Chicago is #28 on the national ranking of murder cities: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-ci...

It is ranked right in between Chattanooga and Buffalo.

And even that shows there's lots of "barely murdering at all" parts of the city that bring the averages down into line.

The risk of a man 18 to 29 years old dying in a shooting in the most violent ZIP code in Chicago — 60624, a swath of the West Side that includes Garfield Park — was higher than the death rate for U.S. soldiers in the Afghanistan war or for soldiers in an Army combat brigade that fought in Iraq, according to a study in the medical journal JAMA Network Open. Among men 18 to 29, the annual rate of firearm homicides in that ZIP code was 1,277 per 100,000 people in 2021 and 2022, the study found, compared with an annual death rate for U.S. troops in a heavily engaged combat brigade in Iraq of 675 per 100,000. The most violent ZIP codes in Philadelphia surpassed the risk of combat death by military service members, too, but the death rate there was lower than in Chicago, the study found. New York and Los Angeles didn’t have any areas that were so deadly.

Although the tribes have pretty diverse subtribes. Red has a very poor temporarily embarrassed millionaire quite separate from the actual owners. They still align with some of the same tribal calls and signaling.

???

Isn't this a caricature too? In what way are socialist beliefs, which generally push for more unions and worker power, "viciously classist"? "Eat the rich" is a "blue" meme, not a "red" one.

They're told to vote blue or they ain't black

> This seems to highlight Scott's small social circle if all the members of the "non-Red Tribe" are white yuppie coastal elites.

This is an uncharitable reading of text. I mean, you may be correct, but it isn't supported by the goal of the essay.

Also, there is a lot more mingling between white and Black poor people than a typical "coastal elite" would expect who never spent time in the South.

I grew up around racist people who all had friends of the other race. They just consider their friends an exception to their general dislike of the other race.

The thing I heard all the time growing up was "I don't hate black people, I just hate N-words." The idea is that it's not the race that a racist person has a problem with, just the cultural practices (laziness, lack of class, etc.) they associate with people of that race. A member of that race who rises above those associations is welcomed with open arms. Of course, they are oblivious to the idea that associating those cultural practices with a race is the racist part. But it makes it very easy for them to be racist and have friends of the other race without feeling any dissonance.

It cuts both ways too. I also had Black friends growing up that had no problem being friends with me or other white kids but wouldn't hesitate to disparage "crackers" as a whole if they were in a safe enough space to do so without being harmed.

I don't know what groups poor urban people of color end up feeling affinity to.

I have heard this exact phrase (well without the euphemism) come out of many people's mouth in the Midwest.

Also, I disagree with the logic that the statement is inherently racist. I understand that everyone in the USA is hypersensitive about race and has been conditioned to automatically scream "racist" at the mere mention of that word, but analyzing the position behind the statement logically: in this context it is being used as a class signal, not a race signal.

I think it's completely uncontroversial to say that usage of the word always has a racial component.

Which statements with racial components are also racist is not a discussion that I believe can be usefully debated on a forum like HN.

Yes, but a default association that those with a certain race are likely to have a certain class is racist.

I was floored by how racially segregated Southern California is when when I moved here in the '00s. I grew up in the Midwest and spent a few years in central Georgia.

> The thing I heard all the time growing up was "I don't hate black people, I just hate N-words." The idea is that it's not the race that a racist person has a problem with, just the cultural practices (laziness, lack of class, etc.) they associate with people of that race.

I saw similar attitudes in all 3 places, but in the Midwest and the South it was whites (and even some blacks) who had these attitudes. In SoCal, I mostly see it from hispanics and asians.

Is the issue here that English doesn't have a word/concept like "culturism"? If there was such a word, would it be fair to call those people racist when they specifically are saying they don't care about race but cultural practices instead?

1. "I don't hate people because of their race, I hate them because of their culture."

2. Subtextually, "I think people of a certain race are so likely to have a certain culture I hate that I have a word for it."

Arguably, the first point is not racist. The second point, which is not stated but is certainly understood by both speaker and listener, clearly is.

If you didn't grow up in the area, the second point might not be obvious as a dogwhistle, but it's definitely there.