. . . It wasn't, though? He could easily be talking about Midwesterners moving there, too. He never brought up race, and thinking "Increased crime rates!? Demographic shifts by [Anything can go here, try "Neoconservatives" or "Neoliberals" or "Social Conservatives" or "Fiscally Conservative Liberals"]??!? HE MUST BE THINKING ABOUT [RACE]!"

I think they're not the racist one here.

They could've been, but they weren't.

I wasn't calling it "explicitly racist", I was calling it "vaguely racist" because, while we all new what they were implying, They didn't come out and say it. Ergo "vaguely racist".

Nobody is talking about "neoconservative demographic shifts" causing problems in cities in this article. The demographic referred to is "poor people".

But please continue being intentionally obtuse for the purpose of calling me a racist.

> They could've been, but they weren't.

> I wasn't calling it "explicitly racist", I was calling it "vaguely racist" because, while we all new what they were implying, They didn't come out and say it. Ergo "vaguely racist".

You're saying that "poor people" can't include Caucasians and Asians, then?

Midwesterners are quite notable for being both neoconservatives and poor, along with (generally) being majority-white. He could have easily been referring to them. What made you associate "Poor people" and "Racist"? Poor people are a demographic.

> Midwesterners are quite notable for being both neoconservatives and poor

No, they aren't, especially the former.

They very much are - Reagan's loved and Cheney even moreso in the Midwest. Both of which are notable neocons. [0]

And economically, they're on average more poor than a lot of areas. See "County Level Poverty." [1] And if you're comparing wages between the two, Midwesterners make significantly less on average than those on the West Coast.

Although I was moreout giving an example and sticking with it for the sake of the main argument to begin with.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

[1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rur...

Thanks, those obvious points really needed references. And come on... SF is the last place a Midwestern neocon would consider!

Is that bad? If someone lives in a community that is 90% their race, with their neighbors listening to their kind of music, engaging in their kind of activities, going to the same kind of events, not wanting to become a 10% minority? It would be like a Chinese person not wanting to move to India or vice versa.

I actually thought of rich ultra-competitive types (or "techies") pushing out locals.

Yeah, except that the quality of tech jobs is such that it does the opposite of those things.

This person is not describing gentrification, in fact, they're describing being avidly opposed to the opposite of gentrification.

Your critics are correct that you have failed in your attempt to read my mind. You should not have needed to, so let me be more clear.

Demographic shifts forced on an area by an unelected bureaucracy are almost guaranteed to be detrimental to the lifestyle the residents enjoyed prior to the shift. Whether that is gentrification pushing up property tax, low income housing pushing up crime rate, large influx of practitioners of non-tolerant religions who verbally and physically assault resident women dressed to western standards, or even large influx of young western professionals who don't respect the religion that was previously dominant in the area before.

Neighborhoods are a sum of their parts, and those who choose to live in them, choose them because they like them the way they are.

Overriding the wishes of those people to push your own agenda can be necessary for a city, perhaps, but should never be dismissive to the point of blaming and shaming the original residents to assuage your own guilt.

>This person is not describing gentrification

Are you sure?

> A large influx of people into your area is almost guaranteed to [lead to] possible demographic shifts that marginalize your culture.

Gentrification sure sounds like an instance of that, and I've been hearing about techies pushing out hippies and artists for about as long as I've been old enough to pay attention. The fear of cultural change in SF is a constant enough thread in SF that a knee-jerk reaction that it's racial seems like an uncharitable reading.

If you look at any crime heat map of a city, you will note, hopefully with no surprise, that crime rate is inversely proportional to income distribution. If low income housing enters an area, the crime will go up. You may be fine with that, but you have to imagine that the already established residents of that area might not wish their crime rate to increase. Calling those concerns selfish is just name calling.

Yeah, You'll notice I called what you said racist, specifically because your statement didn't tie what you were saying to income, but instead to "demographics".

“Demographics can refer to any subdivision of a population, it’s not a synonym for “race”.