domain:imgur.com
guajalote
3m ago
There is plenty of undeveloped land on the edges of SF and LA. Between SF and Petaluma, for example, there's a ton of empty land. But more importantly "open land" is not a prerequisite for building housing, since you can build vertically. SF would have way more housing if it wasn't preventing people from tearing down "historic laundromats." Housing is affordable even in the densest parts of downtown Houston where there is no "open land" to develop. Conversely, the area of rural Northern California where I grew up has tons of open land, yet housing costs are much higher per square foot than downtown Houston.
Absox
6m ago
New resident of California as of this year; was unexpectedly sent here by my work.
As far as I can tell, the workers live 2-3 to a room in rented houses, which is why many neighborhoods of East Palo Alto have 5-6 cars parked in front of 1000 sq ft (100 sq m) 3br houses.
I was in Asia over the holidays, and the food there is better (at least to my tastes), costs 1/5th as much even without counting taxes, tip, and the bevy of surcharges they add (somehow a prix fixe dinner advertised at $95 a head costs over $270 for 2), and much more conveniently located.
Honestly, I hate it here already and am looking to leave at the first good opportunity. Until then, I'm living well below my means to minimize my exposure to the 9-10% sales tax rates, driving a 20-year old car, maxing out my contributions to tax-advantaged accounts and investments in general, and trying to pay as little in taxes as possible.
A new buyer of said 3 million dollar home would be subject to property taxes in the ballpark of 40k a year. I almost wish we could level the entire area south of I-280 and redevelop it into a megacity with housing for 20 million people according to Chinese urban development practices just to spite the nimbys.
Gaashk
8m ago
Yes, these takes do come across as fairly "boo outgroup." I can see them not being accepted as top level posts. Perhaps you would enjoy Kiwi Farms?
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
9m ago
You have to tear down old buildings and start building massive multi family units
This is putting way too high of a standard. Buildings are demolished and replaced all the time! If you don't allow this, you get nonsense like the "historic laundromat" in San Francisco. Putting all the cases like this together, there's a ridiculous amount of space in San Francisco itself for more housing when so much of the city looks like this.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
11m ago
and indicative of cultural trends towards shock value and dubious tolerance
Yeah, tolerance of intentionally ugly and sub-par art. It’s like the glorification of the idea of edge is all that matters rather than actually trying to draw an audience in to engage with the edge by creating a composition that’s visually appealing; the shock value doesn’t come for free. Here, though… this piece is just going through the motions of offensiveness. It’s just another shitty cosplay and nothing of value would be lost without it.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
13m ago
There are two reasons why I think the description is fair
- First, the "war on the suburbs" rhetoric specifically talks about how "your investment and lifestyle may soon come under attack." This isn't just about exclusionary zoning; it's about anything that could significantly depress housing prices
- Second, Republican organizations have been using "war on the suburbs" are rhetorical demagoguery against almost any policy to increase housing supply: see this as another example.
stav
13m ago
California lost a small percentage of its population, but that doesn’t mean the Bay Area has. A quick google search shows the Bay Area is still gaining in population in 2024. And the population becoming insanely wealthy like the Bay Area has because of tech and wealthy people moving in from all over the world can shift the demand curve to the right even if the population stays the same.
fartVader
18m ago
Gah, I knew I should not have used that phrase. I even paused for a good 10 seconds before choosing that word. All the others were no better (run over, taken over).
Yes, I am indeed implying that these filthy 1st gen Indian immigrants are coming to the bay area, taking tech job, stealing our american women and making good money. (sweats profusely).
I made a demonstrative wojak. You're welcome.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
19m ago
Didn't we establish that California is losing population? Have a look at housing price growth over the same period.
Tenaz
19m ago
An AI leader anything like our current models would just be a figurehead controlled by whoever writes the prompts and other input data. It would be extremely vulnerable to prompt manipulation, hacking, straight-up lying from those in power (who handles the AI, ensures its model hasn't been changed, and reports its output?), etc. Even were it not vulnerable to those things, it would have to get far more powerful to be a capable leader.
What are the benefits? Well it might be more consistent, allowing people to know exactly what their leader's plans are and act accordingly, but that's also a downside. An enemy actor can simulate their opposition and act with near-certainty. Terrorism becomes far more effective.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
22m ago
This is doubly so if the Tyrants form a pact saying they'll vote in favour of the policies of any of their fellow tyrants who was killed for politically motivated reasons (which they have an incentive to form as none of them wants to be assassinated).
Simply kill the tyrants you agree with.
stav
22m ago
Houston has unlimited land. Where in LA or the Bay Area is there open land to start building? Point to it on a map for me.
stav
23m ago
It’s both. If you have mass immigration and restricted supply then you get massive prices increases. But the Bay Area and LA are full. You can’t build anymore in either except up. Where in LA or the Bay Area is the free space to build these houses to fix the housing crisis? Where is the open land in Fremont or San Jose or San Francisco that can fix the housing crisis there? You have to tear down old buildings and start building massive multi family units.
newport
30m ago
His less-political lawyer anecdotes were well-written and entertaining, too.
I'm sorry, but this is just sloppy demagoguery. If you're being priced out because supply is artificially restricted to such brutal extremes as housing in California, you don't blame the other people who are similarly being screwed over, you blame the people causing the artificial restriction! Anyone telling you otherwise is probably manipulating you.
You replied to my comment less than 24 hours after the top level comment was made, so I’m skeptical “we caught it too late” is a genuine factor here.
Moreover, OP had not defended the claim at the time, but if that plays a role, maybe “be willing to defend your controversial claims if somebody asks for it” would be a more accurate articulation of the way this rule is actually enforced?
As it stands, if you mod him before 24 hours he never has the chance to defend himself, if you mod him after 24 hours then it’s too late.
Closedshop
話說天下大勢，分久必合，合久必分
31m ago
Those failure states exist to create the illusion of agency. No game advertises itself by telling you the princess can already be considered rescued, because that's the artistic intent, but hey you can come push buttons if you want to see it.
Just because the princess gets rescued in the end doesn't mean that the story is the same. In the case of a video game, instead of "the princess was rescued," it would be "you rescued the princess." The fact that you, the player, actually put forth effort to cause the princess to be rescued is a huge leap. Video games are at their core more immersive than movies. 3D and now 4D movies try to make it so that you're literally feeling the things that the main character feels. Video games are simply the next evolution to that. Now, instead of watching James Bond shoot that bad guy, you are James Bond, and you are shooting that bad guy.
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
32m ago
Checking their current discussion thread, the posts for this month are about the role of community and tradition in conservatism, the declining usage of "social construct" language in political debates, furry aesthetics, whether we can really designate some societies as more advanced than others...
Damn, I've been cheerleading for TheMotte this whole thread, but I have to admit they have us beat! I'd love for our CW thread to look like that.
RegularlyExpressed
36m ago
Starting conflicts? Israel is a colonial power and an imposition on the region, and did not exist a century ago. If I break into your home and kick you out, I don't get to call you the aggressor when you return in a few months and try to retake your home.
Except it's not a few months, it's 76 years. Extending the analogy, I don't think most people would support my grandchildren tried to murder your grandchildren to get this home back despite them never having lived in it. The implications of holding a different viewpoint are weird. Would be acceptable for the descendents of Ashkenazis to "retake" the homes and posessions their ancestors were ejected from in central Europe under Nazi Germany or during earlier pogroms? Would they be justified in raping and murdering the current occupants, as Hamas apparantly is in the case of Israel?
The IRA continued to conduct acts of terrorism against the British until the British left (and even then there's still Northern Ireland). The USA was kicked out of Afghanistan, but Israel is actually still there!
Well yes Israel is still there, because all the people were born there and have no where else to go, like every other country that exists in the world. I mean Australia is still there(!), and that actually was a colony. I'm not sure what you'd consider morally acceptable action on the part of the Israelis, unless it should be to just commit mass suicide to save the Palestinians the time?
If the Palestinians wiped Israel off the map and took control of the entire region, I absolutely would consider it unacceptable if they continued to blow up synagogues in other countries.
Leaving aside the fact that the Palestinians didn't control the region before 1948, this is hilarious. If 9 million people who didn't choose to be born where they were accept getting slaughtered, you'd consider it bad behaviour if Palestinians continued to commit terrorist acts targeting Jews. How benificent!
If I steal 500 dollars from you, then make a diplomatic concession where I return 5 dollars, would you consider the matter settled? If giving you back that 5 dollars isn't enough to make you happy, why should I give anything back at all?
I wouldn't expect people to show much sympathy for my grand-children if they were trying to murder your grand-children to get that sum back, and I certainly wouldn't blame your grand-children for holding onto the money if it was all they had and giving it up would mean getting killed. I'll repeat my question about whether you think Jews with central European ancestry are entitled to the land in Germany or Poland their ancestors lived on?
Same argument applies to the Palestinians.
Well, the same argument quite literally doesn't apply to the Palestinians - the vast majority of them weren't born within the current borders of Israel.
If destroying their homes to make way for Israel is acceptable, destroying Israeli homes to make way for Greater Palestine is equally acceptable.
If the US destroying the homes of the Native Americans is acceptable, is it equally acceptable for their modern day descendents to murder and rape every American with European ancestry?
Felagund
37m ago
Yeah, that's true. It's just a foreign way of looking at the world to me, I guess.
guajalote
38m ago
Houston, TX is about 25% foreign born and has way cheaper housing than any major city in CA. There's plenty of space in CA to house everyone even if the population doubled or tripled. The problem is regulations that restrict supply.
Felagund
39m ago
"Dissident Right" describes an inertia towards White identity politics.
Ah, I guess you might have a narrower opinion of what Dissident Right refers to than I did, which would explain some of the difference, depending, I suppose, on what exactly you mean by white identity politics. I would have considered HBD-ish views, combined with other edginess (e.g. takes on gender), to be sufficient to be dissident right, even without advocating for a group racial identity.
Personally, I suppose I'm pro-white in the sense that I don't think that we deserve the enmity coming our way, but I do think that the more important unit of opposition isn't really about race but about politics. (In the US. South Africa, for example, may be another story.) I don't think it's healthy to intensify racial division (and Hanania's probably right when he argues that the main impulse behind our current racial tensions is due to black racial grievance), as that leads to more societal dysfunction. That is, I'm in favor of defensive action against anti-white discrimination. I'm neutral about positive racial identity, as a celebration of ancestry, past etc, though I think national pride is probably a healthier way to go about that, if anything. But I'm not in favor of making that anywhere near the key component of identity, nor having tribal-ish racial preferences.
It's not laughable for white people to also adopt an outspoken opposition those who engage in group-motivated political and cultural hostility.
Isn't this already the baseline for politics on the right? Hence the opposition to affirmative action, etc. Can you name a single conservative thinker who is pro-affirmative action?
Again, it would be healthier if this were adopted by being pro-meritocracy, rather than pro-white, although in this case for different reasons. Looking at things in terms of attempting to capture spoils leads to socialism (as the frame is around getting people to give me stuff), whereas we need more of the American focus on excellence and dynamism.
it is incredibly obvious that Jewish political and cultural power is a huge obstacle towards those objectives, perhaps the largest.
Maybe? Although you might rather point to the left in general. But I don't know that I agree with your vision of how society and identity should be shaped anyway, so I suppose I don't see this as a terrible thing.
Jews do not want white people behaving like Jews, and they will flex enormous political, economic, and cultural power to stop it from happening.
When you're obviously racist against Jews, it doesn't surprise me that they're opposed to such behavior. I imagine some events, oh, 80 years ago or so might have had an influence on how they approach such decisions. Do you really think they should be cheering you on as you try to form lines of in-group preference and out-group prejudice with them on the outside?
But in any case, I think your final analogy breaks down somewhat because plenty of people identify as both Jewish and white (indeed, before the recent introduction of the Middle East/North Africa census category, that was the government-approved way for Jews to identify). So then, people having a super-white aesthetic and attracting a white audience using super-white memes could still be Jewish and be doing what they're doing authentically, whereas that isn't possible in your analogy.
Well yes but the point is it’s not like Texas where there’s tons of free land. You’re talking about taking places like Berkeley and Fremont and tearing down homes and building really tall residential buildings. That’s the scale of what needs to be done to get housing under control there.
More options
Context Copy link