Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

[LordsFire]

'Poor' and 'Ghetto' are not the same thing.

You have a fair point about suburbia starting to form before ghettoization happening, but suburbanization still is not the cause of ghettoization.

If it was, small towns with largely-dead economies would also be generally high-crime areas, but they're not. It depends almost entirely on the local culture and efficacy of law enforcement.

If local political leadership is actively disinterested in enforcing the law, and sees racial violence as advantageous for maintaining their power base, then no amount of asians moving into poor ghettos that are overwhelmingly black is going to change things.

If racial violence starts up, and they're able to effectively defend themselves, that is likely to cause a change, and a lot of the people already living there would probably end up being grateful that the power of local gangs and petty criminals was broken.

However, Democrats have proven they are 100% willing to use law enforcement to crack down on people who dare to defend themselves from their de-facto stormtroopers, and it's going to take something much larger than a group of asians just moving into an area to force that to change.

 

[Bear Ribs]

'Poor' and 'Ghetto' are not the same thing.

You have a fair point about suburbia starting to form before ghettoization happening, but suburbanization still is not the cause of ghettoization.

If it was, small towns with largely-dead economies would also be generally high-crime areas, but they're not. It depends almost entirely on the local culture and efficacy of law enforcement.

If local political leadership is actively disinterested in enforcing the law, and sees racial violence as advantageous for maintaining their power base, then no amount of asians moving into poor ghettos that are overwhelmingly black is going to change things.

If racial violence starts up, and they're able to effectively defend themselves, that is likely to cause a change, and a lot of the people already living there would probably end up being grateful that the power of local gangs and petty criminals was broken.

However, Democrats have proven they are 100% willing to use law enforcement to crack down on people who dare to defend themselves from their de-facto stormtroopers, and it's going to take something much larger than a group of asians just moving into an area to force that to change.

Local law enforcement being actively disinterested in enforcing the law is an extremely recent, modern trend. Especially the part about not even protecting monied interests like Wal-Mart, you're superimposing current-year issues on a problem that began seventy years ago and was largely completed five decades ago.

 

[Zyobot]

 

[LordsFire]

Local law enforcement being actively disinterested in enforcing the law is an extremely recent, modern trend. Especially the part about not even protecting monied interests like Wal-Mart, you're superimposing current-year issues on a problem that began seventy years ago and was largely completed five decades ago.

...No, I'm really not. IIRC, Democrats not wanting black communities to be lawful goes back to immediately after the civil war, and the willingness to turn their own cities into lawless hellholes goes at least back to the sixties.

Detroit is something of an ur-example, and the race riots in... was it '69? Were the definitive turning point for that city, but the combination of welfare to destroy the family, suppressing law enforcement and self-defense to encourage lawlessness, these really hammered home in that time period.

Firsthand accounts from people like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell talk about how the poor parts of town weren't just safe, but safe enough people would sleep outdoors on hot nights in NYC, leave doors open throughout apartment buildings mornings on the weekend so kids could go to the few houses that had TV and watch together, etc, etc.

There's a very clear cultural tipping point centered roughly on the 1960's, and the modern American ghettoification of major cities very much manifested as a consequence of that. It's not a unique thing, it's not the first time in history you've had something like that, but what it has become in America, it is not hard to trace the origins and development of.

 

[Bear Ribs]

...No, I'm really not. IIRC, Democrats not wanting black communities to be lawful goes back to immediately after the civil war, and the willingness to turn their own cities into lawless hellholes goes at least back to the sixties.

Detroit is something of an ur-example, and the race riots in... was it '69? Were the definitive turning point for that city, but the combination of welfare to destroy the family, suppressing law enforcement and self-defense to encourage lawlessness, these really hammered home in that time period.

Firsthand accounts from people like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell talk about how the poor parts of town weren't just safe, but safe enough people would sleep outdoors on hot nights in NYC, leave doors open throughout apartment buildings mornings on the weekend so kids could go to the few houses that had TV and watch together, etc, etc.

There's a very clear cultural tipping point centered roughly on the 1960's, and the modern American ghettoification of major cities very much manifested as a consequence of that. It's not a unique thing, it's not the first time in history you've had something like that, but what it has become in America, it is not hard to trace the origins and development of.

1967, but close enough for government work.

The thing is, Surburanization and Ghettoization didn't start with the '67 insurrection. It's completely impossible that it could have, you have to already have that large black population before they can actually have the numbers to cause an insurrection in the first place. Detroit was already over 30% black by 1967, and had already gone through a large amount of ghettofication and suburbanization. All that happened under Republican mayors.

179,000 people left Detroit between 1950 and 1960, heading to the suburbs. Another 156,00 left between 1960 and 1970, though the census figures don't show how many by year since it only happens every 10 years. At the same time, jobs moved to the Suburbs. Between 1946 and 1956, GM spent $3.4 billion on new plants, Ford $2.5 billion, and Chrysler $700 million, opening a total of 25 auto plants, all in Detroit's suburbs and away from the inner city. This increased poverty in the inner city and moved the wealth to the suburbs, not Democrats. The records of the time also show nothing like the suppression of law enforcement you're talking about. If anything one of the main grievances that caused the insurrection was excessive police brutality. Allof these things dramatically increased discontent and robbed Detroit of its middle-class citizens, and inflamed the tensions that eventually erupted.

In other words, those race riots you're talking about were a reaction to ghettoization, not a cause.

If you want to continue this, I suggest we split off for a new thread as I feel we've now reached what's reasonable before it becomes a major derail of the meme thread.

 

[S'task]

Local law enforcement being actively disinterested in enforcing the law is an extremely recent, modern trend. Especially the part about not even protecting monied interests like Wal-Mart, you're superimposing current-year issues on a problem that began seventy years ago and was largely completed five decades ago.

. . .

This is completely historically false. In fact, one of the reasons for the rise of "tough on crime" conservatives and Republicans in the 1980s was that starting in the 1960s and through the 1970s there was a rise on what were later called "soft on crime" policies in cities and by Democrats more generally. This lead to a massive rise in crime that much of the middle class bucked against, to the point where even in Hollywood, which wasn't as captured at the time, had movies that were considered criticisms of the present soft on crime approach and aggrandizing tough on crime "just kill the bad guy" types, most famous of which was of course "Dirty Harry".

This saw a massive backlash so that by the 1980s "tough on crime" was on everyone's lips and through the 80s and 90s you saw massive crackdown on all types of crimes that culminated in the low crime rates of the 00s and the massive ballooning of the prison population... it was to the point where so many people had forgotten that police "reform" on criminals was tried before and you began to see the rise of demands for softening policing and reforming imprisonment began to rise again to the point where we're at now, with some of the highest crime rates since the 1970s.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Ok guys see you in a week, don't start any coups or civil wars while I'm away.

 

[Circle of Willis]

 

[Zyobot]

 

[DarthOne]

 

[DarthOne]

 

[Zyobot]

Not sure where this belongs, but just to be safe:

 

[Scottty]

Explain that one?

 

[Aldarion]

And then they wonder why Neo-Nazis are a thing. Hint: if you embrace extremism, you also breed the extremism on the opposite side.

 

[Scottty]

 

[Scottty]

 

[Zyobot]

Explain that one?

It's parody of the dinner scene from Shrek 2, but with the attendees shouting the names of the Nazi leadership.

Best guess as to why has something to do with the Hitler Rants! parodies, specifically when Hitler yells about Fegelein and at the rest of his inner circle for failing him as the Allies have closed in on Berlin itself.

 

[Cherico]

Statistically speaking your better off at a school that matches your academic acheivement because spending a lot of money and failing out of school is a much worse outcome then getting your degree at least in theory.

 

[bintananth]

Statistically speaking your better off at a school that matches your academic acheivement because spending a lot of money and failing out of school is a much worse outcome then getting your degree at least in theory.

A school mismatch is less of an issue than a degree program and course load mismatch. Someone who struggles with math shouldn't have a STEM major or one which requires Calc III like Econ. Likewise, a student who isn't good at English will be miserable if they have to write a 25+ page research paper for all their classes every semester.

Yea, this whole nonsense of "we are helping poor black people"
helping them into perpetual poverty maybe.

That's a general cost of attendance/inadaquate non-loan financial aid problem exacerbated by people picking majors with limited job opportunities for those who graduate.

 

[mrttao]

That's a general cost of attendance/inadaquate non-loan financial aid problem exacerbated by people picking majors with limited job opportunities for those who graduate.

Oh, absolutely.

College has multiple land mines, they are just adding an additional landmine just for black people and women.
so they are more likely to trip over one or more of the landmines.

landmine 1: massive debt
landmine 2: useless and/or oversaturated degrees
landmine 3: being admitted to a college you lack the ability to graduate from due to skincolor/vagina.

I mean, some black guys can graduate college avoiding all the landmines.
And some white guy can fall into every landmine except the skin color one.
It is quite absurd that they add a landmine and call it helping the target victim of said landmine