[deleted] t1_j9jeiqr wrote
Reply to comment by VersaceEauFraiche in The harms of gentrification | The exclusion of poorer people from their own neighbourhoods is not just a social problem but a philosophical one by ADefiniteDescription
You've erected a straw man in focusing on the word "white". Sure, it was flashy and the author uses it to make a point that the class divide is often along racial lines. And I agree with you that sometimes it's not white but Asian or Indian or whatever that is doing the gentrifying.
Two things: One, maybe the author used "white" as an example because for this particular neighborhood it's accurate? And two, maybe the author intentionally decided to use "white" to avoid words like "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" in order to not sound too Marxist?
Anyway, race is clearly not the point of the article. If you want to attack it then be honest in your attack. Attack the main point and not the racial angle it uses sparingly.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j9jkxhu wrote
"So often, itβs not just rich people moving in β itβs rich white people" is one of the 3 subheadings that is bold and in red. It stands out more than the text around it. This is done intentionally. Clearly the author places emphasis on this. I am treating their words with the same level of sincerity, seriousness, and thoroughness that they themselves are treating their own words. I quoted the author directly on their assertions and showed that the factual basis for their assertions were demonstrably false. Am I to ignore the words inside the article and instead criticize what the author was trying to say? How am I not being honest by contending directly with the words the author uses?
"...the deleterious consequences of both for race- and class-oppression" is a line in the concluding paragraph. Race and Class are treated rather equally in the article: the word "class" appears 5 times, "White" appears 3 times, "race" appears 1 time. This 5-4 ratio shows that the mentioning of Whites/race isn't some errant tangent. This is what the author believes, this what the author wrote, and this is what I am criticizing.
[deleted] t1_j9jzl13 wrote
Okay you're right, the author got the bit about race incorrect because it only applies to that one neighborhood so we should throw out all the other thoughts in that article?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j9k0k48 wrote
You don't have to speak in hyperbole, no one is demanding that of you.
The author made some broad, sweeping statements that were easily shown to be false. If that is the case, what could be some other things that the author might have fudged for the sake of their argument?
Again, the author could have simply made the case for X or Y or Z policies on their own merit but they wanted to add some gusto behind the argument. This means including rectifying racial injustice as a part of their raison d'Γͺtre. But getting some of the foundational aspects of your argument incorrect feels like the author was putting the cart before the horse.
Honestly articles like this are fairly boilerplate, dime a dozen. Academics love to churn this stuff out. A more interesting point of contention would be analyzing the intersection between the Big Tech, diverse workforces who work in Tech, the progressive ideology that these workers overwhelmingly endorse (such as being anti-gentrification), and actually gentrifying such places. Trying to manage and balance a diverse political coalition that is easily prone to in-fighting and whose material interests often come at the expense of other members in the group would be an interesting dynamic to analyze. But no one believes that they are the ones carrying out such societal ills, these workers probably think that they aren't gentrifying even though they are (maybe because they read articles like this and believe that its only gentrification when/if you're White).
[deleted] t1_j9k0uh5 wrote
>The author made some broad, sweeping statements that were easily shown to be false. If that is the case, what could be some other things that the author might have fudged for the sake of their argument?
Some of what the author said applies only to one specific neighborhood. In other neighborhoods, it doesn't apply.
So you'll attack the claim that whites are doing all the gentrification.
But that's not a claim that he made. Did he? I only see mention of this specific neighborhood with regards to race. And it's not even the important part of the article to my eye.
Is this not the very definition of attacking a straw man?
Edit: Also, it wasn't hyperbole, it was sarcasm, right?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j9k2mjj wrote
"Unmentioned by Glass, though, is the π«πππ’ππ₯ π¬π’π π§π’ππ’πππ§ππ π¨π ππ‘ππ¬π ππ‘ππ§π ππ¬, especially in the US context. So often, itβs not just rich people moving in β itβs π«π’ππ‘ π°π‘π’ππ π©ππ¨π©π₯π. When that happens, π«πππ’ππ₯ π©π¨π°ππ« inflects and compounds the power of capital."
This is the author's words that he wrote himself. He is placing emphasis on race himself. I am referencing the words that the author wrote.
You simply want it to not be an issue when the author brought it up as an issue. You say it is not even the important part of the article, despite the author repeatedly mentioning it. You are trying to convince me to not see the words in the article that the author wrote. You accuse me of attacking a strawman when I seek to discuss the author's exact words. Speaking of straws, I think you're grasping at them.
There is noting else that can be said on this topic.
Wireleast t1_j9jkyfa wrote
Itβs literally one of the lead in assertions and factually incorrect.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments