This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I said possible. There are very few majority white cities in the Bay Area. And when I lived out there, the ones I mentioned were much whiter, but had lots of Asians and Indians moving in like crazy. The demographics were changing quickly. But this is irrelevant to what I was saying because as I mentioned they move to the whitest city possible, not that they move to a white majority city. I didn’t say they moved to majority white cities because those are incredibly rare and out of reach for all but the wealthiest.
I honestly don’t even know what you are trying to say with your comment. What point are you trying to make with this? How is this even relevant? 48% white is about as white as it will get there.
They don't. That's what I'm telling you. Palo Alto, comparatively white, is practically not growing. Almost nobody is moving there. Dublin, comparatively nonwhite, is among the fastest growing cities in the state.
My argument is that your claim has no correspondence to reality and contradicts the data. Do you have any evidence for your claim?
I haven’t lived in the Bay Are in over 10 years, so I thought of random cities known for being white when I was there. And it’s not even debatable that I am right. You can look at maps of cities in the Bay Area and the percentage of white people and they clearly try to congregate and cluster in certain areas. They have a preference to live in the whitest possible cities if they can. This is a clear revealed preference based off demographic data. Otherwise, you would see white people randomly distributed amongst all the cities, which you obviously don’t. Even within cities, there are certain percentages of SF or Oakland that have higher percentages of white people than others. How else would you explain this?
Your claim:
This is a claim about where people move to. The cities growing fastest (i.e. the cities that have the most people moving into them) are rather nonwhite. How does this not, at least to a first approximation, disprove your claim? Perhaps you can argue that all the growth seen in e.g. Dublin and Emeryville is Asians, but you haven't shown that.
So again, do you have any evidence that white people tend to move to white towns? Or is your argument not actually supported by evidence of where people are moving?
https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/bayarea_whites_2017_0-0.png
Doesn't really look like that to me. Looks to me that white people avoid the very shittiest parts of the bay, which makes sense since white people have the resources to do this more often than Hispanics or blacks. White people also more frequently live in old money towns like Atherton, but that's clearly not due to whites overwhelmingly moving there, for the simple reason that nobody is overwhelmingly moving to Atherton. And finally white people are more likely to live in rural areas, but again, hardly anyone is moving there.
Are you seriously claiming that white people don’t try to move to whiter towns when possible? Just so I know what you are claiming here. Are you saying white people have zero racial preferences when choosing a place to live? Please state exactly what you are claiming here and what you disagree with.
There are a lot of confounding variables. And again, I said when possible, as in all other things being equal. So please state exactly about what I said you disagree with. It seems to me you are saying whites have zero racial preferences when choosing where to live, so can you please explicitly say that if that’s what you are claiming?
I’m not going to debate your random gish gallops.
There's no gish gallop. My claim is simple and has been, I think, clear from my first post. The whiteness of a town in the bay area is not correlated with how many white people move there. Tons of white people are moving to towns with small proportions of white people. Your claim, that when white people move to the bay area, they move to towns like Palo Alto, is false.
I wouldn't be surprised if whites don't want to move to predominantly black neighborhoods. I would be surprised if they didn't want to move to neighborhoods with a lot of east Asians. And indeed plenty of whites do move to neighborhoods with a lot of east Asians, and fewer move to neighborhoods with lots of blacks.
You are purposely being obtuse. You’re focusing on Palo Alto because it’s your gotcha because it’s a random city in the Bay Area I threw out as the profile of a city white people prefer to live in if they can. Why are you so fixated on this one city?
So just so we are clear: yes or no? White people show zero preference in the Bay Area for living around other white people. That seems to be what you are claiming. Can you say yes that’s what you’re claiming or are you not going to explicitly state what you are clearly insinuating? Otherwise I don’t feel the need to continue a conversation with someone who won’t state yes or no when asked a simple question.
We don't have to focus on Palo Alto. Both Livermore and Pleasanton grew slower than Dublin too. You can hardly fault me for looking at the towns you brought up!
Let's be careful here, your claim was about moving. As I said, I don't think that white people moving to the bay area tend to move to whiter towns. Do they, in their heart of hearts, prefer to live in whiter towns? I don't know, is that where the goalposts are moving? I'll have to bow out in that case.
I did answer the question. Here:
I'm from the Bay Area. I literally saw it happen. People moved to other suburbs but eventually it became a thing where people couldn't escape it like it is today. Here's an article that was making the rounds when I lived there: https://web.archive.org/web/20150309054437/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113236377590902105
I saw people flee Indians moving into Fremont and from Asians moving into Cupertino. They tried to move to places like Livermore, San Ramon, and Pleasanton, but eventually those places got changed too. Now there's nowhere to go but other states. White people definitely tried to move to whiter cities, so unless things have changed in the past 10 years with human nature, I think it's still obviously true.
From the way you write, I'm getting the feeling you are an Indian immigrant, so I don't think I can get you to understand.
I could perform statistical analysis, but I don't think you'd accept that either. I could show you that almost all growth in Dublin was Indian and Asian like you asked (although it shouldn't even need proof if you have lived in the Bay Area the past 25 years and seen the change), but I think you'd just move the goal posts.
I truly don't understand why you are objecting to something that shouldn't even be debatable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is very low non-white Hispanic and black through, which is probably what he means. (10% and 3% respectively iirc! There goes 47% of all the murders!)
Exactly. They are pretending not to know what I am talking about. The cities in the Bay Area with lots of white people will also have lots of Asians so pointing it out is irrelevant. Whites with means clearly have a preference for a certain kind of city.
Yeah you can probably count Asians as white for the purpose of this discussion. They do make things miserable for by importing lots of zero-sum grinding (at least in high school), but obviously that pales in comparison to worse things.
It's not Bay Area, but Irvine (Orange County) is an interesting city.
Originally an orange plantation, it's grown from essentially zero in 1970 to over 300,000 today. It's 45% Asian, 35% white, 12% Hispanic, and only 2% black. They have the lowest murder rate of any city their size in the U.S. Some years they have no murders at all.
Is it any wonder it has grown so quickly?
My grades and my test scores were higher than nearly any of the Asian kids at my high school. Now, in fairness, my school, which was one of the poorest schools in the district, was not getting the cream of the crop of Asian students. Still, at no point did I feel like I had to do any “zero-sum grinding” in order to stay ahead of the grading curve.
Cram schools are nearly universal in China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. The fact that you got better grades than some SE Asian kids (assuming from your comment) does not change this. If your school had a significant percentage of high-performing Asians you would not have fared so well unless you also put in the effort.
No, we had Chinese kids too. At the end of the day, nobody can get higher than 100% on any given test or assignment. If I get 100%, no amount of grinding by the Asian kids is going to somehow devalue that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link