East of Palo Alto’s Eden(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
East of Palo Alto’s Eden
http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/10/east-of-palo-altos-eden/
14 comments
I lived in Baltimore for a year and a half. Oddly enough, the part of Baltimore I lived in was far safer than, say, Williamsburg where knife attacks and drug-related violence were still commonplace into the late 2000s (and possibly later).
Baltimore's problem isn't the poor blacks. It never was. (Yes, there are some in the drug trade, just as there are some low-income whites in it.) I feel sorry for them, because they've been abandoned by the economy (deindustrialization) and the politicians, and they almost never do any harm to others. Its problem is the whites in the suburbs ("the county") who've basically abandoned the city, going in for July 4th and New Years and an occasional trip to the Aquarium but otherwise avoid never deign to live there (and, therefore, don't pay taxes and leave the city poor despite being in one of the wealthiest states in the country).
Baltimore's problem isn't the poor blacks. It never was. (Yes, there are some in the drug trade, just as there are some low-income whites in it.) I feel sorry for them, because they've been abandoned by the economy (deindustrialization) and the politicians, and they almost never do any harm to others. Its problem is the whites in the suburbs ("the county") who've basically abandoned the city, going in for July 4th and New Years and an occasional trip to the Aquarium but otherwise avoid never deign to live there (and, therefore, don't pay taxes and leave the city poor despite being in one of the wealthiest states in the country).
I worked in Baltimore at the end of the 1980s, not far from Penn Station. The Monday Sun usually had a handful of murders to report from the weekend, and there was a shooting (not fatal) across the street from our office one day. The reputation for violence may be out of date now, but it was well earned.
Baltimore's disciplined voting habits have given it disproportionate power in the state government. The late William Donald Schaefer appeared to regard Maryland as a life support system for Baltimore, not just when he was mayor but when he was governor. I doubt it will do as well under Hogan who is a) Republican, and b) from Prince Georges County as it did under O'Malley.
But yes, there are perfectly fine parts of Baltimore.
Baltimore's disciplined voting habits have given it disproportionate power in the state government. The late William Donald Schaefer appeared to regard Maryland as a life support system for Baltimore, not just when he was mayor but when he was governor. I doubt it will do as well under Hogan who is a) Republican, and b) from Prince Georges County as it did under O'Malley.
But yes, there are perfectly fine parts of Baltimore.
I think part of Baltimore's problem is that the great areas are very close to some not so great areas. You can have houses that have gained 100% in value and walk a couple blocks in the wrong direction and be in a bad area.
Baltimore is also plagued by The Wire. More people than I can count have tried to wax philosophical about Baltimore's problems despite having never stepped a foot there.
Baltimore is actually in the midst of becoming more hipster. There was a reverse flight of poor people to areas in the county when they demolished the high-rise projects and replaced them with single family homes. There are areas downtown that feel more young professional and vibrant with upscale bars and breweries.
Baltimore is also plagued by The Wire. More people than I can count have tried to wax philosophical about Baltimore's problems despite having never stepped a foot there.
Baltimore is actually in the midst of becoming more hipster. There was a reverse flight of poor people to areas in the county when they demolished the high-rise projects and replaced them with single family homes. There are areas downtown that feel more young professional and vibrant with upscale bars and breweries.
Interesting. I'm hunting for a new place on the Peninsula after getting bent over a barrel by my current landlord.
Have you had any issues with car breaking or other nonviolent crimes? Do you see lots of 'street youths' loitering so to speak? :)
Have you had any issues with car breaking or other nonviolent crimes? Do you see lots of 'street youths' loitering so to speak? :)
Nothing of the sort. Mostly children playing kickball all day where I am.
Opinions change slowly, as you have found. It's part of human nature. Expect this attitude to extend into the foreseeable future, unfortunately. People like to parrot what they've heard in the past, so that tired trope will not die soon.
Btw, the same things have been said about Oakland for many years. I try to tell people that the (bad) crime in Oakland is very much contained in bad areas, and most of Oakland is not bad, even downtown.
Glad you found a place that you're happy with. Congrats!
Btw, the same things have been said about Oakland for many years. I try to tell people that the (bad) crime in Oakland is very much contained in bad areas, and most of Oakland is not bad, even downtown.
Glad you found a place that you're happy with. Congrats!
While it's not as bad as the '90s, gang violence still occurs regularly in EPA in spite of your anecdotal evidence. http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2014/11/11/what-are-the-bay-area... and http://m.sfgate.com/crime/article/16-indicted-in-gang-crackd...
EPA has been a dump long before the 1950s, when this article begins its history. When Stanford opened for business, alcohol was prohibited in a one mile radius. Right outside that mile was Whiskey Gulch, where EPA began and high crime rates with it.
EPA has been a dump long before the 1950s, when this article begins its history. When Stanford opened for business, alcohol was prohibited in a one mile radius. Right outside that mile was Whiskey Gulch, where EPA began and high crime rates with it.
The stigma thing is sadly true of people. The place I live - a college town in IL, is in a really cool little neighborhood. 20 years ago it was solidly "the ghetto". 15 years ago the residents got sick of it and started organizing community efforts to make it a nice place. 10 years ago, the city got involved and started helping residents through policing, community and "historical districting". The people who had caused problems - prostitutes/pimps, drug dealers, gangers, started working elsewhere, and the "bad" areas contracted on themselves. A lot of folks in that lifestyle started living well instead, the rest retreated.
5 years ago I got my house for 1/2 of what the same house in other parts of town would cost. People thought I was crazy despite how much the area had changed for the better. These days the area is undergoing some gentrification, and it's sad seeing families move out to be replaced by graduate students - I like a neighborhood where there are children playing, and families hanging out. Heck, someone broke into my house once, shortly after I moved in, and the fact that there were families at home meant the cops were called and caught them in the act, rather than now, where I suspect an afternoon break-in would go unnoticed since no one is around.
But despite all of that - people still say "wow, it must be scarey living over there. You have good job, upgrade out to the booneys, is being close to downtown really worth the risk?". I just laugh. And consider buying the next house up for sale to rent to grad students.
5 years ago I got my house for 1/2 of what the same house in other parts of town would cost. People thought I was crazy despite how much the area had changed for the better. These days the area is undergoing some gentrification, and it's sad seeing families move out to be replaced by graduate students - I like a neighborhood where there are children playing, and families hanging out. Heck, someone broke into my house once, shortly after I moved in, and the fact that there were families at home meant the cops were called and caught them in the act, rather than now, where I suspect an afternoon break-in would go unnoticed since no one is around.
But despite all of that - people still say "wow, it must be scarey living over there. You have good job, upgrade out to the booneys, is being close to downtown really worth the risk?". I just laugh. And consider buying the next house up for sale to rent to grad students.
I grew up in Redwood City and maintain very close friendships with high school teammates from EPA. This article caused me to make an account on hacker news so I could share a not so unique, but perhaps unheard, perspective on what it means to have a community like East Palo Alto (a.k.a. 'EPA') in the middle of silicon valley.
EDIT: this post quickly digressed into a four page behemoth that was too long to post in a single comment. It's long and I fear the formatting would have been awful. I will put up a WP site sometime tomorrow so that I may edit it and format it nicely. Below is a brief excerpt from the end. I'll make an edit to this post as soon as the WP site is up.
----------------------
If anything is to be taken away from my experience and these stories is that the men and women who are forced to grow up in this environment live in cyclical state of despair. A vacuum that requires quite nearly a winning lottery ticket to escape.
For it to be located so close to the affluent areas of silicon valley is practically criminal. It is eerily close to being the pit in which Bane grew up in during the Batman movies, the one where he lived in a prison that could see freedom and happiness just a couple hundred feet away.
If I make any sort of dime in Silicon Valley I fully intend to research and hopefully participate in philanthropy that will contribute to problems such as these.
I believe it becomes our responsibility when it is in our own back yard.
EDIT: this post quickly digressed into a four page behemoth that was too long to post in a single comment. It's long and I fear the formatting would have been awful. I will put up a WP site sometime tomorrow so that I may edit it and format it nicely. Below is a brief excerpt from the end. I'll make an edit to this post as soon as the WP site is up.
----------------------
If anything is to be taken away from my experience and these stories is that the men and women who are forced to grow up in this environment live in cyclical state of despair. A vacuum that requires quite nearly a winning lottery ticket to escape.
For it to be located so close to the affluent areas of silicon valley is practically criminal. It is eerily close to being the pit in which Bane grew up in during the Batman movies, the one where he lived in a prison that could see freedom and happiness just a couple hundred feet away.
If I make any sort of dime in Silicon Valley I fully intend to research and hopefully participate in philanthropy that will contribute to problems such as these.
I believe it becomes our responsibility when it is in our own back yard.
To me this community being next to an affluent community is neither here nor there. It would not be better if it were in Yolo county. If I were in the same economic position as a resident, I'd prefer to be close to an affluent area --at least there are second and third tier jobs to be had not too far(probably anyone who is able to secure a first tier job would no longer stay in the community). But if you're in a trailer park in Yolo county, what are the prospects there?
Also, let's not forget the myriad trailer parks which dot bay area cities and towns. They're hidden behind freeway sound abatement walls so people forget about them but they have it pretty tough as well.
Also, let's not forget the myriad trailer parks which dot bay area cities and towns. They're hidden behind freeway sound abatement walls so people forget about them but they have it pretty tough as well.
I was just considering the same point. While I didn't answer it in the first draft of the accidental essay I just wrote, I'll include it in the second.
The jest is that by having two disparate groups so close to each other, it encourages an us versus them mentality that discourages community members from embracing some of the attributes of the other group (in the case of my essay it would be education, because I write a lot about the different ethos that students had depending on which region they lived in).
Regardless I believe your points still have a large amount of merit. Especially the last which points out how those that are fortunate tend to alternate between fads of 'caring' for various less fortunate groups, in this case it is that of East Palo Alto.
The jest is that by having two disparate groups so close to each other, it encourages an us versus them mentality that discourages community members from embracing some of the attributes of the other group (in the case of my essay it would be education, because I write a lot about the different ethos that students had depending on which region they lived in).
Regardless I believe your points still have a large amount of merit. Especially the last which points out how those that are fortunate tend to alternate between fads of 'caring' for various less fortunate groups, in this case it is that of East Palo Alto.
I think your essay will end up being an interesting read. Not to derail things much but perhaps the ethos is not so much from the place but from the parents. In my experience new parents who care about education, if they can afford it will move into an area with good schools perpetuating this virtue. Of course there are some parents who have a lot of money and stay in locales with poor schools but then send their kids to private schools. I know it seems like one in the same thing but its not. Parent mentality and culture have a huge influence on how education is perceived. Some kifs I grew up with --middle class I'd say, saw school as something in the way of their fun. It was a burden to some extent. But there were a few who saw it as a necessity down the road to an imagined future of success. So parent influence and involvement is key. Some parents think its the school's responsibility --no they are there to supplement parental influence but they very well can't supplant it. You see this in kids who despite parents talking down school seek to do well because they see what their parents don't see or despite parents jealousy, etc.
Regarding the reporter's sincerity about caring, it's hard to tell, it could be just getting brownie points on a topical issue or they may really care. However if they actually really cared and wanted to make a difference doing it from TC does not inspire too much credibility. Typically people who really care move closer to the issue (meaning working on the issue constantly. If I cared about feral cats then I'd be involved directly with doing something about feral cats -- otherwise it's just a nice opinion.
Regarding the reporter's sincerity about caring, it's hard to tell, it could be just getting brownie points on a topical issue or they may really care. However if they actually really cared and wanted to make a difference doing it from TC does not inspire too much credibility. Typically people who really care move closer to the issue (meaning working on the issue constantly. If I cared about feral cats then I'd be involved directly with doing something about feral cats -- otherwise it's just a nice opinion.
While the article is an interesting read overall (didn't know about the connection to "Dangerous Minds"), it perpetuates the myth that Palo Alto Airport was imposed on an existing poor/ethnic community.
This is not true, the airport preceded other development, having been opened prior to World War 2.[1] There were similar voices after the twin-engine Cessna crash as to the outrage of building an airport next to (inexpensive) housing[2]. The causality is reversed from the truth: the housing was/is cheap because there was a pre-existing airport. (And routes do not go over East Palo Alto's residential areas).
(Oh, and the starting photo brings back memories of entering the pattern to land)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto_Airport_of_Santa_Clar...
[2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0217/Tesla-plane-crash-Con...
This is not true, the airport preceded other development, having been opened prior to World War 2.[1] There were similar voices after the twin-engine Cessna crash as to the outrage of building an airport next to (inexpensive) housing[2]. The causality is reversed from the truth: the housing was/is cheap because there was a pre-existing airport. (And routes do not go over East Palo Alto's residential areas).
(Oh, and the starting photo brings back memories of entering the pattern to land)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto_Airport_of_Santa_Clar...
[2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0217/Tesla-plane-crash-Con...
"Dangerous Minds" was actually based on a school in Belmont, California (according to Wikipedia). Some of the students in that school were from East Palo Alto, but the article is conflating the two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Minds
When we first moved down to the bay area for YC, we moved into a new development house in EPA right next to Ikea. I frequently joke that EPA is not the same as Palo Alto, and while the rest of our batchmates had apartments in dowtown Mountain View or houses in the Los Altos hills, I really enjoyed living in EPA.
It was grimy, I'd frequently hear cop car sirens at 4 in the morning. And, there wasn't much to do in the immediate area unless you wanted to cross the freeway into Palo Alto. Being there was always a stark reminder of how little that community had, and also how little we had compared to all of the riches around us. Being there felt appropriate for us.
I appreciate my time in EPA, because it was a little microcosm that trapped some of the larger, harder problems of the real-world, hidden inside the bubble that is silicon valley.
It was grimy, I'd frequently hear cop car sirens at 4 in the morning. And, there wasn't much to do in the immediate area unless you wanted to cross the freeway into Palo Alto. Being there was always a stark reminder of how little that community had, and also how little we had compared to all of the riches around us. Being there felt appropriate for us.
I appreciate my time in EPA, because it was a little microcosm that trapped some of the larger, harder problems of the real-world, hidden inside the bubble that is silicon valley.
toehead2000(1)
Link below is dead dismissing your comment.
To be honest, I'm not sure why your own comment adds to the discussion either.
I appreciate my time in EPA, because it was a little microcosm that trapped some of the larger, harder problems of the real-world, hidden inside the bubble that is silicon valley.
I suppose it is that.
[1] dead link made a snarky comment towards bravery and a movie flick.
To be honest, I'm not sure why your own comment adds to the discussion either.
I appreciate my time in EPA, because it was a little microcosm that trapped some of the larger, harder problems of the real-world, hidden inside the bubble that is silicon valley.
I suppose it is that.
[1] dead link made a snarky comment towards bravery and a movie flick.
I think you might be reading too much into it. Spending time in EPA was a constant reminder that I was voluntarily stepping into a bubble everytime we left. The dichotomy was and is still unbelievable.
A lot of people have the distorted view of SV as some golden paradise, where the roads are paved with 1's and 0's. That is not the case. There are very real problems, but most times people try to talk about it, it's always rooted in some struggle to make SV better (e.g. housing).
A lot of people have the distorted view of SV as some golden paradise, where the roads are paved with 1's and 0's. That is not the case. There are very real problems, but most times people try to talk about it, it's always rooted in some struggle to make SV better (e.g. housing).
I've heard Heart of Darkness called many things, but not "movie flick". It's a novel, or novella if you want to get fancy.
This comment is unbearably smug and lacking in self-awareness. You were almost certainly a bunch of kids fresh out of an elite university, choosing to temporarily forgo six-figure salaries in hopes of making millions by enrolling in a prestigious startup accelerator. Your situation had nothing in common with those of people trapped in a cycle of generational poverty resulting from years of segregation and violence. One would hope you might have learned some humility and empathy from your time there, but instead it seems to have become grist for your self-aggrandizing origin story.
I was afraid that if you read my comment in a certain tone, then it might come off as smug. It wasn't meant to be. I've edited it so it will be less so.
First time in the last three years that I bothered reading an article on Techcrunch.
People seem to be downvoting this, probably because they think it doesn't add to the discussion, but I agree and I think it does. It's worth noting that this is WAY WAY different than what TechCrunch usually writes and it's of a significantly higher quality.
If you liked this, I recommend TechCrunch's excellent piece on SF housing issues by the same author: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/
> I recommend TechCrunch's excellent piece on SF housing issues by the same author
I think we should start paying a lot more attention to authors than to the domain names they write on. Not reading the byline is something I've been guilty of for sure, which is why I'm trying to become a lot more conscious of it now. In this case, both pieces were written by Kim-Mai Cutler.
I think we should start paying a lot more attention to authors than to the domain names they write on. Not reading the byline is something I've been guilty of for sure, which is why I'm trying to become a lot more conscious of it now. In this case, both pieces were written by Kim-Mai Cutler.
I'm glad it was all on one page, not paginated
The redlining maps of San Francisco and Oakland are interesting, but their resolution is artificially limited. You can see the full resolution maps by removing the height and width parameters from the URLs:
https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/nbnlkqx...
https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/oakland...
https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/nbnlkqx...
https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/oakland...
A good use of these maps is to wave them under the noses of real estate agents and inform them that it is the Western Addition, not Pacific Heights.
If you liked this article, you might like the movie Dreams of a City, which talks about the creation of East Palo Alto: http://vimeo.com/23458988
EPA's has a really interesting history, back in the 1920s an entrepreneur by the name of Charles Weeks started a Poultry Colony, preaching "one acre and independence". (http://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2008/04/16/one-acr... , http://www.santaclararesearch.net/SCBIOS/cweeks.html) - you can still see the remnants of this in the structure of the lots along Runnymede street. http://epawiki.pbworks.com/f/Remnants+of+a+Failed+Utopia.pdf
EPA's has a really interesting history, back in the 1920s an entrepreneur by the name of Charles Weeks started a Poultry Colony, preaching "one acre and independence". (http://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2008/04/16/one-acr... , http://www.santaclararesearch.net/SCBIOS/cweeks.html) - you can still see the remnants of this in the structure of the lots along Runnymede street. http://epawiki.pbworks.com/f/Remnants+of+a+Failed+Utopia.pdf
There's a huge demand for housing of any kind in the Bay Area, so it doesn't surprise me that areas like East Palo Alto and the Bayview are going to face a lot of demographic upheaval, unless new housing units are brought online in other areas.
There doesn't seem to be any appetite whatsoever for filling in more of the San Francisco Bay to create land, and there are restrictions and conservation easements on most of the land stretching from 280 to the Coastside.
One possible area to expand into would be Coyote Valley, south of San Jose, which was a growth target during the first dot.com bubble in 1999, around a Cisco campus. If Caltrain could put in a station there, along with express lines, that may open up a middle-class area to new housing opportunities.
There doesn't seem to be any appetite whatsoever for filling in more of the San Francisco Bay to create land, and there are restrictions and conservation easements on most of the land stretching from 280 to the Coastside.
One possible area to expand into would be Coyote Valley, south of San Jose, which was a growth target during the first dot.com bubble in 1999, around a Cisco campus. If Caltrain could put in a station there, along with express lines, that may open up a middle-class area to new housing opportunities.
But you can't treat those details, the restrictions on growth, the way that poor people were pushed into substandard locations that only now face demand, the lack of new housing elsewhere, as something that just happened. These are systemic issues.
Nothing about this has just happened - if you read the article, they even have a link to a 1994 article in the Christian Science Monitor about the divide between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto.
Rent control ordinances in East Palo Alto probably help the current community stay in place (unlike other Peninsula towns).
The article also explains the role of subprime loans (in the context of refinancing for existing homeowners) in causing a loss of home equity with the existing community, especially between 2003-2008, which was in-between the booms in the SF Bay Area.
Rent control ordinances in East Palo Alto probably help the current community stay in place (unlike other Peninsula towns).
The article also explains the role of subprime loans (in the context of refinancing for existing homeowners) in causing a loss of home equity with the existing community, especially between 2003-2008, which was in-between the booms in the SF Bay Area.
Yeah, if it wasn't clear, that's what I was saying.
problem is no one with money is taking a chance there. Everyone with money goes to other areas that have more of a chance to turn into a "good" neighborhood.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'money' but people with professional incomes have moved into units in EPA. But, it's double edged. Middle class people move in, drive up prices, bring their expectations (parks, education, culture, etc), tax base and slowly drive out long time residents --and then you get people who bemoan 'gentrification'. They want the coffee without the caffeine, as it's put. But then, if it does not gentrify, then others lament the lack of investment and 'flight' of those who can leave due to some success, or whatever --it's not as if people living there would not move out and find a better neighborhood if they could (with few exceptions of the kind of people who love 'grit' and 'authenticity' as if other people are inauthentic, somehow.
Basically, it's a complex situation and many (but different) people will be unhappy with the different possible outcomes of change in the community.
Basically, it's a complex situation and many (but different) people will be unhappy with the different possible outcomes of change in the community.
There is an interesting discussion of this phenomenon in the Winter 2014 issue of _Boom_[1] called "On Becoming a Historic Resident of Oakland".
1: http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2014/12/winter-2014/
1: http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2014/12/winter-2014/
I read that piece, and I agree it was well done. It's not available for free online, alas. The summer issue had a Nu ber of takes on the SF housing crisis and they are all free online: http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2014/06/summer-2014/
Just like the public pension debacle in Illinois, it seems like the entrenched interests of Bay Area's housing problems would rather watch the whole thing burn to the ground than admit that their positions are untenable.
There's a little more to it than that. NIMBYs and outdated housing density restrictions are a problem, but prop 13 is incredibly harmful as well. The entrenched interests for that particular mantle includes "anyone who owns property".
It seems very silly to me that people want to bulldoze Coyote Valley in the name of housing when "downtown" Mountain View, flanking a mainline commuter railroad, consists entirely of single-story buildings and parking lots. There are many, many, MANY opportunities around the Bay to replace wasteful developments with real ones. Just look at the grotesque waste of the Blossom Hill Caltrain area. It's strip malls, parking, and sprawl for miles. If you go further out, you'll get more of the same.
Quite right. I think the whole Camino Real strip from San Jose to Daly city could be turned into a high density corridor with subway line running below (or above) connecting SF to SJ and all the new downtowns in between. Like a really long Van Ness going down the peninsula.
Old timers could keep their quaint towns --whatever, but at least allow a modern city corridor down The Camino with good density and the accompanying amenities (design it with self-reliance in mind so as not to incite needless driving). The thing that irks me most is the anti building anti progress contingent which aims to keep the whole of the bay area preserved as it was in 1964. Look at China Japan Singapore Holland get a clue learn to change with the times
Old timers could keep their quaint towns --whatever, but at least allow a modern city corridor down The Camino with good density and the accompanying amenities (design it with self-reliance in mind so as not to incite needless driving). The thing that irks me most is the anti building anti progress contingent which aims to keep the whole of the bay area preserved as it was in 1964. Look at China Japan Singapore Holland get a clue learn to change with the times
Quite right. I think the whole Camino Real strip from San Jose to Daly city could be turned into a high density corridor
Redwood City is doing that. Check out the huge new buildings next to the railroad tracks.
Besides, this boom is probably temporary. Social and apps have probably peaked.
Redwood City is doing that. Check out the huge new buildings next to the railroad tracks.
Besides, this boom is probably temporary. Social and apps have probably peaked.
Just like how chips peaked and telecom peaked? There's always a next technology, and odds are it'll be worked on in the Bay Area. It's where the money and talent is concentrated.
It may have but there is still too little housing stock for the current pop. In addition there are lots of old units which should leave the market... But this market is taking anything and everything available.
I think there is something to be said about the quality of life in these individual cities.
From San Jose through Carlmont, Burlingame etc., each city already has a large amount of development and more importantly, are residential neighborhoods containing schools, parks, and the like.
There are already very large amounts of traffic congestion at certain points (currently have Ralston and Hillsdale in my mind), and near the various high schools in the area.
I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for better infrastructure and development planning but the Camino Real strip is not the low hanging fruit in my opinion.
From San Jose through Carlmont, Burlingame etc., each city already has a large amount of development and more importantly, are residential neighborhoods containing schools, parks, and the like.
There are already very large amounts of traffic congestion at certain points (currently have Ralston and Hillsdale in my mind), and near the various high schools in the area.
I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for better infrastructure and development planning but the Camino Real strip is not the low hanging fruit in my opinion.
The thing is lots of those towns cry foul when someone wants to introduce development. It's virtually a crime. But if you could make the corridor self sustaining with a good efficient transit line up and down the corridor -- that would be my dream. In reality it's going to be piecemeal with old timers kicking and screaming at every occasion.
While the article is well worth reading, I was bothered by the article implicitly defining Asians as not counting towards a diverse workforce. I admit my point is unrelated to the bigger points of the article.
Happy to answer this. At the very top of the story, I linked to my own family history, which I wrote a year ago. I am both white and Asian and it's true that my parents and grandparents worked incredibly hard to get to where they are in Silicon Valley -- through both poverty and war. However, the point of this story was to dissect exactly how there are substantially different structural barriers that face both African-Americans and Latinos in post-war California. I don't think pointing this out takes away or diminishes the things that my family had to overcome to succeed in America as immigrants.
This is quite true. Recently I've seen where neither Chinese nor Indians are counted as minorities. I think what happens is once a minority makes it then you're no longer considered a minority in some discussions... It should be noted Chinese in California were highly discriminated against in law till the 50s and 60s (could not own land, for example) so its not as though they had it "easy". They had to work hard to get to where they are. on the other hand I get it we want to lift up the classes which have not made it yet so once a current minority makes it we work toward integrating left out minorities till one day no one is a minority, economically speaking
These days whenever I point out I'm a member of a minority by being Jewish I am practically laughed at.
Strangely enough, our "not" being a minority doesn't seem to stop people shooting up our community centers or pushing us onto train tracks so much as make it excusable.
I read it as more so that Chinese and Indians are overrepresented by population in tech sector jobs. So while they are culturally minorities, in the workforce that might not be the case.
Don't forget that the tech sector hires globally, and Chinese and Indians are the majority ethnicities in the world.
Perhaps you meant "plurality ethnicities of the world," which is basically correct mathematically. A world with lots of ethnicities would be hard put to have two majority ethnicities. Wordage quibble aside, yes, I would expect analysis of workplace diversity in the United States to treat east Asian people and south Asian people (who in both groups in the United States are mostly recent immigrants, often but not always from families with fairly high levels of completed schooling and occupations with above-median salaries) as contributing to workplace diversity differently from other minority ethnic groups in the United States, as counted in official statistics, because those groups often include people from families who have historically been poor and with lower rates of completed schooling and lower salaries than the national average.
It would be unrealistic to expect workers in any one local workforce of a particular occupation to match exactly the overall national ethnic proportion (or even the overall national male:female ratio). Local distributions of people by ethnicity are not the same as the national distribution, in almost every locality, and preferences for pursuing various occupations are not culturally the same across all ethnic groups. But socially perceived ethnicity also influences personal opportunities,[1] so smart employers go out of their way to look for talented people who have something to contribute not just in the usual places, but in all the places the employers' desire to hire talented people can be communicated.
[1] http://pgbovine.net/tech-privilege.htm
It would be unrealistic to expect workers in any one local workforce of a particular occupation to match exactly the overall national ethnic proportion (or even the overall national male:female ratio). Local distributions of people by ethnicity are not the same as the national distribution, in almost every locality, and preferences for pursuing various occupations are not culturally the same across all ethnic groups. But socially perceived ethnicity also influences personal opportunities,[1] so smart employers go out of their way to look for talented people who have something to contribute not just in the usual places, but in all the places the employers' desire to hire talented people can be communicated.
[1] http://pgbovine.net/tech-privilege.htm
That link you provide is an awful lot of anecdotes and ascribes a lot of things to 'stereotypes'. In other words, while the reasons for the different experiences he relates could have been myriad, he always ascribes them to a (positive?) stereotype.
If that's how I'm going to analyze my life, I had better be well prepared for weird things. It's silly to view my life trough the lens of stereotypes. Why did my parents not send me to private school? Stereotype. Why did that person turn me down for a date? Stereotype. Why was I encouraged to do X? Stereotype.
If that's how I'm going to analyze my life, I had better be well prepared for weird things. It's silly to view my life trough the lens of stereotypes. Why did my parents not send me to private school? Stereotype. Why did that person turn me down for a date? Stereotype. Why was I encouraged to do X? Stereotype.
Because diversity isn't intended to make class photos more colorful but to include members of marginalized communities in more powerful circles.
While I do not want to take away from the large struggles that African Americans and hispanics/latinos face (I very well understand them, having attended a public high school in the NYC suburbs with over 70% being black in one of the most affluent counties in the US, where most of the affluent white parents moved their kids to nearby top 100 public schools or private schools), as a Korean American, I have encountered subtle reverse discrimination. It is partly due to luck that I have overcome the effects of such discrimination to succeed.
I would like to see us move towards a help people who need it mentality, and not have to worry so much about the ethnicity of the person who needs it. I realize that this isn't quite possible currently due to the strong correlation between the two at the moment, but it is the long term goal that would prevent this type of issue from perpetuating.
I would like to see us move towards a help people who need it mentality, and not have to worry so much about the ethnicity of the person who needs it. I realize that this isn't quite possible currently due to the strong correlation between the two at the moment, but it is the long term goal that would prevent this type of issue from perpetuating.
This is some excellent long form journalism on how systemic issues have created an absurd divide between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto.
What does "systemic" mean? How can I determine whether an issue is or is not "systemic"?
You can determine that an issue is systemic when any solution would require major changes all through society.
Other classes of issues include "budgetary", "political", "legal", and "personnel". The way you approach each class is different.
Although most issues that cross a public official's desk are not systemic, the most publicly debated ones are. That may explain your semantic fatigue around the word.
Other classes of issues include "budgetary", "political", "legal", and "personnel". The way you approach each class is different.
Although most issues that cross a public official's desk are not systemic, the most publicly debated ones are. That may explain your semantic fatigue around the word.
"Systemic" generally means that something arises out of the interaction of parts, not simply being a result of the sum of those parts individually. At least, that's how I use it.
He knows what systemic means in this context. yummyfajitas's shtick is to try to dismiss or derail any discussion of social issues by repeatedly posing disingenuous semantic questions
Or maybe I'm trying to understand. Discussions like this involve a lot of jargon, non-standard definitions and hidden (or nonexistent?) moral assumptions.
I do this in all sorts of discussions when I don't understand the terms. "We want to increase engagement." "How do you define engagement?" "We want the estimator to be robust." "How do you define robust?"
You can call a request for clarification of terms "derailing" (or just flag me and call me racist, as many people do), but that makes it look like you simply want to avoid clarity. Asking for clear statements of claims and definitions of terms isn't derailing - it's simply good practice if your goal is understanding.
I do this in all sorts of discussions when I don't understand the terms. "We want to increase engagement." "How do you define engagement?" "We want the estimator to be robust." "How do you define robust?"
You can call a request for clarification of terms "derailing" (or just flag me and call me racist, as many people do), but that makes it look like you simply want to avoid clarity. Asking for clear statements of claims and definitions of terms isn't derailing - it's simply good practice if your goal is understanding.
Says the person who thinks that "Disputing definitions is pointless", and implies that definition_yummyfajitas is no worse than any other definition.
Asking what a person means when they use a word is not pointless - it's the only way to understand what they believe about the world. If you say "sound" and precisely define it as "auditory perceptions by a human", I then understand what you mean when you say "a tree falls in the forest and makes no sound". If you don't define "sound", then I might think you mean "a tree falling in the forest creates no vibrations in the air".
In contrast, using the word "vibrations" or "fred" instead of "sound" doesn't change the physical behavior of the air. That's why disputing definitions is pointless.
In contrast, using the word "vibrations" or "fred" instead of "sound" doesn't change the physical behavior of the air. That's why disputing definitions is pointless.
Okay, what do you think "systemic" means? What does "pointless" mean to you? What's a "vibration"? Are you a 'person' and how can I tell?
You just used all those words, and I would like you to educate me.
You just used all those words, and I would like you to educate me.
Pointless means we'll achieve nothing by doing it. I don't know what "systemic" means which is why I asked. A vibration is an oscillation in a medium.
Come on, fajitas, enough. I mean, you're not really "trying to understand", now are you? Last time we had a similar discussion, I told you that you should read some books/articles. Clearly you haven't.
Your comments are no different from someone going to a graduate physics symposium and telling people, "Why are you using all this jargon? Tunneling? That means digging a tunnel through rock! And why are you using 'spin' and 'color' wrong? Please, I just want to understand!"
Well, just like Quantum Physics can't be explained in full in a HN comment, so can't history, economy, social work. So please. Either learn a little bit more about the subject, understand that the explanations you are given here are just small snippets of a much larger field of study (and reality), accept that you might not fully understand the terms, or stop making these juvenile comments over and over.
Your comments are no different from someone going to a graduate physics symposium and telling people, "Why are you using all this jargon? Tunneling? That means digging a tunnel through rock! And why are you using 'spin' and 'color' wrong? Please, I just want to understand!"
Well, just like Quantum Physics can't be explained in full in a HN comment, so can't history, economy, social work. So please. Either learn a little bit more about the subject, understand that the explanations you are given here are just small snippets of a much larger field of study (and reality), accept that you might not fully understand the terms, or stop making these juvenile comments over and over.
>Come on, fajitas, enough. I mean, you're not really "trying to understand", now are you? Last time we had a similar discussion, I told you that you should read some books/articles.
If you're trying to get people to believe things about society you're propagating an ideology, implicit or explicit. You should expect to get pushback on that all the time unless you're preaching to the converted.
Systemic is like privileged; there's a real, defensible academic sociological meaning. when used outside of that narrow context it's used as a stick to beat one's opponent with, to proclaim moral superiority and display tribal membership.
You should not expect people not already of your political persuasion to be persuaded by jargon you don't care to explain. It's like a Catholic theologian expecting to convert a Muslim one by argument.
"It all totally makes sense once you read this bookshelf."
If you're trying to get people to believe things about society you're propagating an ideology, implicit or explicit. You should expect to get pushback on that all the time unless you're preaching to the converted.
Systemic is like privileged; there's a real, defensible academic sociological meaning. when used outside of that narrow context it's used as a stick to beat one's opponent with, to proclaim moral superiority and display tribal membership.
You should not expect people not already of your political persuasion to be persuaded by jargon you don't care to explain. It's like a Catholic theologian expecting to convert a Muslim one by argument.
"It all totally makes sense once you read this bookshelf."
Sure, there are sciences that don't convince people -- biology, climate science, and sociology to name a few -- and are considered by many to be ideologies. And, indeed, when I "preach" the realities of biology to the unconverted (and there are so many) I get exactly this kind of pushback, which I fully expect. This is what happens when reality disagrees with people's well-entrenched views of it, often created by being exposed to very narrow glimpses of it (reality, that is).
But while I often discuss the realities of our world with those who are intentionally ignorant, I find the kind of "pushback" you see here to be the most interesting and entertaining. The "unconverted" in this case, uses what he (and it is almost invariable a he, and a young he in most cases) considers science (or scientific thinking) to fight against other sciences, and chooses to ignore the fact that in the realms of intractable math, definitions are often open to debate, or at least discussion, and that does not make them any less valid.
For instance, did you know that even in biology (which yummyfajitas might or might not consider a science, I don't know), one of the most basic definitions -- at the very core of the science -- is not so clear-cut, and, in fact, stands in complete contradiction to other well-established facts concerning itself and even to its own definition? And yet, scientists involved in the field are able to look past such things, as they know physics-level rigorous definitions won't help their science in this case. I am talking, of course, about the term "species". While there is a sorta/kinda definition of a species, it is an undisputed fact that any organism belongs to the same species as its direct ancestor(s) -- hence an immediate contradiction. Yet, biologists understand this fuzzy notion of species and go about their business. The reason is that in the intractable sciences (biology, sociology, and even climate), it is often useful to describe a present state, even if the process that originated it is not fully understood. Thus is the nature of intractability.
And, after all, we're not debating ideas here -- we're debating facts. And when facts are debated, I tend to believe those who have actually studied them rather than those who haven't and just wish they weren't true.
But while I often discuss the realities of our world with those who are intentionally ignorant, I find the kind of "pushback" you see here to be the most interesting and entertaining. The "unconverted" in this case, uses what he (and it is almost invariable a he, and a young he in most cases) considers science (or scientific thinking) to fight against other sciences, and chooses to ignore the fact that in the realms of intractable math, definitions are often open to debate, or at least discussion, and that does not make them any less valid.
For instance, did you know that even in biology (which yummyfajitas might or might not consider a science, I don't know), one of the most basic definitions -- at the very core of the science -- is not so clear-cut, and, in fact, stands in complete contradiction to other well-established facts concerning itself and even to its own definition? And yet, scientists involved in the field are able to look past such things, as they know physics-level rigorous definitions won't help their science in this case. I am talking, of course, about the term "species". While there is a sorta/kinda definition of a species, it is an undisputed fact that any organism belongs to the same species as its direct ancestor(s) -- hence an immediate contradiction. Yet, biologists understand this fuzzy notion of species and go about their business. The reason is that in the intractable sciences (biology, sociology, and even climate), it is often useful to describe a present state, even if the process that originated it is not fully understood. Thus is the nature of intractability.
And, after all, we're not debating ideas here -- we're debating facts. And when facts are debated, I tend to believe those who have actually studied them rather than those who haven't and just wish they weren't true.
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.
Biologists don't make claims like "because X is a species, P is true of X" or "because Z is not a species, P is false of Z". The term "species" is not involved in any predictions.
In contrast, consider "structural". Structural and non-structural oppression is treated differently. For example: http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/on-nerd-entitlement...
I'm also not sure what facts you feel we are debating, or why you feel I "pushed back". I don't even know which facts lsiebert is attempting to assert, which is why I asked.
And the analogy you make to physics or other technical topics is a bit silly. Consider alternate technical topics which have critics - consider HFT. Go read kasey_junk or tptacek's comments on the topic - they don't don't appeal to unstated authorities, refuse to define their terms and attack anyone who asks questions. Strangely, they tend to be far more precise than the critics.
In contrast, consider "structural". Structural and non-structural oppression is treated differently. For example: http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/on-nerd-entitlement...
I'm also not sure what facts you feel we are debating, or why you feel I "pushed back". I don't even know which facts lsiebert is attempting to assert, which is why I asked.
And the analogy you make to physics or other technical topics is a bit silly. Consider alternate technical topics which have critics - consider HFT. Go read kasey_junk or tptacek's comments on the topic - they don't don't appeal to unstated authorities, refuse to define their terms and attack anyone who asks questions. Strangely, they tend to be far more precise than the critics.
Fajitas, I'm sorry but you're behaving just like an evolution denialist. You ask something, you get an answer, you want more details (obviously, because there's a limit to what can be said here), you get referred to studies and books, which you don't read, and it's back to square one.
You call this "appeal to authority", but it's nothing than an appeal to science. I am really sorry about your frustration -- you can go on believing what you like, but know that your beliefs are in opposition to thousands and thousands of studies conducted in the past 40 years or so in many countries. Nerd discrimination makes sense to you? Great, go study it in earnest. You know what, if you publish a serious paper citing, say 20 of the top 200 papers done on racial and sexual discrimination, comparing them to anti-nerd sentiments, I will be an enthusiastic supporter of your findings. In fact, I'll be especially interested in the section on nerd disenfranchisement.
But the thing is, that some people spend their careers studying these things. They are called experts, but if you don't like the "appeal to authority" just look at their findings! But of course, you won't, because you're one of those people who keep saying "we haven't found the missing links" over and over, even though the fossil record is right in front of them.
Now HFT is a much, much, much simpler topic than racial marginalization in the United States. And trust me, the evidence on the nature of racism and sexism is a lot more convincing than tptacek opinions on HFT. Like an evolution denier, you just insist on not looking at the facts, going over your mantras again and again.
EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered how when I succumbed to your pleas for education and gave you the actual definition of sexism -- a new word invented by feminists in the 60s -- you still insisted that the people who invented the term use it wrong!
EDIT2: BTW, you and the writer of that infamous comment about nerd privilege both seem to think that what we're discussing is a lot less objective, and more subjective than it actually is. For example, you confuse misogyny (which is subjective and carries judgement) with sexism (which is simply an objective description of the state of affairs). Scott Aaronson confuses suffering (which is subjective) with disenfranchisement which is objective. Because you resent what you perceive as judgment (which may, indeed, be there) you try as hard as you can to misunderstand what is being said, which is no more than fact.
You call this "appeal to authority", but it's nothing than an appeal to science. I am really sorry about your frustration -- you can go on believing what you like, but know that your beliefs are in opposition to thousands and thousands of studies conducted in the past 40 years or so in many countries. Nerd discrimination makes sense to you? Great, go study it in earnest. You know what, if you publish a serious paper citing, say 20 of the top 200 papers done on racial and sexual discrimination, comparing them to anti-nerd sentiments, I will be an enthusiastic supporter of your findings. In fact, I'll be especially interested in the section on nerd disenfranchisement.
But the thing is, that some people spend their careers studying these things. They are called experts, but if you don't like the "appeal to authority" just look at their findings! But of course, you won't, because you're one of those people who keep saying "we haven't found the missing links" over and over, even though the fossil record is right in front of them.
Now HFT is a much, much, much simpler topic than racial marginalization in the United States. And trust me, the evidence on the nature of racism and sexism is a lot more convincing than tptacek opinions on HFT. Like an evolution denier, you just insist on not looking at the facts, going over your mantras again and again.
EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered how when I succumbed to your pleas for education and gave you the actual definition of sexism -- a new word invented by feminists in the 60s -- you still insisted that the people who invented the term use it wrong!
EDIT2: BTW, you and the writer of that infamous comment about nerd privilege both seem to think that what we're discussing is a lot less objective, and more subjective than it actually is. For example, you confuse misogyny (which is subjective and carries judgement) with sexism (which is simply an objective description of the state of affairs). Scott Aaronson confuses suffering (which is subjective) with disenfranchisement which is objective. Because you resent what you perceive as judgment (which may, indeed, be there) you try as hard as you can to misunderstand what is being said, which is no more than fact.
You call it an appeal to science, but science isn't about definitions. It's about predictions and matching them to evidence.
Unfortunately, we never get that far in this discussion because you want to argue about what words to use (and now throw ad hominems at me) rather than the real world.
And trust me, the evidence...
Not citing evidence and merely disputing definitions does not inspire trust.
Unfortunately, we never get that far in this discussion because you want to argue about what words to use (and now throw ad hominems at me) rather than the real world.
And trust me, the evidence...
Not citing evidence and merely disputing definitions does not inspire trust.
Cite evidence? We're not talking about anything contentious, but a consistent body of research that has been accumulating for decades! Type "racial discrimination US" or "racial marginalization US" into Google Scholar and you'll get tens of thousands of papers with more evidence than you can read in a year. If you only dedicate a single weekend of your life into researching this, you'll see why what you said is exactly like that woman who told Richard Dawkins on TV, "but where are the fossils?" over and over, while he kept saying "but they're right there in the museum, why won't you go see them?", and she kept saying, "you don't have the fossils". Well, there's tons and tons and tons of evidence, right there on Google Scholar. And I throw ad hominems because you keep saying "I just want to understand", when clearly you have no desire to do that.
System: a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole.
I meant systemic in the sense of our society being a system.
I meant systemic in the sense of our society being a system.
If that's the case, then the oppression of nerds (to take an example from current events) certainly qualifies as systemic - it's definitely not based on any individual part of being a nerd. Yet many people have disputed this conclusion in the strongest terms.
Does this mean that more definitions of "systemic" are floating around?
Does this mean that more definitions of "systemic" are floating around?
Oh, what happens to nerds is definitely systemic in this exact sense.
I'd bet the arguments you're seeing are not disputing whether what's happening to nerds is systemic; they're disputing whether it's oppression.
I'd bet the arguments you're seeing are not disputing whether what's happening to nerds is systemic; they're disputing whether it's oppression.
that depends on what the definition of "is" is...
it simply means the opposite of local and really I think that's what the parent comment meant. The issues in EPA are local and not systemic.
Pretty funny that Wikipedia states East Palo Alto had "only" five murders in 2008, even though the population is 28000. From an European perspective even a single murder would be significant..
That really depends on what part of Europe you're talking about.
Russia has around a 10 to 12 per 100,000 murder rate. Belarus is around a 5.7 per 100k. Tallinn is over 7 and Tirana is over 6, and Chishinau is near 6, Riga is 5.4, Vilnius is 5.4, Amsterdam is 4.4.
The murder rate in NYC is lower than those for example at about 4 per 100k. The US murder rate is about 4.7, so it's comparable to Amsterdam as a whole country of 320 million people, including the extremely violent parts of the US.
The murder rate in Boise Idaho is about 1 or 2 per 100k typically. Seattle is in the 3's these days, comparable to Brussels. Mesa Arizona has half a million people at a 3 murder rate; Portland is around 600k at the same. San Diego is at around 1.35 million people with a 3.x murder rate.
The US has numerous cities with severe murder problems, and it also has a lot of cities without such. You can find many cities in the six figure population zone with murder rates of 1 or 2 per 100k.
Ultimately in the US you can live in whatever kind of world you feel like living in.
Russia has around a 10 to 12 per 100,000 murder rate. Belarus is around a 5.7 per 100k. Tallinn is over 7 and Tirana is over 6, and Chishinau is near 6, Riga is 5.4, Vilnius is 5.4, Amsterdam is 4.4.
The murder rate in NYC is lower than those for example at about 4 per 100k. The US murder rate is about 4.7, so it's comparable to Amsterdam as a whole country of 320 million people, including the extremely violent parts of the US.
The murder rate in Boise Idaho is about 1 or 2 per 100k typically. Seattle is in the 3's these days, comparable to Brussels. Mesa Arizona has half a million people at a 3 murder rate; Portland is around 600k at the same. San Diego is at around 1.35 million people with a 3.x murder rate.
The US has numerous cities with severe murder problems, and it also has a lot of cities without such. You can find many cities in the six figure population zone with murder rates of 1 or 2 per 100k.
Ultimately in the US you can live in whatever kind of world you feel like living in.
The typical intentional homicide rate in Western and Nordic Europe is slightly more than 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...), which is a large contrast to about 18 of EPA.
Which is exactly why I was specific: it depends on which part of Europe you're talking about.
Nordic countries have about 25 million people total. Well, the US has 320 million people, and a lot more people in the US live under a 1.x murder rate than do in Nordic countries.
I typically see people make comparisons using the Nordic countries for everything in Europe, while ignoring the half of Europe that is problematic for those comparisons. The US compares extraordinarily well to the Nordic countries, if you want to do an Apples to Apples comparison, since the Nordics represent the elite outcomes of Europe - then let's compare using the elite outcomes of the US; ie the top 10% of Europe vs the top 10% of the US.
Nordic countries have about 25 million people total. Well, the US has 320 million people, and a lot more people in the US live under a 1.x murder rate than do in Nordic countries.
I typically see people make comparisons using the Nordic countries for everything in Europe, while ignoring the half of Europe that is problematic for those comparisons. The US compares extraordinarily well to the Nordic countries, if you want to do an Apples to Apples comparison, since the Nordics represent the elite outcomes of Europe - then let's compare using the elite outcomes of the US; ie the top 10% of Europe vs the top 10% of the US.
White flight is still an occurrence today in the bay area. For different reasons though. Cupertino is very heavily Asian dominated and many whites move to south San Jose or other areas.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. This has been true for more than a decade. The remaining non-Asians in Cupertino have been sending their kids to private schools in higher numbers. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113236377590902105
toehead2000(1)
"We don’t even want people like you in our subdivisions".
It happens even now. I see in our Boston suburb, whites usually abandon apartment communities that increasingly host foreign workers. And that's not because of violence. I really don't find it bizarre and it's perfectly natural. We find ourselves more comfortable among people of our own kind. If that's not acceptable then nationalism too shouldn't be because that's another kind of discrimination and at a different level.
>people of our own kind
We're all humans? Aren't we all our own kind? There is no need to make further segregation.
We're all humans? Aren't we all our own kind? There is no need to make further segregation.
That is the cant, yes. Personally I'd prefer to live among obnoxious judgmental hectoring Berkeley liberals than in an Amish or Hasidic neighbourhood but I'd prefer either to the kind of place where the police come around all the time.
Well, let's be honest, there are groups/divisions of people. Although the biggest divisions are, imo, related to wealth, not race.
While I agree there is no reason to segregate along artificial "racial" lines, with seven billion people its not the same as living in a "tight knit" village. Sometimes foes arise and you need to segregate to that extent. Also in the workforce you need to segregate on ability ; in education among age/development/ability lines.
Is ability innate or informed by environment?
If you segregate individuals into sub-standard education, you end up with people who's ability doesn't match their potential.
If you segregate individuals into sub-standard education, you end up with people who's ability doesn't match their potential.
I think both are present. Ever see two siblings go in opposite academic direction from grade school to high school? Yes some is innate on the other hand some kids with great aptitude just don't have the opportunity due to their circumstance
That quote was referring to racist homeowners who were planning to leave when Asian Americans moved in:
---
"The same issue affected Asian-Americans. When progressive suburban developer Joseph Eichler’s company sold a home in 1954 to an Asian-American family in Palo Alto, word spread through the neighborhood and five homeowners approached the company demanding immediate refunds.
'Get out,' Eichler’s business partner, Jim San Jule, told the white homeowners. 'We don’t even want people like you in our subdivisions.'"
---
Segregation is an insidious evil that can exacerbate problems such as violence and poverty for generations after legal controls or social pressures disappear. See: the entire city of Chicago and the issues it has faced.
"Seperate but equal" was abandoned by SCOTUS decades ago. Maybe it's time for you to catch up.
---
"The same issue affected Asian-Americans. When progressive suburban developer Joseph Eichler’s company sold a home in 1954 to an Asian-American family in Palo Alto, word spread through the neighborhood and five homeowners approached the company demanding immediate refunds.
'Get out,' Eichler’s business partner, Jim San Jule, told the white homeowners. 'We don’t even want people like you in our subdivisions.'"
---
Segregation is an insidious evil that can exacerbate problems such as violence and poverty for generations after legal controls or social pressures disappear. See: the entire city of Chicago and the issues it has faced.
"Seperate but equal" was abandoned by SCOTUS decades ago. Maybe it's time for you to catch up.
I'm in favor of desgregation, but if John Homeowner wants to flee the neighborhood (which is what enlightenedfool describes), that is his choice. It is not our right to tell him who he must live with.
In addition you have the reverse now happening where parents seek out Asian neighborhoods for the better schools and a sharp focus on education.
Segregation is using threats of violence to force people to live separately. "Separate but equal" was enforced at the point of a gun. The OP explicitly disavowed that.
He's describing voluntary movement. For example, the tendency of Mexicans to live near each other, or for Indian immigrants to the US to live in Jersey City or Edison.
Enlightenedfool's point is that most people, including very pleasant people, harbor tribalist feelings. And these tribalist feelings inform consumption choices. For example, the bad romantic comedies my girlfriend watches have a disproportionate number of black people in them - eventually google informed me that "African American Comedy" is a genre.
A steelman of enlightenedfool's point might note the condemnation of white people making consumption choices based on tribalism, and ask if a black woman preferring to watch movies with Meagan Good and Taraji P. Henson rather than Kate Hudson and Jennifer Aniston deserves similar condemnation.
He's describing voluntary movement. For example, the tendency of Mexicans to live near each other, or for Indian immigrants to the US to live in Jersey City or Edison.
Enlightenedfool's point is that most people, including very pleasant people, harbor tribalist feelings. And these tribalist feelings inform consumption choices. For example, the bad romantic comedies my girlfriend watches have a disproportionate number of black people in them - eventually google informed me that "African American Comedy" is a genre.
A steelman of enlightenedfool's point might note the condemnation of white people making consumption choices based on tribalism, and ask if a black woman preferring to watch movies with Meagan Good and Taraji P. Henson rather than Kate Hudson and Jennifer Aniston deserves similar condemnation.
It looks like you are making a definitional statement that 'segregation' is only possible due to 'threats of violence'. If so, this is overly narrow. There are others ways to get segregation. Quoting from Wikipedia:
> Housing segregation traditionally has been the practice of denying African American or other minority groups equal access to housing through the process of misinformation, denial of realty and financing services, and racial steering. Misinformation can take the form of realtors or landlords not giving a certain ethnic group, or race, an accurate portrayal of available units. Racial steering typically occurs when realtors or landlords steer European Americans to available units in white communities, and African Americans to black or racially mixed communities. Generally, racial steering involves misinformation on the part of the realtor or landlord as well, because they will not tell the African Americans or other minorities about the available units in the European American communities.
That used information asymmetry, not threats of violence, to steer 'voluntary movement' and end up with a higher amount of segregation than would have occurred if all parties were equally informed.
While illegal, these forms of housing segregation still exist: see http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-obtains-120... as an example. The quote "Unlawful steering by real estate agents frustrates the rights of people to make fully informed housing choices and perpetuates segregated housing patterns" shows that these non-violent policies are directly tied to segregation.
> Housing segregation traditionally has been the practice of denying African American or other minority groups equal access to housing through the process of misinformation, denial of realty and financing services, and racial steering. Misinformation can take the form of realtors or landlords not giving a certain ethnic group, or race, an accurate portrayal of available units. Racial steering typically occurs when realtors or landlords steer European Americans to available units in white communities, and African Americans to black or racially mixed communities. Generally, racial steering involves misinformation on the part of the realtor or landlord as well, because they will not tell the African Americans or other minorities about the available units in the European American communities.
That used information asymmetry, not threats of violence, to steer 'voluntary movement' and end up with a higher amount of segregation than would have occurred if all parties were equally informed.
While illegal, these forms of housing segregation still exist: see http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-obtains-120... as an example. The quote "Unlawful steering by real estate agents frustrates the rights of people to make fully informed housing choices and perpetuates segregated housing patterns" shows that these non-violent policies are directly tied to segregation.
Disputing definitions is pointless. Obviously voluntary housing choices are segregation_dalke but not segregation_fajitas. Now lets get back to discussing objective reality, and remember that words are merely convenient shorthands for that reality.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/
The point I was making: Yzzxy was arguing against a straw man, acting as if enlightenedfool advocated in favor of using violence to confine certain groups to certain regions ("separate but equal"). Enlightenedfool argued no such thing.
Now if you really want to argue against consumption choices based on tribalist preferences, make that argument. Also be wary of the fallacy of expanding a definition and then expecting all conclusions drawn from the narrow definition to also hold for the wide one - I've noticed when people dispute definitions on topics like this, that fallacy often follows.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/
The point I was making: Yzzxy was arguing against a straw man, acting as if enlightenedfool advocated in favor of using violence to confine certain groups to certain regions ("separate but equal"). Enlightenedfool argued no such thing.
Now if you really want to argue against consumption choices based on tribalist preferences, make that argument. Also be wary of the fallacy of expanding a definition and then expecting all conclusions drawn from the narrow definition to also hold for the wide one - I've noticed when people dispute definitions on topics like this, that fallacy often follows.
You created a non-standard definition and used that to make your argument. Then you refuse to allow anyone to object to your basis of argument, and imply that any further corrections likely stem from a fallacy on my side. How bloody convenient for you.
Nobody except you said there was a threat of violence. The original article even compared the violence of the Jim Crow South with "the Californian way [which] worked tacitly through housing, jobs and education policies. On top of racially restrictive covenants, realtors around the San Francisco Bay Area were engaged in a practice called blockbusting."
This isn't violence. Restricted covenants have been unenforceable by the government since Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948, so it's not like there's even any threat of government force to back up a covenant through the civil courts.
The comment by enlightenedfool are personal, but don't reflect the law. It is illegal to discriminate based on national origin just like it's illegal to discriminate based on race. Both have been illegal since the Civil Rights Act of 1968/Fair Housing Act. Currently the only legally accepted threat of violence, for those who hold that government force is backed by a threat of violence, is against those who use discriminatory practices.
In any case, enlightenedfool was not talking about violence either. ("And that's not because of violence.") Neither was yzzxy, who referred to the housing discrimination in Chicago, which were very similar to the non-violent way of California.
For your statement to make sense means (I believe) that you inferred that yzzxy's reference to "separate but equal" was a statement that equated enlightenedfool's beliefs on "own kind" as identical to the specific government practices ruled illegal in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and that you believe laws are only possible via the threat of violence by the government, and therefore yzzxy must mean that enlightenedfool also want coercive violence.
This is a stretch. It's much easier to believe that yzzxy uses it as a short-hand for the thinking behind the separate but equal doctrine rather than specific implementation points. For one, Brown v. Board of Education was not about private discrimination in the housing market but about government discrimination. For another, the theory of "laws backed by threat of violence" is extremely tenuous here. Redlining occurred through mortgage discrimination, via the National Housing Act of 1934, where banks ended up denying mortgage capital to high-risk/strongly minority areas. Where is the violence in "we will not give federal mortgage insurance to houses in this neighborhood"? For a third, if anything, it is yzzxy who supports government-backed violence as a way to prevent further segregation.
The only way I could understand your conclusion required an implicit acceptance of an incorrect definition - that 'housing segregation uses threats of force to live separately.' It seemed easier to first start with that wrong statement, as it would otherwise be impossible to address your other substantive points.
Instead you ended by asserting that any definition arguments are pointless - quite odd from someone who asked "What does "systemic" mean?" on this very thread? If you really believe that definition arguments are meaningless, why do you get into them?
You say you are "trying to understand", and yet reject as meaningless anything which might lead to a change in your understanding.
How disingenuous. And yes, I'm using my own private definition that you can't respond to because I haven't told you what it means.
Nobody except you said there was a threat of violence. The original article even compared the violence of the Jim Crow South with "the Californian way [which] worked tacitly through housing, jobs and education policies. On top of racially restrictive covenants, realtors around the San Francisco Bay Area were engaged in a practice called blockbusting."
This isn't violence. Restricted covenants have been unenforceable by the government since Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948, so it's not like there's even any threat of government force to back up a covenant through the civil courts.
The comment by enlightenedfool are personal, but don't reflect the law. It is illegal to discriminate based on national origin just like it's illegal to discriminate based on race. Both have been illegal since the Civil Rights Act of 1968/Fair Housing Act. Currently the only legally accepted threat of violence, for those who hold that government force is backed by a threat of violence, is against those who use discriminatory practices.
In any case, enlightenedfool was not talking about violence either. ("And that's not because of violence.") Neither was yzzxy, who referred to the housing discrimination in Chicago, which were very similar to the non-violent way of California.
For your statement to make sense means (I believe) that you inferred that yzzxy's reference to "separate but equal" was a statement that equated enlightenedfool's beliefs on "own kind" as identical to the specific government practices ruled illegal in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and that you believe laws are only possible via the threat of violence by the government, and therefore yzzxy must mean that enlightenedfool also want coercive violence.
This is a stretch. It's much easier to believe that yzzxy uses it as a short-hand for the thinking behind the separate but equal doctrine rather than specific implementation points. For one, Brown v. Board of Education was not about private discrimination in the housing market but about government discrimination. For another, the theory of "laws backed by threat of violence" is extremely tenuous here. Redlining occurred through mortgage discrimination, via the National Housing Act of 1934, where banks ended up denying mortgage capital to high-risk/strongly minority areas. Where is the violence in "we will not give federal mortgage insurance to houses in this neighborhood"? For a third, if anything, it is yzzxy who supports government-backed violence as a way to prevent further segregation.
The only way I could understand your conclusion required an implicit acceptance of an incorrect definition - that 'housing segregation uses threats of force to live separately.' It seemed easier to first start with that wrong statement, as it would otherwise be impossible to address your other substantive points.
Instead you ended by asserting that any definition arguments are pointless - quite odd from someone who asked "What does "systemic" mean?" on this very thread? If you really believe that definition arguments are meaningless, why do you get into them?
You say you are "trying to understand", and yet reject as meaningless anything which might lead to a change in your understanding.
How disingenuous. And yes, I'm using my own private definition that you can't respond to because I haven't told you what it means.
Nobody except you said there was a threat of violence.
Yzzxy did refer to violent segregation: ""Seperate but equal" was abandoned by SCOTUS decades ago. Maybe it's time for you to catch up."
The fact is that housing segregation in this era was enforced by threats of violence, aka "law". Same for banking regulations.
Instead you ended by asserting that any definition arguments are pointless
Providing definitions is important to clarify thinking. Thanks to you providing a definition, I know what concepts you refer to when you say "segregation". In contrast, I don't know what concept "systemic" refers to because of the lack of a definition.
There is no point in me telling you your definition is wrong. If I convince you, all that will happen is you'll apply different mental labels to the same things. Your conclusions will remain the same, they'll just be phrased with different words.
Further, all this argument over definitions has gotten us completely distracted from the actual point. The point is this: humans often allow tribalist feelings to influence consumption choices (housing, movies, etc). Is this a bad thing that should be prevented and/or condemned? The definition of segregation is completely irrelevant to the answer to this question.
Yzzxy did refer to violent segregation: ""Seperate but equal" was abandoned by SCOTUS decades ago. Maybe it's time for you to catch up."
The fact is that housing segregation in this era was enforced by threats of violence, aka "law". Same for banking regulations.
Instead you ended by asserting that any definition arguments are pointless
Providing definitions is important to clarify thinking. Thanks to you providing a definition, I know what concepts you refer to when you say "segregation". In contrast, I don't know what concept "systemic" refers to because of the lack of a definition.
There is no point in me telling you your definition is wrong. If I convince you, all that will happen is you'll apply different mental labels to the same things. Your conclusions will remain the same, they'll just be phrased with different words.
Further, all this argument over definitions has gotten us completely distracted from the actual point. The point is this: humans often allow tribalist feelings to influence consumption choices (housing, movies, etc). Is this a bad thing that should be prevented and/or condemned? The definition of segregation is completely irrelevant to the answer to this question.
> The point is this: humans often allow tribalist feelings to influence consumption choices (housing, movies, etc). Is this a bad thing that should be prevented and/or condemned?
No, see what you did there? While humans often allow tribalist feelings to influence their choices, there is a difference between those who can choose more and those who can choose less, and the discussion is about those who can can choose more restricting the mobility of those who can choose less. Those are facts -- they are not a matter of opinion or ideology, but the objective reality. It is you who decided that "tribalist feelings" are the cause of segregation, which is a nice hypothesis but a factually wrong one. What you have here isn't tribe A and tribe B, but a dominant tribe A and a weak tribe B, and power dynamics has a far stronger effect than in-group dynamics, as proven by history in this particular case and others like it. That there are several dynamics here concurrently does not mean that they're all equal in influence.
No, see what you did there? While humans often allow tribalist feelings to influence their choices, there is a difference between those who can choose more and those who can choose less, and the discussion is about those who can can choose more restricting the mobility of those who can choose less. Those are facts -- they are not a matter of opinion or ideology, but the objective reality. It is you who decided that "tribalist feelings" are the cause of segregation, which is a nice hypothesis but a factually wrong one. What you have here isn't tribe A and tribe B, but a dominant tribe A and a weak tribe B, and power dynamics has a far stronger effect than in-group dynamics, as proven by history in this particular case and others like it. That there are several dynamics here concurrently does not mean that they're all equal in influence.
While humans often allow tribalist feelings to influence their choices, there is a difference between those who can choose more and those who can choose less, and the discussion is about those who can can choose more restricting the mobility of those who can choose less.
If you scroll up, you'll realize that we are discussing cases where no one has the power to restrict anything. The only power anyone has is to buy or sell a good (movies in my example or houses in enlightenedfool's example) to a willing partner in trade.
I also didn't "decide" anything. I merely asked a normative question. I know you have some vendetta against me, but it might help to read my comments before carrying on this vendetta.
If you scroll up, you'll realize that we are discussing cases where no one has the power to restrict anything. The only power anyone has is to buy or sell a good (movies in my example or houses in enlightenedfool's example) to a willing partner in trade.
I also didn't "decide" anything. I merely asked a normative question. I know you have some vendetta against me, but it might help to read my comments before carrying on this vendetta.
> I know you have some vendetta against me, but it might help to read my comments before carrying on this vendetta.
This is something you keep saying to different people. The common factor is you.
You claim to ask the difficult quesions when all you do is spew inane trash; then bicker about weird definitions; and then play the victim card by claiming everyone has a vendatta against you.
This is something you keep saying to different people. The common factor is you.
You claim to ask the difficult quesions when all you do is spew inane trash; then bicker about weird definitions; and then play the victim card by claiming everyone has a vendatta against you.
> If you scroll up, you'll realize that we are discussing cases where no one has the power to restrict anything. The only power anyone has is to buy or sell a good (movies in my example or houses in enlightenedfool's example) to a willing partner in trade.
That is not at all what was being discussed, but what you decided the discussion was about by making the wrong assumption that housing choices were as voluntary as picking movies. They are not, neither are they voluntary, as research shows (as well as the discussed article). Going back to "systemic", bureaucracies in the US (both private and governmental) do restrict housing choices by discriminating based on proxies for race (i.e. correlated variables, that are sometimes directly related to race, and sometimes less directly).
I have no vendetta against you, but the way you're discussing these issues is insincere, and shows complete disregard to the vast body of evidence collected. But it does provoke an emotional reaction on my part because it is a prime example of "nerd bigotry" that's so rampant among startup people.
You say you discuss objective facts, where, in fact, you make false analogies and presumptions that are precisely where racism is often found. The most obvious example, given by countless people before you, is that of "voluntary choice", while racism works precisely by restricting choice. I will not go at length into how that's done, because the process has been documented so many times and in great detail. But if person A has choices, say, 1 through 5, and person B has choices 1 thorough 3, and exercising those choices requires more effort on the part of person B, it is true that whatever person B chooses is voluntary, but it is no less true that it is less voluntary than the choice of person A. This is doubly true, if choices 4 and 5 -- unavailable to person B -- or, say, choice 3, which is available for person B but extremely hard to achieve, are precisely the choices that confer more power on their chooser.
So: 1/ restriction of choice is not binary, and is often done in roundabout ways (which is why studies are required). 2/ Not all discrimination is equal :) - discrimination that results in unfair power distribution is far worse than discrimination that has little effect on the distribution of power.
That is not at all what was being discussed, but what you decided the discussion was about by making the wrong assumption that housing choices were as voluntary as picking movies. They are not, neither are they voluntary, as research shows (as well as the discussed article). Going back to "systemic", bureaucracies in the US (both private and governmental) do restrict housing choices by discriminating based on proxies for race (i.e. correlated variables, that are sometimes directly related to race, and sometimes less directly).
I have no vendetta against you, but the way you're discussing these issues is insincere, and shows complete disregard to the vast body of evidence collected. But it does provoke an emotional reaction on my part because it is a prime example of "nerd bigotry" that's so rampant among startup people.
You say you discuss objective facts, where, in fact, you make false analogies and presumptions that are precisely where racism is often found. The most obvious example, given by countless people before you, is that of "voluntary choice", while racism works precisely by restricting choice. I will not go at length into how that's done, because the process has been documented so many times and in great detail. But if person A has choices, say, 1 through 5, and person B has choices 1 thorough 3, and exercising those choices requires more effort on the part of person B, it is true that whatever person B chooses is voluntary, but it is no less true that it is less voluntary than the choice of person A. This is doubly true, if choices 4 and 5 -- unavailable to person B -- or, say, choice 3, which is available for person B but extremely hard to achieve, are precisely the choices that confer more power on their chooser.
So: 1/ restriction of choice is not binary, and is often done in roundabout ways (which is why studies are required). 2/ Not all discrimination is equal :) - discrimination that results in unfair power distribution is far worse than discrimination that has little effect on the distribution of power.
Going back to "systemic", bureaucracies in the US (both private and governmental) do restrict housing choices by discriminating based on proxies for race (i.e. correlated variables, that are sometimes directly related to race, and sometimes less directly).
I.e., banks choose who to extend loans to based on non-racial factors like debt/income, job tenure, home appraisals and models of future home value? Yep, nothing voluntary at all about a private party choosing who to trade with.
Anyway, it's completely tangential to this particular thread, which is about people choosing which houses to buy based on tribalist feelings.
But it does provoke an emotional reaction on my part because it is a prime example of "nerd bigotry" that's so rampant among startup people.
Asking concrete questions is "nerd bigotry"? Um, ok. I'm not even sure what that is, but asking makes me just a creationist so meh.
I will not go at length into how that's done, because the process has been documented so many times and in great detail.
My uncited experts proved that your uncited experts are wrong and also worse than Hitler. I win! <- See how appeals to unstated authority are not productive?
Now remember how I compared to discussions on topics like HFT? If this were an HFT discussion, one of the HFT's would have just linked to a page on nasdaq.com and said "go read the docs on hide-not-slide orders, you'll see they work like I just described".
I.e., banks choose who to extend loans to based on non-racial factors like debt/income, job tenure, home appraisals and models of future home value? Yep, nothing voluntary at all about a private party choosing who to trade with.
Anyway, it's completely tangential to this particular thread, which is about people choosing which houses to buy based on tribalist feelings.
But it does provoke an emotional reaction on my part because it is a prime example of "nerd bigotry" that's so rampant among startup people.
Asking concrete questions is "nerd bigotry"? Um, ok. I'm not even sure what that is, but asking makes me just a creationist so meh.
I will not go at length into how that's done, because the process has been documented so many times and in great detail.
My uncited experts proved that your uncited experts are wrong and also worse than Hitler. I win! <- See how appeals to unstated authority are not productive?
Now remember how I compared to discussions on topics like HFT? If this were an HFT discussion, one of the HFT's would have just linked to a page on nasdaq.com and said "go read the docs on hide-not-slide orders, you'll see they work like I just described".
> I.e., banks choose who to extend loans to based on non-racial factors like debt/income, job tenure, home appraisals and models of future home value? Yep, nothing voluntary at all about a private party choosing who to trade with.
The fact that those factors are non-racial does not mean it's not racism! We're back to that again. Racism (like sexism) does not require malice or ill intent (or even bigotry or prejudice) once its systemic! Suppose you make sure by some way that there's a strong correlation between race and wealth, and then a bank gives loan only to rich people. Well, that's racism! That doesn't mean the loan officer is a bigot! This is something you need to understand. Banking practices can be racist even if no one at the bank is prejudiced (they can all be liberal Democrats who voted for Obama, twice), and all of their decisions are based on pure financial reasons, only because hundreds of years ago society was organized in some particular way. That's how it works. In fact, you could say that everyone is a victim, because those bank officers, through no fault of their own, are now cogs in a racist machinery. So they're victims, too, except that some people are bigger victims than others -- some are part of a racist system, and some feel its consequences every day.
If you, by some mechanism, create a society in which people's rational, self-serving actions would result in a system where power is largely withheld from some racial groups then you've built a racist society even if no one in that society is a xenophobe.
> which is about people choosing which houses to buy based on tribalist feelings.
No. "Based on tribalist feeling" is your conjecture. Yes, tribalist feelings are probably a contributing factor, but racism is a much more dominant one. How do I know that? Well, because I bothered to read some studies.
> Asking concrete questions is "nerd bigotry"? Um, ok. I'm not even sure what that is, but asking makes me just a creationist so meh.
No. Pretending to ask question you don't really want the answer to, and ignoring science because it isn't physics is.
In fact, there are a lot of interesting questions an interested nerd could ask. For example, while anti-nerd discrimination is certainly not systemic, one could ask about discrimination against unattractive people. I think there are studies that show they are being discriminated against even on loan applications (and from there you could take it to other correlations and discrimination by proxy etc.). Of course, it's not too hard to show how that's not at all like racism or sexism (if only in measure), but at least there is something interesting to talk about. That would be a college-, or even graduate- level question. But your "questions" are kindergarten level, and show that you have no desire to even learn the very basics of this issue.
> See how appeals to unstated authority are not productive?
My uncited experts can be found in a 2 minute Google search. Yours are made up so I win.
> If this were an HFT discussion, one of the HFT's would have just linked to a page on nasdaq.com and said "go read the docs on hide-not-slide orders, you'll see they work like I just described".
Wow, those guys are really smart! I won't send you links to the top 50 papers showing the data, or even to the top two, because either you won't read them, or, if you do, you'll make up a baby-nerd argument to invalidate them because the definitions (which, as always, would rely on you having some basic background in the science) won't be rigorous enough to your liking (because you don't have the background). Then, I'll send you links to books with the definitions, which you won't read, and it will end up just you asking me to teach you all of psychology and history back to first principles, which you won't find satisfactory until I go back to elementary particles, which is impossible because we're dealing with intractable science (and hard because I'm not knowledgable enough). So, no thank you.
Also -- and that is the real reason you find HFT discussions different -- this kind of discussion evokes a response in you that makes you unwilling to open yourself up to new information. HFT doesn't. Yes, just like a creationist; I'm sorry, but it's the same kind of emotional response, only you and the creationists reach for your own kind of weapon -- yours is misused logic. I mean, you know all those thousands of studies exist (I'm sure you've seen those buildings at your university), and you know everyone who has studied them reaches similar conclusions (similar enough for you, that is; there are quite a few controversies), but you choose to believe that those conclusions are based on faulty logic rather than on data (they are based on data), and you think you can argue with them using logic (logic, BTW, is not so effective in the intractable sciences, just as it's not so effective in QM -- until you learn the basic mechanics of things). Those conclusions are the result of 40 or so years of research by thousands of historians, social workers, sociologists and psychologists. Some of them -- though not all -- are great scientists.
The fact that those factors are non-racial does not mean it's not racism! We're back to that again. Racism (like sexism) does not require malice or ill intent (or even bigotry or prejudice) once its systemic! Suppose you make sure by some way that there's a strong correlation between race and wealth, and then a bank gives loan only to rich people. Well, that's racism! That doesn't mean the loan officer is a bigot! This is something you need to understand. Banking practices can be racist even if no one at the bank is prejudiced (they can all be liberal Democrats who voted for Obama, twice), and all of their decisions are based on pure financial reasons, only because hundreds of years ago society was organized in some particular way. That's how it works. In fact, you could say that everyone is a victim, because those bank officers, through no fault of their own, are now cogs in a racist machinery. So they're victims, too, except that some people are bigger victims than others -- some are part of a racist system, and some feel its consequences every day.
If you, by some mechanism, create a society in which people's rational, self-serving actions would result in a system where power is largely withheld from some racial groups then you've built a racist society even if no one in that society is a xenophobe.
> which is about people choosing which houses to buy based on tribalist feelings.
No. "Based on tribalist feeling" is your conjecture. Yes, tribalist feelings are probably a contributing factor, but racism is a much more dominant one. How do I know that? Well, because I bothered to read some studies.
> Asking concrete questions is "nerd bigotry"? Um, ok. I'm not even sure what that is, but asking makes me just a creationist so meh.
No. Pretending to ask question you don't really want the answer to, and ignoring science because it isn't physics is.
In fact, there are a lot of interesting questions an interested nerd could ask. For example, while anti-nerd discrimination is certainly not systemic, one could ask about discrimination against unattractive people. I think there are studies that show they are being discriminated against even on loan applications (and from there you could take it to other correlations and discrimination by proxy etc.). Of course, it's not too hard to show how that's not at all like racism or sexism (if only in measure), but at least there is something interesting to talk about. That would be a college-, or even graduate- level question. But your "questions" are kindergarten level, and show that you have no desire to even learn the very basics of this issue.
> See how appeals to unstated authority are not productive?
My uncited experts can be found in a 2 minute Google search. Yours are made up so I win.
> If this were an HFT discussion, one of the HFT's would have just linked to a page on nasdaq.com and said "go read the docs on hide-not-slide orders, you'll see they work like I just described".
Wow, those guys are really smart! I won't send you links to the top 50 papers showing the data, or even to the top two, because either you won't read them, or, if you do, you'll make up a baby-nerd argument to invalidate them because the definitions (which, as always, would rely on you having some basic background in the science) won't be rigorous enough to your liking (because you don't have the background). Then, I'll send you links to books with the definitions, which you won't read, and it will end up just you asking me to teach you all of psychology and history back to first principles, which you won't find satisfactory until I go back to elementary particles, which is impossible because we're dealing with intractable science (and hard because I'm not knowledgable enough). So, no thank you.
Also -- and that is the real reason you find HFT discussions different -- this kind of discussion evokes a response in you that makes you unwilling to open yourself up to new information. HFT doesn't. Yes, just like a creationist; I'm sorry, but it's the same kind of emotional response, only you and the creationists reach for your own kind of weapon -- yours is misused logic. I mean, you know all those thousands of studies exist (I'm sure you've seen those buildings at your university), and you know everyone who has studied them reaches similar conclusions (similar enough for you, that is; there are quite a few controversies), but you choose to believe that those conclusions are based on faulty logic rather than on data (they are based on data), and you think you can argue with them using logic (logic, BTW, is not so effective in the intractable sciences, just as it's not so effective in QM -- until you learn the basic mechanics of things). Those conclusions are the result of 40 or so years of research by thousands of historians, social workers, sociologists and psychologists. Some of them -- though not all -- are great scientists.
Would you consider redlining or housing covenants that restricted particular groups to be policies that were "enforced at the point of a gun"? Both were contributing factors to segregation.
As I understand it, the government required banks to redline. So yes. Housing covenants were probably not, but I don't know the details.
Similarly, much as I dislike them, the "No Students, Foreigners or Bachelors" restrictions imposed by most housing societies near me are voluntary.
Similarly, much as I dislike them, the "No Students, Foreigners or Bachelors" restrictions imposed by most housing societies near me are voluntary.
If people voluntarily ghettoize it does not mean the ghetto is not real, it means that it's so real that it doesn't need to be enforced anymore.
EPA however met all that criteria perfectly. Landed on a Friday, picked out an apartment over the weekend, and had the keys on Monday. Unlike many areas in the bay, demand is fairly low in EPA and there are available apartments everywhere.
Despite being a perfect fit for my needs, never did I realize what kind of judgement I would get from so many people for living here. I get a shocked expression almost every time I mention I live in EPA. Some people even get angry. "Why would you drag your wife to place like that?!?!". Many people I know when shopping for apartments themselves openly say there is no way they could ever live somewhere so "unsafe" and just consider my wife and I to be "lucky" or "living dangerously". The very idea that a white couple with a tech job income would -choose- to live in EPA blows peoples minds. I used to just tell people I live in Palo Alto to avoid the judgement, but now I happily claim it and discuss the misconceptions. My wife and I are pretty happy with all our ideals met. We won at housing by ignoring meaningless stigma and will be squatting here for a while. Might even buy a house while the market is still 1/4. Property value here is sure to soar once people realize the "murder capitol" age is distant history.
The stigma from past history is incredibly present, but the _reality_ is this is one of the safest feeling places I have ever lived. (And I have lived a lot of places)