It implies that if this were happening near a non black neighborhood, it wouldn’t be as egregious, which is a strange moral stance.
Also 'historically' is irrelevant. Pollution hurts the people living there now.
Here's an article about what happened literally where I'm sitting: https://kingneighborhood.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BLEE...
Stories like this played all all over the US. Read up on Robert Moses for example.
Not that you intended it, but your comment veers close to the sort of "why do black people always talk about racism" thought ending cliche or similar demands to be "colorblind" that ultimately are only functionally used to shut down conversations about extant and continuing racism.
For example suppose you apply this to the US Senate. So instead of Group A (Democrats and a those who caucus with them) and Group B (Republicans) we instead think there's a single Group C, Senators. Now their behaviour seems incoherent, this Group C seems to hold contradictory opinions and behaves irrationally, why can't they get their act together? The actual answer is that we misunderstood and they're not a single coherent group so that's why they don't act that way.
The problem arises when an individual or group tries to represent themselves as more credible/consistent/coherent than they really are.
If you freely admit that you have multiple personality disorder, hypocrisy is to be expected from you as an individual. People know what they're in for.
If you respond to accusations of hypocrisy by saying: "Hm, that's a good point. I'll have to reflect and see if I can reach consistency here." Then people recognize you are making a good-faith effort.
I've observed that modern progressivism represents itself with a strong us/them boundary. The vociferousness of the rhetoric vastly outstrips the quality of the underlying reasoning/decision mechanism. And I've never seen a progressive say: "You make a good point, we'll have to debate on that."
You are correct that individual progressives may, in principle, be credible if they have a coherent philosophy which is consistently applied (including to critique their own "team" when appropriate).
But empirically, modern progressivism is more of a "meme ideology" where precepts are invoked when convenient, against whatever outgroup is currently fashionable. Progressive rhetoric, and progressive reasoning, is so flexible and untethered that if you're sufficiently talented at wielding it, it can be used to reach virtually any conclusion. The selective application of principles at the group level has strong parallels to how hypocrisy works at the level of an individual.
A movement can be meaningfully described as hypocritical, even if its individual members are not.
Humans are bad at that, and the ones who say it often don’t actually mean it. Some people claim their openness to debate, but that’s not the same as being open to changing one’s mind.
For what it's worth I had someone who identifies as progressive say something to that effect to me just last night.
It happens.
It can simply be the case that your accusations of hypocrisy are wrong, because your entire characterization of the discussion/position is wrong.
I'm not going to say "you made a good point" because you flatly have not.
“Women are terrible!”
“Uh, hey, that's pretty misogynistic.”
“Whoops, sorry, what I meant to say was, ‘White women are terrible!’”
“That's better.”
...
“Black men are violent!”
“That’s just a stereotype. Discriminating on the basis of immutable characteristics is wrong.”
“Whoops, sorry, what I meant to say was, ‘Men of all colors are violent!’”
“Right on, smash the patriarchy!”
https://substack.com/@plasmabloggin/note/c-160662902
There are dozens of cases like this. E.g. if you say white people are too powerful, that's enlightened. If you say Jews are too powerful, that's antisemitic. Double standards are the rule. Consistent, impartial application of principles is a very rare thing with this ideology.
And frankly, you characterization of those views makes clear you're not interested in actual answers.
The primary issue with gentrification in historically black neighborhoods is that owners face the dilemma of having to leave their community to capture the increased property values.
For example, I live near the oldest black church in the PNW. Many of the older congregation members live in the area, and have low mobility. If we don't build a mix of housing that addresses their needs in downsizing, they end up having to effectively exile themselves from the community they've lived within for decades. They can't simply "move somewhere lower cost" without dramatic changes to their entire social world, just at an age where keeping those social ties takes a lot of effort.
Or something. Yes, hypocrites are everywhere, but what are we debating here exactly?
The point is that this type of environmental pollution only is allowed to happen in poor areas that are disproportionately black because of decades of systemic racism like red lining.
If that concept makes you uncomfortable, that's a good thing, it should. But you should resist the urge to deny the existence of ideas that are inconvenient
I read it the other way: that it simply wouldn't happen in a white neighborhood.
Please read the article I linked in another reply to you.
My neighborhood was prosperous when it was systematically stolen from the black people who built it. They literally razed a thriving business district. And then the land sat empty for decades, only in the end to be sold to property developers.
They used eminent domain to steal people's homes and businesses in a way that was blatantly criminal, but the victims had no recourse given the courts and entire rest of the political structure was complicit in the actions.
And variations of this story played out everywhere across America.
So yes, the fact that a neighborhood is historically black is relevant, because it shows the events of today are part of a continued arc of injustice.
The agenda, as it is every day, is how to externalize costs so that megacompanies don’t have to spend more money to keep our environment clean.
It feels racist to expect people to assume a neighborhood is 'resource poor' just because it is 'historically black'.
Also, the OP explicitly states that lawsuits are pending. Clearly, the community was able to mount a legal defense
Statistically poverty is correlated with race. For reasons to do with (quite recent) history.
Crime rates also statistically correlate with demographics, but if I assume a specific person is a criminal based on that stat, I would (rightly) be called racist.
Expecting people to assume 'historically black' == 'poor' similarly feels racist.
The facts of history show this. It is not a subtle statistical effect.
People who argue the way that you have been are either woefully ignorant of this matter or are playing games trying to justify the status quo, or are just racist trolls. This isn't a FAQ on HN because it's a FAQ in real life.
Who said anything about a specific person? They are talking about a neighborhood, in a urban area in a region known for the endemic poverty in black-majority areas due to the long shadow of slavery and Jim Crow.
As a wise character once said, "poverty is a condition, not a crime".
> > Expecting people to assume 'historically black' == 'poor' similarly feels racist.
There are a few historically black communities in the US that are middle-class and prosperous, and Black Americans have made huge advances, but to this day, concentrations of Black American community prosperity tend to be the exception rather than the rule.
Namely - I think most agree that it's racist to mindlessly assume race and poverty are correlated. The argument here is that the AI companies made that assumption - in other words, they're being called racists.
I don't think it's racist to speculate that a corporation, that made choices that specifically impact black neighborhoods, is racist.