Hacker News Reader

Comment by moldbug | Hacker News Reader

You're right, of course - I'm glad to be corrected.

What I really meant to say was that in 1962 there were no no-go zones anywhere in America, Crackerjack Peckerwood Creek in the deep back asshole of Alabama where no one without a mullet in a Camaro would want to go anyway excepted. (Alas, in 1962 there were no Camaros either.)

Trust me, I went to high school in Howard County, Maryland, and I would be the last person in the world to speak up for the indigenous American peckerwood. However, I also note that there's a big difference between Peckerwood, Alabama being a no-go zone (if your skin is darker than a bad white zinfandel), and half of Brooklyn being a no-go zone (for any sane person regardless of race, color or creed).

View on HN

I really don't understand your contention here. You're claiming that integration ruined Brooklyn? Can you explain the mechanism? I don't see how public housing projects (widely regarded as a failure that cities are transitioning away from) have anything to do with segregation (widely regarded as an moral atrocity).

Also, just because there's a lot of black people on the street doesn't mean a neighborhood is dangerous. FYI. (former brooklyn resident).

You're claiming that integration ruined Brooklyn? Can you explain the mechanism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

If you ever actually talk to anyone who was personally involved in the former, and they're being frank, they'll tell you that a primary concern was a rational fear for their physical safety and/or that of their families. Which adds up to the latter. Why do you think there are no Serbs left in Kosovo, or no Albanians in Mitrovica?

E. Michael Jones's Slaughter of Cities (http://www.amazon.com/The-Slaughter-Cities-Renewal-Cleansing...) is a good overview from a j'accuse perspective. For a mainstream author, read J. Anthony Lukas' Common Ground. Better yet, read them both.

Of course we've digressed into the question of harmful effects (of the civil-rights movement) on white people. My original post was mainly concerned with the effect on black people.

Perhaps you've noticed some cultural changes? Are they for the better? If we could sit down together and watch WSHH for an hour, how exactly would we disagree?

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/

> Black America in 2012:http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/uncensored---video...

> If we could sit down together and watch WSHH for an hour, how exactly would we disagree?*

Out of curiosity, do you have any opinions on modern black culture that aren't based on videos you find online?

The worst of everything tends to get my attention - doesn't it get yours?

There are three kinds of blacks in America today - feral, traditional, assimilated. Traditional black people are the nicest people in the world and have the coolest churches. Unfortunately they're all over 50 and have high blood pressure. Assimilated black people are just like white people except for the little box they check when they want to get into Harvard. (Samuel R. Delany's memoir, The Motion of Light in Water, is among other things a wonderful evocation of the old "Jack and Jill" black upper class.) Feral black people need to be rounded up, flex-cuffed, laser de-tattooed, sent to boot camp for three months, and placed in the unconditional custody of traditional black people, who will know exactly what to do with them.

Is that enough stereotypes for you? A stereotype is a pattern you don't want to recognize. I think you'll find you recognize these patterns just fine, however.

The worst of everything tends to get my attention - doesn't it get yours?

No, because I'm not a bigot.

I'm absolutely stunned that your horrific rant hasn't been downvoted into oblivion.

Dr. Johnson defines bigot as:

... a man devoted unreafonably to a certain party; prejudiced in favour of certain opinions; a blind zealot. It is ufed often with to before the object of zeal; as, a bigot to the Cartefian tenets...

I'm pretty sure you're not a bigot to the Cartesian tenets. You do strike me as pretty zealous, though - n'est ce pas?

I am actually quite okay with bigots and bigotry. We can't all embrace change. We don't all have to. One thing is certain, though - if it's not surprising, it's not change. Welcome to the 21st century!

I'm pretty sure you're not a bigot to the Cartesian tenets. You do strike me as pretty zealous, though - n'est ce pas?

I've read some of your comments. You repeatedly misinterpret what people say and throw out presumptuous personal attacks.

You should go through the whole history and downvote, if you've got the time - it will reduce my overall karma.

So, basically, the only no-go areas in 60s USA (for african-americas) were in the middle of nowhere where hardly anyone wanted to go, but now-a-days, the people can't go into half of a large, populous city? I think you might have a rosy eyed view of the past…

You know crime in the USA has actually fallen a lot recently?

Trust me, I'm oddly familiar with the country this used to be. Go back and read some primary sources - there are a lot here:

http://unz.org/

Crime statistics in the USA have actually fallen a lot recently. What's your explanation of this? You didn't by any chance watch The Wire? You don't by any chance read the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/nyregion/no-room-for-disse...

The former captains spoke of an unrelenting, often unethical pressure to manipulate crime statistics. In addition, the professors studied police and health data and found weird divergences. City hospital data shows a 90 percent increase in emergency room visits for assaults from 1999 to 2006. But police data for the same period records a nearly 50 percent decrease in assaults.