Hacker News Reader

Comment by 40acres | Hacker News Reader

If you look deep enough into the history of any modestly large Amercian city (pop. 250,000 +) and it's surrounding suburbs, you will see a metro area that was and still is being shaped by race.

It's not a surprise that SF's first zoning law was a veiled attempt at curbing Chinese immigrants, it's not a surprise that when the highways were built in Portland, OR the mostly black neighborhoods in NE Portland were razed to make room for cars.

Here is a quote from a recent Cupertino City Council meeting where new apartments, with a % allocated to affordable house, were up for discussion:

“The idea of Cupertino is to have people living here that are educated with degrees. Bringing this in would bring a lot of probably lower income people, and that would definitely bring down our median average household income.”

American urban policy is filled with slight of hand comments and maneuvers just like this.

A poster has been down-voted to oblivion for pointing out the hypocrisy that the bluest states have the most un-affordable housing, but I do think there is a thread here which highlights the hypocrisy of those who virtue signal for equality but advocate for policies that secure their wealth and make it almost impossible for lower income folks to survive.

View on HN

> “The idea of Cupertino is to have people living here that are educated with degrees. Bringing this in would bring a lot of probably lower income people, and that would definitely bring down our median average household income.”

Doesn't seem covertly racist to me, but maybe I choose not to see it. It's bad enough on its face so no need to add racism really.

A: they don't like poor people

B: they don't want poor people living near them

C: they want to prop up home values and this would limit that

D: they feel comfortable speaking for cupertino as a whole, so probably a long time resident.

Cupertino is overwhelmingly asian, 63% vs 32% in the county. Cupertino is a very wealthy town (rank 11th nationally in its size range). I think it's completely understandable, without introducing race, that anyone in a wealthy town doesn't want poor people bringing down the neighborhood. (Not saying it is or isn't correct or moral.)

Also just want to point out that Cupertino is not urban.

The dirty secret is that socioeconomic status and race are very related.

Related but not very. There are plenty of poor white people in the USA, trailer park trash and red neck being the slurs often used.

And outside of the US, it can be totally separated. In China, for example, many of the poor people are ethnic han.

Poor white people are significantly less likely to live in cities. This has widespread impact, for example urban populations have more frequent police contact.

ex: "Poor African Americans are four times more likely than poor whites to live in the central city, and twenty five times more likely to live in high-poverty neighborhoods." https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/67111/...

That is true, but poor whites are just as likely to be suburban as they are rural. There are also cities that are famous for white poverty; e.g. those in much of the rust belt where Trump got much of his support and places like Spokane and Portland that act as magnets for huge rural regions.

Looking at Ohio Trump got about the normal number of republican votes, just enough to beat 2012 Obama but not 2006 Bush, or 2008 Obama even with a larger population. It's really Hillary that bombed.

  2006 George W. Bush 2,859,768
  2008 John McCain 2,677,820 
  2012 Mitt Romney 2,661,437
  2016 Donald Trump: 2,841,005

vs.

  2004 John Kerry 2,741,167
  2008 Barack Obama 2,940,044
  2012 Barack Obama 2,827,709
  2018 Hillary Clinton 2,394,164

Related, and very much so.

The biggest indicator of future socioeconomic status is educational attainment. The biggest indicator of educational attainment is wealth.

> Where does the biggest source of material wealth typically come from? Housing!

> Was housing policy racist? Very explicitly so, even in the progressive Bay Area. See: redlining.

> Are some of the policies that stemmed from racism still on the books in major metropolitan areas? Yes! Many of these exact policies are what's keeping from more housing from being built right now!

What policies, you ask? Here's a few.

- Excessively large minimum lot sizes

- High setback requirements

- Very low height limits

- Very high car parking requirements

While many of these requirements sound reasonable on their face, they were in fact implemented to keep out PoC [1]. Now they're used by people on the top of the socioeconomic pyramid to keep those on the bottom out.

[1] Further reading: The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein

How does lot size affect people of color?

Collectively all these ordinances increased housing prices by limiting density. It meant that PoC couldn't pool their resources and build more on a lot, or just buy a smaller home on a small lot in the first place. Combined with the fact that PoC couldn't get loans approved due to redlining, it was very effective.

It doesn't really matter but I'll just point out that the poor people they are fearing here are still rich enough to afford an apartment in Cupertino, meaning that they're millionaires. Just likely single-digit millionaires rather than the sort who can afford SFHs in that town.

If I’m understanding correctly the implication is that they’re concerned about the attached low income housing that’s (I believe) mandatory for all new housing developments in California.

Wow another regulation with "unintended" consequences!

Sure, but what's the average skin color of poor people? Let's not pretend that doesn't play a factor, and that Asians are somewhat immune to racism.

> Doesn't seem covertly racist to me, but maybe I choose not to see it. It's bad enough on its face so no need to add racism really.

Arguing about whether economic policies are racist is a purposeful distraction. As if screwing over poor black families is completely reasonable as long as you're also screwing over poor white families.

As soon as you make it about race, you divide the poor into separate groups who are nominally at odds with each other even though in practice they have the same interests (e.g. lower housing costs). Then they fight against each other instead of fighting together for lower housing costs. It's a divide and conquer strategy to preserve the status quo.

It "doesn't seem racist" when Asians advocate such policies, but it does when whites do?

> American urban policy is filled with slight of hand comments and maneuvers just like this.

How do you know they don't actually mean it? People can be as biased against low income neighbors as against neighbors of races different than their own.

On an individual basis, you really don't know, this is why to come to a conclusion that policy methods are discriminatory you need to look at large scale patterns.

This shows a bit with regard to voter rights in America. If you look at the history, most state level voter laws are designed in a way to suppress the vote -- but these laws are championed as ways to "stop voter fraud" among other things.

The individual who made this comment may or may not have racial bias, but I'd love to see how the Cupertino city council has dealt with other policies which may change the racial make up of the city in the past.

Race and low income are inextricably linked because of racist past policies, which fund schools vastly differently based on property values, which provides very different access to education, which provides very different access to opportunities in the future.

This particular commenter? I think they were 14 and just really stupid (edit: according to the Cupertino mayor, who was asked about a similar comment at 45:45 here [1]). So maybe not racist. But having spent enough time talking to adults who also talk like this, if you talk long enough the racist undertones become overtones. It's baked into our society, so though it's completely unacceptable to reveal these racist attitudes, the classist attitudes are slightly more acceptable.

It's definitely a dogwhistle to others, even if this particular commenter was not intentionally dogwhistling.

[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/gimme-shelter-the-califo...

> This particular commenter? I think they were 14 and just really stupid. So maybe not racist. But having spent enough time talking to adults who also talk like this, if you talk long enough the racist undertones become overtones. It's baked into our society, so though it's completely unacceptable to reveal these racist attitudes, the classist attitudes are slightly more acceptable.

I'm not from America, and my own country is 99.9% white, so this is all foreign and very interesting for me. I'm wondering to what degree racism is about the actual race (physical traits) and to what degree about the socioeconomic traits that correlate with race. For example, I wonder if a typical white racist person would stil prefer a white drug addict or criminal as a neighbor over say someone like president Obama.

In my experience, with something that extreme %99.999 of people prefer Obama over the white drug addict. But racism is on a spectrum, it's not a yes/no thing. Most of the existing racism is far more subtle, like fears over foreigners, or the different and the new. The full-on give-me-white-drug-addict-over Obama is usually only constrained to the super rare neo-Nazi breed of racism.

Different cultures are also quite shocking. So even if that new family that moved in makes just as much money, has just as much education, but cooks different foods that smell funny to you, or talks in different ways, or puts on different displays, that can greatly impact acceptance.

I mean, I can't say that I don't have some racist attitudes, because over my life time I've discovered that some things that I thought were perfectly reasonable non-racial preferences end up getting really intertwined. Especially because I grew up in a very white area, with almost no history of the racial prejudices that affect parts of the US, I didn't understand how racism played out until I was in an area with more diversity, and it was a learning process to even spot it, or figure out what was insulting or derogatory, since I had so little experience with it. But because so much of the racism is not the neo-Nazi type, is more subtle and probably less conscious, it's important to not be too moralizing about it, because moralizing just entrenches it. Instead of beating someone up over it, it's far better to show how the attitude has negative effects, and how there can be positive effects from not having that attitude.

Of course, when people are speaking in codes, like they do in these meetings about "preserving neighborhood character," all that goes out the window. The article goes through lots of great examples of how even in the past, the racism was perpetuated with the cover of other excuses.

IMO it's mostly about class, but it seems like it's mostly about race because there is a correlation between class and race (at least, if you count Asians as white, which is nonsensical, but what many people seem to want to do these days). The neighborhood I live in is right next to an extremely poor neighborhood (both are mixed race, but majority white). Most of my neighbors are a lot more comfortable with the middle class black/asian/latino people in our neighborhood than they are with the poor white people in the neighborhood next door.

It's difficult to quantify, because it's hard to distinguish between what someone claims as justification and their actual motivations. Having grown up in a part of the US where racism has a long and strong history (South Carolina, where the American Civil War began), my own experience is that racism has changed its face. Old-fashioned overt, visible racism is less prevalent due to a wider shift in culture. Overt racism is publicly condemned and considered an embarrassment, but that doesn't mean it has gone away and it lurks just beneath the surface. I know and grew up with tons of people who are without a doubt strongly racist, but they find other justifications to present in public.

It's somewhat of a secret language, where certain phrases sound ok on the surface but have racist connotations. For example, "urban" or "inner city" is often a code word for "black". I have a rather racist uncle for example, he often rails about how the Democratic party has a strong grip on the "urban" vote, while the real America is the "rural" population, who are of course all true patriots and thus Republicans. Of course he is perfectly aware that political lines are not so neatly divided by population density, but that's because what he actually means is "urban" == "black" and "rural" == "white". Intentions are obscured, so everything gets fuzzy.

Going back to the Cupertino city council meeting, it makes it really hard to know what they really mean for sure. This is all based on my own experience, but I've seen enough cloak and dagger racism to know it's definitely a possibility. I think they would absolutely prefer an affluent black person over a poor white drug dealer, but on the other hand I would bet that for a significant number of the residents if you say "poor", the image that pops into their head is a black person.

It's also worth mentioning that this is a political issue, given that there is a pretty strong racial gap between political parties. I think that's where a lot of this doublespeak lingo came from, as a way to discuss race in politics (which, practically speaking is important) without sounding racist.

All that said, I think that the prevalence of sincere racism has definitely decreased significantly, so it's not all bad. Edit: I should also add, this is not universal on the American right, I know plenty of conservatives who aren't racists, nor is it only white Republicans who are racists.

I don't think your rural/urban example is a good one.

A lot of the time people mean exactly what they say. Many rural folk would be happy to see city folk pushed off a cliff. The race thing is just an unfortunate correlation.

I also think that a lot of rural racists only have beef with city people but they're unable to properly articulate that so race just becomes a proxy they direct their hate at instead.

That's why it's ambiguous without context, because it can plausibly be covered up with a non-racist interpretation. In my uncle's case I know that is what he means from context, and I've seen those terms used similarly by others. There are certainly legitimate conflicts and grievances between rural and urban populations, but that's not what he means in this situation.

There is a famous Lee Atwater (Republican strategist) quote that illustrates this perfectly. There are some ugly words in it that I will not censor, because our history is ugly.

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger".

Many of the traits that distinguish African Americans and Hispanics in the U.S., and which people react to, are not correlated with socio-economic circumstance but rather race and culture.

I grew up in the D.C. suburbs in the 1990s (when people were less guarded about this stuff) in a Virginia town that was at the time almost entirely white. I remember hearing how PG County (a majority African american county just east of DC) was the "ghetto" and "scary." How did you know? Well there were "youths" with "baggy pants" listening to "gangster rap" and speaking in "ebonics." It was only a couple of decades later when I moved nearby that I realized how racist that view was. PG County is, in fact, solidly middle class county that happens to be 2/3 African American. Yes, the teenagers speak in African American vernacular (at least to each other) and dress in a certain style, which is different than how white teenagers of the same socio-economic class would speak and dress, but odds are that their parents work for the federal government or one of the nearby hospitals. Nonetheless, my classmates thought that the area was "ghetto" based on those outward traits.

That's why the Trayvon Martin shooting was such a big deal in the U.S. Martin was solidly middle class, the son of a white collar government worker and a truck driver. There's tons of kids in PG County who look just like him, who have parents that make $80,000 household income. But lots of people find those kids "scary" and "ghetto." Not because of their socio-economic status, but because of their race and their cultural expression.

There are studies that show that when Americans are shown pictures of white people and black people doing the same act, they perceive the black person as more threatening [1].

[1]: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1977-21139-001

That's one study... from 42 years ago.

Curious who you're referring to as "this particular commenter"? The quote in question was from a Cupertino resident at a recent city council meeting, and he's a 60 year old white man.

As a side note - my wife grew up in Cupertino, and I'm there every day to drop off my kid at his grandparents. Race & class is complicated here. When my wife was in elementary school, it was about 50/50 White/East-Asian. It's now roughly 80% Indian within the school system, and the only whites around are senior citizens.

I tend to think that Silicon Valley is intensely classist and not all that racist - low-income whites get judged a lot more harshly than high-income Indians. So on that level, it's entirely possible that the commenter meant exactly what he said, with no dog-whistles involved. Another way of looking at it, perhaps, is that Chinese, Japanese, and Indians have become "white", at least within Silicon Valley, even though the latter actually have brown skin. But doesn't that dilute the meaning of "white" so much that it basically becomes meaningless, and that we should just call it classism rather than racism?

> Another way of looking at it, perhaps, is that Chinese, Japanese, and Indians have become "white", at least within Silicon Valley, even though the latter actually have brown skin. But doesn't that dilute the meaning of "white" so much that it basically becomes meaningless, and that we should just call it classism rather than racism?

This is actually really interesting because in America the boundaries of who is "white" and who is not has constantly shifted from a social standpoint.

There was time that Italians, Jews and Irish were not considered white (as in Anglo-Saxon or Nordic white) but this obviously isn't the case today.

South East Asians will probably never be considered "white" socially because of skin tone and cultural differences, but I'd argue it might be more important to be considered "not-black" or "not-Hispanic" than anything in America.

> There was time that Italians, Jews and Irish were not considered white (as in Anglo-Saxon or Nordic white) but this obviously isn't the case today.

No, people who care about whiteness still exclude Jews.

How about the US Census? Jewish people generally answer “white” on it.

Well, it's either this or "Other". It's not like a lot of Jews identify as Black, American Indian, Hispanic or Pacific Islander. Technically, Israel is in Asia so they could choose Asian, but I think they understand that's not what is meant here.

Very few American Jews could trace their lineage back to Israel. 70 CE was a long time ago.

Believe me, I know. This was not a serious proposition, it was a joke. Unfortunately, I made a critical error by not writing a disclaimer before it "JOKE IS TO FOLLOW" and not adding a footer "THE TEXT ABOVE WAS A JOKE" after it. Oy vey.

I'm not sure that peoples' answer to the race question on the census is 100% correlated with whether they will receive racism.

> How about the US Census? Jewish people generally answer “white” on it.

So do most Hispanics, who are clearly outside of the sense of whiteness applicable in most common conversation contexts.

To be fair, the census has a separate question to distinguish Hispanics, which allows their data to be used, on that point, in a way which accords with the common usage, where race and ethnicity are more of a blend cover than two orthogonal ones. And it didn't do that with Jewish identity.

But these days it's not hard to find people who care intensely about white identity and see that they don't consider Jews part of the tribe.

People who explicitly care about whiteness (KKK, neo-Nazis etc) do.

The "I'm not racist, but ..." majority - which is the real driver of systemic racism - doesn't. In fact, so much so that "Judeo-Christian values" became the standard way to describe the culture of that crowd, and it's a formulation that is specifically intended to include Jews.

> This is actually really interesting because in America the boundaries of who is "white" and who is not has constantly shifted from a social standpoint.

This is very, very misleading. You know it’s very misleading, as shown by your next paragraph but plenty of people actually believe there was a time when Italians, Irish were not considered white. There wasn’t. There was a great deal of prejudice against non-Anglos, Nordics emphatically included but there was never legal discrimination against them authorised by legislation in any state or at a federal level. That’s not true for Black people or Asians, both East and South Asians.

The entire shifting boundaries of whiteness literature is based on trying to muddy the difference between whether people were central or liminal members of a group with the question of whether they were members of the group at all.

Why would absence of racism against Asians be equivalent to absence of racism against blacks?

>Curious who you're referring to as "this particular commenter"? The quote in question was from a Cupertino resident at a recent city council meeting, and he's a 60 year old white man.

Oops. By "this particular commenter" I meant the Cupertino resident. I (think?) I had heard about that comment or a similar one on a podcast (Gimme Shelter) that interviewed the Cupertino mayor the day after all that debacle, and I thought the mayor said that the commenter was 14 and that his mom had asked for permission for him to show slides. I hope I didn't completely misremember that.

60 years old? Then yeah, probably intentional dog whistle. I'd give the ignorance of youth a bit more of a pass.

It's possible it was his son (I'm going by the name quoted in the news articles about the incident), but that doesn't really make it better.

Oh no, please don't think I'm trying to give the sentiment any cover. I think it's an extremely ugly sentiment, that is very common and that few are willing to openly state.

Youth can both reveal the truth of what people think, as well as not be fully aware of all the possible interpretations of what is being said.

>which fund schools vastly differently based on property values, which provides very different access to education, which provides very different access to opportunities in the future.

Spending per student is often significantly higher in urban areas that have a larger proportion of poor students than in tony suburbs. Of course those urban schools probably need to spend more because they often need to compensate for less supportive home environments. Nonetheless, the correlation between per student spend and educational outcomes is quite weak in most places.

Those statistics are tricky to get right, in order to compare apples and apples you have to account for all sources of funding and/or subsidy, and also normalize across all services provided (and their need). Some of the spending studies I've seen are done very sloppily.

>Race and low income are inextricably linked because of racist past policies

Not just racist past policies, but also racist present social dynamics. Racial biases affects income when people don't visit restaurants with black waitstaff [1,2], when businesses make up excuses to decline black job applicants [3,4], when doctors fail to recognize the suffering of black patients [5], when colleges provide less support to black students [6], when black people are given harsher sentences for the same crimes [7], and when in so many cases these biases (which people are usually aware of IMO, even if they say they aren't) affect people's behavior in the world of friendship and dating and ultimately percolate back into the trajectory of people's careers. For a particular example of the last point, my own programming career in San Francisco started partially because of a friendship that formed through an online video game community when I was in high school. Friendship-forming is an unassailable personal freedom, but that doesn't mean it can't mediate unfairness.

People nowadays love to talk about "subconscious" racism and "persistent inequality", but this may perpetuate the false belief that volitional racial prejudices have mostly gone away -- they have not.

[1] - http://moya.bus.miami.edu/~lgiuliano/customer_discrim_apr09....

[2] - https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/682332?jou...

[3] - https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/18/16307782/study-raci...

[4] - https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes...

[5] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843483/

[6] - https://phys.org/news/2018-09-universities-black-students.ht...

[7] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/16/black...

Your mistake is that you choose to see everything in terms of race. Not everything is a "racist dog whistle". If someone doesn't want poor people in their town, it's because they don't want poor people.

Cupertino is a melting pot of individuals of many different racial groups, they just all happen to be very wealthy. That's it. Your compulsion to consider everything in racial terms is itself racist and it clouds your judgement

Well for one as soon as a counter example to what they nominally are complaining about comes up they suddenly break out in "no not like that". If they can never be pleased when their nominal reasons are satisfied and/or their web of objections are inconsistent it is clear something else is at play and that something else is usually racism.

Look at Harvard and their shifting metrics for instance among others. At first the standardized tests were there for quality nominally for "the right people" for instance including deliberate cultural bias to the country club set as a shibboleth - even the most well read student in the "classics curriculum" wouldn't really know small sailcraft vocabulary and practical nautical backgrounds long moved onto motorboats. Then Jews started doing too good on them and they started adding other criteria like being "well rounded".

For instance, wealthy asians move in and they now complain about it being "unaffordable" despite previous issues with affordable housing. I have heard about California public transit upgrades facing resistance with obvious dogwhistle opposition about how train lines will bring in crime. When a train is a goddamn terrible escape vehicle given its linearity and predictability even without it featuring its own police force. Meanwhile and anyone with a truck and crowbar can reach and burglarize and moving truck rentals are both cheap and good camouflage.

  a train is a goddamn terrible escape vehicle

BART trains, especially in the East Bay, have harbored mass robberies and takeovers multiple times.

Interestingly, this isn't restricted to white people. I recently listened to an episode of a podcast (Planet Money, iirc), about housing prices and NIMBYism, and some pro-housing activists attended some council meetings in a largely Latino neighborhood in the Bay Area, and were met with lots of hostility as new developments were seen as leading to gentrification and destroying the Hispanic culture of the neighborhood.

It's not really the same thing when you are worried about gentrification. While culture is a part of it, the biggest issue is that many do not own in poorer neighborhoods. They rent. And they know that gentrification will slowly push them all from their homes as rents creep upward.

So, it's not that white people will ruin the Hispanic culture, it's that having no Hispanic residents will ruin the Hispanic culture.

Even when they do own, property taxes can often force them to sell at a discount to avoid disastrously high tax bills.

This was part of the selling point of Prop 13 iirc, although certainly not the real purpose.

No one has mentioned "The Color of Law" yet, so here it is:

https://amzn.to/2IjeIhi

It's an entire book dedicated to this hypothesis, with a bunch of evidence. It's difficult reading because it pisses you off to hear about how horrible people were (and are), but it's a very good book.

> you will see a metro area that was and still is being shaped by race.

In NYC, a major example is Robert Moses' Cross Bronx Expressway which "conveniently" cut through large swathes of minority neighborhoods. But it's not just the metro area. It's the entire country if you consider the extermination of the natives and the formation of the reservations ( easily the poorest regions of the western world today ).

> A poster has been down-voted to oblivion for pointing out the hypocrisy that the bluest states have the most un-affordable housing

Sad to say, that's to be expected. I had someone go through my history and downvote all of the comments. It's strange that people are so invested.

> Bringing this in would bring a lot of probably lower income people, and that would definitely bring down our median average household income.

Isn't that a mathematical truism? If you build lower priced housing, then people with less income would be able to afford it. If people with less income buy these houses, average income among house owners would necessarily decrease - that's what the average means!

Second that. Here in Atlanta, the expansion of the Marta (basically the metro train) to suburban neighborhoods is held up due to similar issues.

> If you look deep enough into the history of any modestly large Amercian city

Sadly this is true for any multicultural city in any country of the world

Get on dcurbanmom or the city-data forums for "blue" cities and see how much coded racism there is. E.g. in these threads about a new elementary school in Southwest D.C.: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/500311.page; http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/495190.page.

Those threads are amazing. I live on the border between a middle-class overwhelmingly AA Chicago neighborhood and one of the wealthier Chicago suburbs, and you'd think you'd get stuff like this on all the forums, but I've never seen anything like this before in any forum.

As dumb as that Cupertino quote was, remember that it was just one person who was behind it, and went viral just because it was that dumb.

One could argue that these progressive "affordable" housing initiative actually make the problem worse.

This is a supply problem, plain and simple. Every major city has huge zoning roadblocks and "affordable" regulations that constrain supply.

The programs in question (inclusionary zoning) are stupid expensive, and yet provide basically a lottery of a few hundred subsidized units a year.

I can't believe somebody actually said that in public. (referring to Cupertino comment). They should be ashamed.

“One resident said he feared low-income, high-density housing would bring in “uneducated” people. “A lot of other residents and I are concerned that this would make the current residents of Cupertino uncomfortable, and would split our city in half,” he said.”

..it was far worse that you could imagine. It was something like a 9 hour meeting

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/19/differences-of-opinio...

Pretty much all of America has a race problem, it’s just that the actual symptoms vary by geography.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com