY's want to keep out crime. 2) The only tool available for keeping out crime, is to keep housing prices high and to keep out low-income housing projects, because low-income people disproportionately commit more crime. 3) Even though this is sub-optimal and I would like a much more fine-grained tool for keeping out crime (eg, being allowed to run criminal background checks on every person moving into my neighborhood), it is the only tool I have to protect my family and my children, and so I feel no moral guilt about using it. 4) Because black people have 10X-30X higher rates of crime, and higher rates of poverty, ANY policy that keeps out criminals or keeps out low-income populations will disproportionately keep out black people. But the end goal is not to keep out black people, that is not the point of the policy, that is an unfortunate side-effect caused by the higher-crime rates and higher rates of poverty among black people, which I have no power to fix.
  - gosub100 3y ago
    It's a lot easier to label things racist than it is to address why some groups commit more crime or why people might not want to have more crime in their neighborhood.
chlodwig 3y ago
Is someone who points out black populations have a 10X to 30X higher crime rate inherently an immoral racist? Is any policy -- even if prima facie race neutral -- that tries to limit higher-crime-rate populations from moving into a neighborhood inherently racist and immoral if said policy has a disparate impact on black people? My friend no longer send his kids to his local playground because the young men at the local scattered site public housing project were engaging in crazy shoot-out in the playground. Is it morally wrong for other people in the city to observe this and then oppose a housing project in their neighborhood? What is the moral thing for them to do? What policy do you actually suggest for keeping crime out of a family.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

In case you had any doubt lmfao

by alexb_ 3y ago

In case you had any doubt lmfao

Why are you so quick to lump. Disagree with this individual, sure, but they gave you a lot of specific claims that you can argue against. Additionally, you’re implying that this person represents everyone that you disagree with, which is childish and crazy.

alexb_ 3y ago
> since neighborhoods are not allowed to screen prospective buyers on an individual basis, using building restrictions and high-prices is the blunt tool available for limiting influxes from populations that have much higher rates of crime. Let's translate. "screen prospective buyers on an individual basis": neighborhoods cant deny certain people from having housing "limiting influxes from populations that have much higher rates of crime": gives the first paragraph defines black people as a population that has a higher rate of crime, this is pretty much explicitly saying "building restrictions are a tool to limit influxes of black people". The parent comment is agreeing with me.
- chlodwig 3y ago
  > "limiting influxes from populations that have much higher rates of crime": gives the first paragraph defines black people as a population that has a higher rate of crime, this is pretty much explicitly saying "building restrictions are a tool to limit influxes of black people". No, I'm saying you are getting the causality inverted. You then "translate" what I am saying by inverting what I am saying and then call me names. How about you argue with exactly what I write rather than trying to "translate" it.
- chlodwig 3y ago
  To clarify, the actual causality is this: 1) YIMBY's want to keep out crime. 2) The only tool available for keeping out crime, is to keep housing prices high and to keep out low-income housing projects, because low-income people disproportionately commit more crime. 3) Even though this is sub-optimal and I would like a much more fine-grained tool for keeping out crime (eg, being allowed to run criminal background checks on every person moving into my neighborhood), it is the only tool I have to protect my family and my children, and so I feel no moral guilt about using it. 4) Because black people have 10X-30X higher rates of crime, and higher rates of poverty, ANY policy that keeps out criminals or keeps out low-income populations will disproportionately keep out black people. But the end goal is not to keep out black people, that is not the point of the policy, that is an unfortunate side-effect caused by the higher-crime rates and higher rates of poverty among black people, which I have no power to fix.
- gosub100 3y ago
  It's a lot easier to label things racist than it is to address why some groups commit more crime or why people might not want to have more crime in their neighborhood.

chlodwig 3y ago

Is someone who points out black populations have a 10X to 30X higher crime rate inherently an immoral racist? Is any policy -- even if prima facie race neutral -- that tries to limit higher-crime-rate populations from moving into a neighborhood inherently racist and immoral if said policy has a disparate impact on black people? My friend no longer send his kids to his local playground because the young men at the local scattered site public housing project were engaging in crazy shoot-out in the playground. Is it morally wrong for other people in the city to observe this and then oppose a housing project in their neighborhood? What is the moral thing for them to do? What policy do you actually suggest for keeping crime out of a family.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]