Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

That a city be a cosmopolitan mixture of races doesn't necessarily mean it will be devoid of racism. Sometimes the opposite happens. Post WW1 Vienna is a good example, if a little old.

ghetto |ˈgetō|
noun ( pl. -tos or -toes)
a part of a city, esp. a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups.
• historical the Jewish quarter in a city : the Warsaw Ghetto.
• an isolated or segregated group or area : the relative security of the gay ghetto.


The name need not apply to a crime infested or poor area. Historically, it did not do so. It came to be associated with  undesirable areas because of WASP xenophobia during periods of massive immigration.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - February 11 2012 at 07:13

Slartibartfast wrote: You're leaving out the likelihood that racists don't concentrate in NYC because it has too many people of color.  Once again historical amnesia is a wonderful thing.  As people of color concentrated in the cities there was white flight to suburbs and beyond.

Not really. You see huge concentrations of ethnicity in cities, aka ghettos. You get these situations where people aren't integrated since they stick to neighborhoods of their own race. However, the proximity forces interaction and resentment between the two groups. In an all X race city where you never see Y race, you have much less to complain about. When race X sees race Y coming into their neighborhood to do some undesirable activity, you see a flare of racism from both X and Y.

In any case though, it doesn't matter. Absent any evidence to suggest otherwise you assume a uniform distribution. That's just what you do. It would be the proper move. It's not leaving out the likelihood of anything; it's simply using the information available in the most logical way.

You're leaving out the likelihood that racists don't concentrate in NYC because it has too many people of color.  Once again historical amnesia is a wonderful thing.  As people of color concentrated in the cities there was white flight to suburbs and beyond.

James wrote: Well obviously it is. I just find it amusing how he calls Brian's friend a racist but then says much of NYC is racist and more so than Pennsylvania. That makes him sound racist as well. So someone isn't allowed to call Pittsburgh a hell-hole and so therefore he's a racist? That's stupid.

 

Of course, I was kinda joking.

In other news, Santorum = kvlt

James wrote: manofmystery wrote:   What?  His friend's the one calling us all racist white trash. Right there. He's saying Brian's friend is calling people from Pennsylvania racist white trash. To me, that means MoM is basically saying that he thinks Brian's friend is a racist because he thinks he's calling them racist.  Maybe not directly but the slur is there. Besides, he still called the guy a douchebag.  Not a terrible insult but still one nevertheless.

Either this is what is wrong with the world (blaming people for what they didn't say) or the author of this longer post is inept with pronouns.

Can you show me where because it appears to me that he never did such a thing.

I think the burden would be on you to show he's being unreasonable. Just seemed to me that he responded to Brian's friend's negative opinion of Western PA.

Reading the posts, MoM seems to be acting pretty reasonably, especially by MoM standards. Bring up the Patriots if you want to see him actually act boorish.