[deleted] t1_j9jzl13 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
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments