SOME minorities move the city because they are prejudiced against people who can't dance.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

SOME minorities move the city because they are prejudiced against people who can't dance.

Leash would you prefer someone say 85% or 10%? Why do you hate the word "some"?

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

It would seem as if JORR, RR, and ltg believe it is.

I don't care enough to "hate" it... I just don't like being pegged as a racist for living in a suburb. "Some" is very vague. It could mean 85%, which would make it very likely that MANY of us are racist, which I don't believe.

Whenever I see the word some I generally think it's less than half. I don't think you are racist and I don't think anyone here believes that you are. No need to fight something that hasn't been said.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

I don't think they're saying that. The truth is MANY minorities look to escape to the wealthy suburbs when they can afford it.

What reality are we talking about here? The idea here seems to be that suburban living is because you want to stay away from minorities and they are built on racism. Of course I'm going to take offense to that idea.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

It's not pointless. What's pointless is trying to determine the percentage of them. "Some" should cover it for both.

It is pointless. You could literally say it about any statement.

Black people are criminals.

Mexicans are rapists.

Muslims are terrorists.

CFMB members are racist.

Gay people are sexual predators.

All of the above statements you could apply your logic of "It's true for some and not true for others" to. Any time you make blanket statements you're gonna come off bad. Saying suburbanites are racist qualifies.

I didn't say I wasn't racist. I said I don't like being pegged

The suburbs were built on racism. So was this country. So it seems rather pointless to single out suburbanites as possible racists.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I didn't say I wasn't racist. I said I don't like being pegged as a racist simply for living in a suburb.

Also, if you read the thread I linked in the Facebook thread, good dolphin (a white guy from the North Shore) literally said people who live in suburbs are racist.

If you put the word "some" in front of all of those statements I'm not sure how anyone could argue against it any of them.

I didn't say I wasn't racist. I said I don't like being pegged as a racist simply for living in a suburb.

Also, if you read the thread I linked in the Facebook thread, good dolphin (a white guy from the North Shore) literally said people who live in suburbs are racist.

If you put the word "some" in front of all of those statements I'm not sure how anyone could argue against it any of them.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Here we go with conflating a contemporary situation with something historical in nature. I'm not addressing anyone's individual reality. I commented on a specific period in history in which this thing was commonplace. I'm not accusing anyone of racism and I'm frankly tired of that game every single time this thing is brought up. During the 1950's in the City of Chicago scores of whites left the area as blacks arrived in the area. Prior to the arrival of hundreds of thousands of blacks whites attempted to keep blacks out of all white neighborhoods. Policies were enacted and violence perpetrated in an effort to prevent it. The move to the suburbs was largely a response to black migration and attempts at integrating. That is a fact based upon numerous books and studies that have been conducted upon the subject.


I'm not relating this to anyone's personal situation either. It isn't to exact guilt either.

The discussion here is about the suburbs and what living there represents both historically and currently as compared to people who live in the city. Now you seem to be saying that it was a factor in some of the early suburban development which no one has argued against. You also seem to acknowledge that the city was roughly as bad. That's the point we were making!

I guess I misunderstood your agreement with me. I mean, if it ultimately comes down to the fact that the city was filled with a lot of racism and the initial suburbs were also a response to the racism in cities then I don't think you'll get much resistance. I'd argue that being able to live in a new place you own with a yard was a bigger driver but there clearly is a correlation.

So, just to be clear, the primary reason to currently live in the suburbs has nothing to do with racism. Is that correct?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

So what? Little Billy in second grade could easily make that kind of observation ... nobody is going to drive him over to a DC think-tank to expand on his considered opinion.

So, you're correct in that nobody (of any value in talking to) is going to argue against the obvious statement of "some people are 'x'". There's just simply zero value to making that obvious assertion ... it's on par with stating "the sun rises in the East".

Thank you. We are in agreement. Looks like JORR and good dolphin are on their own.

If you ain't never been to Sauganash, don't ever come to Sauganash. Cuz you wouldn't understand Sauganash. So stay the fuck out of Sauganash.

dolphin isn't from the North Shore.

What other way could I say it that would satisfy you? Today 4% of whites move to certain suburbs so they won't have to be around minorities? In 1956 a staggering 41.7% of whites fled to the suburbs? I can't prove either of those things to be true.

Don't make me read this thread. Is someone calling me out or not? I just want to know if I need to pull up my suspenders for an ass kicking session.

Do you want me to establish a correlation between the GI Bill, VA loans, and Housing Discrimination? I could but I really don't want to get to deep in the weeds with this stuff. Housing Improvement Associations were established as a means of keeping blacks out of all white neighborhoods. People can say they moved for whatever reason that they want and I don't want to really address your family's situation because I don't know about it. What I do know is that whites moved out of this city in record numbers once blacks arrived in it. That isn't an accident. White moved out of all white neighborhoods due to the arrival of a few blacks in some cases. Houses were firebombed if only a few blacks moved into the neighborhoods. Check the history of restrictive covenants and redlining. The facts are really irrefutable.

ONce the black advancement couldn't be prevented any longer whites moved out into the suburbs.

What other way could I say it that would satisfy you? Today 4% of whites move to certain suburbs so they won't have to be around minorities? In 1956 a staggering 41.7% of whites fled to the suburbs? I can't prove either of those things to be true.

My satisfaction, as you put it, would come from using that statement only as a segue to a more informative or interesting point (rather than just saying it as a standalone "point"). My dissatisfaction stems only from that 'some are x' statement being left out there on its own as though it has any real meaning insofar as addressing issue x. If that's not what your purpose was in saying it, than I might ask that you consider rephrasing or re-framing it with respect to whatever the actual point was supposed to be.