Hacker News Reader

> Do people just not actually believe ... how decades of disinvestment leading to violence just might possibly lead to generational issues?

It's a bit fuzzy, yes. It would clarify the argument to replace "generational issues" with a specific concept, and skip the performative hedge.

The bailey seems to be "poverty implies violence." What's the motte?

View on HN

You can skim the Wikipedia article I linked if you're actually interested in the (heavily researched) consequences of redlining, many of which happened up into the 2000s and all of which urbanists are still trying to mitigate today.

My reaction is literally one of confusion, not "performative hedging". The charitable read of most of the comments here is a profound lack of historical knowledge ("these areas were classified as hazardous, and the violence there is why white people left"), and an uncharitable one is thinly veiled racism ("minorities by definition are violent").

I'm not making a general "poverty equals violence" argument. I'm saying that you can look at a redlining map and a Chicago crime map and see the pattern plain as day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com