domain:vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com
Skibboleth
17m ago
I don't disagree - as I said in another subthread, the anti-housing consensus is bipartisan. Rationale is sometimes different (although sometimes that just a gloss on the same underlying motivations). At least in California, voting for the GOP isn't going to indicate a significantly different housing policy and the CA GOP has the usual array of conservative beliefs that make it a less than credible option for defection.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
20m ago
Seems strange to me that labeling foreign funding for NGOs would be controversial and bad.
It's likely a "Who? Whom?" thing. If you're a Slovakian leftist and you notice that all the orgs you like and non of the orgs you hate are being shut down under this law, you may (reasonably?) conclude that the law was generated through 'rationalisation gerrymandering' by motivated rightists in order to hurt leftists with plausible deniability.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
43m ago
Fact check "Young white men vote Trump": Mostly True
"For example, young White men supported President Trump by 6 points (51% vs 45%)"
https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/election-week-2020#the-views-of-young-trump-voters
Though you're also correct in that young people vote Democrat and that young white men don't overwhelmingly vote Republican: Young White voters preferred Biden by 6 points (51% vs. 45%).
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
48m ago
No argument there. But Reconstruction didn't actually work like it was supposed to, resulting in Jim Crow, and that sowed the seeds for lots of problems we're still dealing with. There's an argument that letting things slide helps keep the peace, but if people start noticing that one cohesive group has its wrongdoings ignored, and another group has even non-wrongdoings hammered mercilessly, that builds resentment.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
52m ago
Isn't it whites that created the desirable accommodation and the jobs? The entire industries in question? The institutions that allow economic prosperity?
You're complaining that the people who developed the world economy, implemented free trade and organized mass migration aren't getting out of the way quickly enough, so you can reap more spoils from a presumably highly paid software job?
I have to admire your straightforwardness and consistency in this position.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
1hr ago
I have literally never heard a Californian complain about the unpleasantness of earthquakes.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
1hr ago
And it wouldn’t be enough.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Look at the NYC and Jersey area.
We're talking about adding one-third of an NYC worth of housing in a single development to the Bay area, increasing housing stock by 40%.
I simply don't believe you. Bring a model that doesn't rely on eternal population growth which has already reversed in the bay area for years now and show your work.
stav
1hr ago
And it wouldn’t be enough. Look at the NYC and Jersey area. The Bay Area is the Hollywood of nerds. There’s 4 places in the US you have to be and it’s NYC, Bay Area, DC, and LA. People will just move in keeping prices high if they build more. NYC has insane levels of housing density but unless you are going to move those whites off Staten Island by force we are stuck with what we have.
Felagund
1hr ago
but I have to admit they have us beat!
Well, except in volume. But yeah, if they all moved here, I assume they'd be downvoted heavily, which is a shame.
Supah_Schmendrick
1hr ago
Not saying you can't do this. Just that it's unpleasant.
Tomato
1hr ago
I just don’t think you should be able to tell your neighbor what he can do on his land.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1hr ago
I've been meaning to write another update on AI but not sure if anyone still cares.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1hr ago
I never conflated these two groups in that entire conversation and repeatedly tried to explain that I didn't.
Reading the conversation, it looks to me like you did in fact conflate the two groups.
Destroying the statue was teabagging the outgroup plain and simple. The moderate voice in every statue controversy has consistently said something to the effect of "move them to a museum" which is what happened here. What this event (moving to a museum and then destroying it) shows is that there is no quarter to moderates in the culture war. It's very much in line with the friend-enemy distinction principle.
As a southerner who was on team "move them to a museum", I'm genuinely disgusted.
"the outgroup" in this comment is pretty clearly referring to contemporary people, not the Confederate slavers. The context of the entire comment is about people in the present day.
Your reply:
Can someone explain to me why teabagging this particular outgroup is a bad thing? Drop the moral relativism: some cultures/societies are so execrable that symbolically "teabagging" them is great. The Confederacy/Antebellum south is one of these---one of the worst cases of hereditarian, anti-egalitarian nonsense in modern-ish history.
(bolding mine.) He's talking about one thing, you respond with a line that makes it seem like he's talking about something else. That doesn't make for good discussion. Especially when you follow it up with:
no quarter to moderates in the culture war.
What exactly do you mean by "moderates" here? Not hating a person who rebelled to support slavery isn't what I would call "moderate".
I find it doubtful that you were actually confused by what he meant by "moderate". If you want to argue that such people aren't actually moderate, you can present an argument. You offer a declaration, framed uncharitably. This is building consensus, and it also makes for bad discussion.
You seem to have a habit of writing posts in a way optimized, intentionally or not, for maximizing heat and not light. You also seem to have a pattern of conversation centering on moral outrage that people might possibly disagree with you. If you are actually interested in discussing why someone might not want confederate statues destroyed, or why they should want them destroyed, that's something we can do here. It would help to start from the assumption that people might reasonably disagree with you.
How is "infested with Indian and Chinese tech workers taking over" at all being careful while talking about a group?
It's not, and he has in fact been warned. On the other hand, at least it's not an uncharitably-framed argument over definitions of words. The person you're complaining about is pretty clearly a racist, and they aren't hiding it or being weaselly about it. That's actually preferable to the alternative, which is why we have the "speak plainly" rule, and, as I understand it, is one of the reasons we tolerate significant amounts of vitriol toward parties who are not actually present in the discussion.
TIRM
1hr ago
Any time 50%+1 voter wants to they can repeal prop 13. Somehow these last few many decades they've declined. I don't like blaming voters from decades ago since other voters continuously chose to stick with it.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
2hr ago
If California Forever alone (lol) was developed to Barcelona's density (note we are not even talking high rises here) it could fit 3.4M people.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2hr ago
gus
2hr ago
There should be a #4 for effort if they don’t want to be technically wrong.
Notice how this spurred discussion from a simple post…why don’t we vote on bringing back the bare links repository?
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
2hr ago
It would be like defining 'violent video games' wide enough that it includes Pong (there's a winner and a loser), then arguing that most school shooters were exposed to 'violent video games' in their childhood and that therefore we need to do more to keep porn (see what I did there) from kids by forcing GameStop to do age verification.
Newspeak (like "porn", "violent video games", and "woke") is useful because it prevents your opponents from putting a name to your face.
It has no downsides that are recognizable by the people who practice this kind of politics.
NelsonRushton
2hr ago
Virtually everyone sees their ingroup as a victim who is treated unjustly by their outgroup.
I think this covers up an important truth. There is an important difference in this respect between "virtually everyone" on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and their ilk. It is one thing to feel like your clan has gotten the short end of some particular stick, but it is another thing to feel like that justifies negating the human rights of your countrymen in the entire offending class. Of course you can find, to some degree, talking heads of any class talking about how their group has been treated unfairly, but when that rises to a certain pitch and tone, you'd best keep your rifle clean.
stav
2hr ago
And I agree they should develop those and it will help with the housing crisis. But it’s not going to make the Bay Area affordable. Let’s say they develop all of that into high rises tomorrow and build 100,000 dwellings. Those homes would still be prohibitively expensive for most Americans.
stav
2hr ago
I think you are massively overestimating the percentage of homeowners in SF etc who are retired boomer and older whites and how much power they have.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
3hr ago
No, you can't even build housing in the middle of nowhere without hearing these nimby arguments.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
3hr ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Forever
https://protectcoyotevalley.org/
In east Alameda countythere's enormous amounts of empty space. Much of the prime real estate in Santa Clara county is warehouses or other industrial areas, and much of the bay area is really shitty SFHes built on shoestring budgets in the sixties.
That's off the top of my head.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
3hr ago
Why would they keep buying it if the value of that housing is being diluted by all the new housing? Foreigners buy houses in these markets as an investment. The only reason the sunset is a good investment is because the supply of houses is fixed by the boomer death grip. If you could actually build something there it would cease to be a good investment.
Adhering to anti-racist parlance is harder than making good law, because anti-racist parlance is a logically incoherent moving target of whatever Current Thing the progressive stack is mad about today, whereas "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is pretty consistent.
More options
Context Copy link