- 150,703
- 201,601
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I agree with you 100%. White folks, for the most part, aren’t moving into the stone ghetto for cheaper rents. It definitely tends to be areas on the edges of the hood that are being redeveloped. But social housing wouldn't replicate ghettoized conditions, either, which isn't just a strategy to make things palatable for white folks, but obviously is important as a matter of principle—indeed, particularly for people of color who have obviously been victimized by those dynamics.Yeah, but I as a whole, the migration patterns of white people into cities don't signal to me that they are more ready for racially integrated living than their suburban counterparts.
It is not like a sprinkling of young suburban white people are uniformly moving into blackest neighborhoods, and happily accepting whatever living conditions currently in place, in exchange for being closer to the city center. If that were happening, I would be more inclined to believe that the desire to living in urban areas would crowd out any regressive racial views, but I don't see widespread evidence of that. If anything, it seems more like developers, after buying up land on the cheap, signal to white folk that a specific area of the city is "safe" for them to live. Then the game repeats itself over and over.
Urban cities are quite large. You can have tons of segregation within a city. So white city dwellers might want cheap affordable units in urban areas, that doesn't mean they are indifferent to the racial makeup of their neighborhood. Even if most were, which I think is a very optimistic view, it only takes a few bad actors to **** everything up.
I don't say this to condemn all white people. I say it as a warning that any housing program to increase supply must also be passed with the explicit goal of integration and shared prosperity. Leave no room for funny business; don't leave it up to white residents' willingness to accept diversity. Leave no room for it to be possible for white people to clump into one part of the city and enjoy better-maintained housing units and communities. At the same time, you put black and brown folk into another part of the city and ignore their neighborhoods. We are already a very segregated country, and the model is already there to unequally fund public institutions based on who utilizes them. The same game that is run for public school funding can be modified to run with the new form of public housing. With rents replacing property taxes.
I will always maintain that white supremacy is not completely incompatible with left-wing economics programs. Policymakers need to watch their flank and consider how bad actors can rig even the most progressive of programs, and how people who claim to welcome diversity, will stand back and let an unequal system be created because they still come out the winners.
And the fact that such a program won't work in certain areas, should be evidence that leaving it up to the wishes of white people is a dangerous game. Like what happens when those those suburban whites start moving into cities at a higher rate because there are building cheap housing units. They too will being game for diversity?
So I am all for the program you outlines, but **** letting people have the choice as to whether they will accept diversity, even if most would chose accept it. They shouldn't have a choice, make them accept true share prosperity or they get nothing.
What a disigenuous ****** thing to do. Also that topic was posted multiple times in this thread.Was the post that was deleted in this thread, or the COVID-19 thread?
this is ultimately what kind of shifted my stance though
"There’s this talk about unity as this kind of vague, kumbaya, kind of term. Unity and unifying isn’t a feeling, it’s a process. And what I hope does not happen in this process is that everyone just tries to shoo it along and brush real policies — that mean the difference of life and death"
AOC is right. And that's even why I said earlier after seeing in Obama's outreach to the Bernie faction, that it didn't feel authentic. And it won't until we see Joe's platform move even more left. Somewhere between himself and Bernie. And that's why I'm ok with some of the bigger voices of the left not being quick to offer their collective endorsement of Joe. Because if you do it too quickly, the little bit of leverage you have is gone.
As part of his coalition building, Biden is going to have to reach out to people like AOC. And if he doesn't, then the unity stuff really is just all talk.
this is ultimately what kind of shifted my stance though
"There’s this talk about unity as this kind of vague, kumbaya, kind of term. Unity and unifying isn’t a feeling, it’s a process. And what I hope does not happen in this process is that everyone just tries to shoo it along and brush real policies — that mean the difference of life and death"
AOC is right. And that's even why I said earlier after seeing in Obama's outreach to the Bernie faction, that it didn't feel authentic. And it won't until we see Joe's platform move even more left. Somewhere between himself and Bernie. And that's why I'm ok with some of the bigger voices of the left not being quick to offer their collective endorsement of Joe. Because if you do it too quickly, the little bit of leverage you have is gone.
As part of his coalition building, Biden is going to have to reach out to people like AOC. And if he doesn't, then the unity stuff really is just all talk.