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 -
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.
I gotta tell you, I've been called a lot of things but this is the first time I've been called an Indian immigrant.
I'm not really interested in debating something when I bring data (albeit imperfect) and you bring assertions and simply handwave that the data (which you haven't looked at) surely supports your position. You're not the only one with personal experience of the area, so that doesn't convince me either.
And for that reason, I'm out.
You asked for data that couldn’t immediately be provided because I would have to calculate it myself and the map you provided showed clear clusters of areas of white people which you hand waved away (and then accuse me of doing the same). There was nothing I could say that would convince you. And what you are saying can obviously just be dismissed regardless because it is so obviously not true. What you are saying is basically that if there are 2 cities in the Bay Area where everything is equal except demographics where one city is 100% Asian and the other is 50% white, white people won’t show any preference for the latter. That is an insanely hot take and not something anyone would agree with.
I also provided you a WSJ article saying the same thing and you didn’t even acknowledge it.
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