CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Do you not see how this comes off as the exact same "victimization" stuff you accuse others of resorting to? Pick a lane.

Please note that I edited my post from what you quoted.

And I don't even know what you're talking about.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by emathias

Where people get in trouble when talking about race and crime is when they jump from the specifics of an individual case into population-level generalities way too quickly, or if they start assigning population-level trends to race in a causal fashion, even if there seems to be strong causal links.

A racist is someone who believes that there are significant differences between "races" in humans that cause population-level differences in behavior that are inherent to the genetics of that population. Which means that no matter how strongly statistics seem to point out a relationship between behavior and race, stopping at that point and assigning that relationship as causal is inherently racist, by definition. Avoiding racist thoughts is pushing beyond that to uncover as much as possible about other linkages either because you believe that assigning the differences to physical race is lazy, or because you believe that finding other components in the line of causality helps society function better by allowing self-determinism to continue as the dominant ethos.

I would argue there ARE differences between "races" in humans that cause population-level differences in behavior that are inherent to the genetics of that population. I don't however, believe that any one race is superior to another - to me that is what a racist is, not rejecting the notion that every race is 100% identical.

And regardless, I believe the many people who love to toss around the word racist in 2018 are actually implying one believes a CULTURE is superior to another CULTURE, not a race.

For example - Do I look down on the ten's of thousands of black youth in Englewood and other south and west side communities who resort to gang violence? Absolutely, but it's because of their behavior, not their race, the fact they are black irrelevant. There are ten's of thousands of hardworking honest people in those neighborhoods who I have no ill will towards and wish them nothing but success, I don't feel that way because they are black or white or whatever their race, it's because they are (presumably) good people. If HUD secretary Ben Carson decided to purchase a home next door to mine, I wouldn't bat an eyelash, but if some gang banger (who is presumably black) and his family moved next door, I would have an issue.

.[/QUOTE]

[cityofneighborhoods]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

:

I've been on this forum long enough--it's a heavily liberal site and I know I'm not going to get anywhere with the local crowd. But don't count me as convinced

I've been reading this forum pretty much every day for 10 years and have never found the majority of opinions expressed here as particularly "liberal" at all. You're definitely right that this forum is a bubble - but actually in that there is a total lack of different perspectives represented. I've read forumers openly call entire parts of town that are not the downtown or Northside shitholes, make claims that the only way to improve neighborhoods is via gentrification, claim it is irresponsible for families to live and send kids their kids to schools in certain South and Westside neighborhoods if they any means to "escape", there are no issues with housing affordability in the city, etc. I can't believe I have to point this out - but these classicly douchey assertions are from your perspective. This forum is overwhelmingly made up of downtown and Northside centric highly privileged perspectives. And that's okay, but I can't take reading this shit from people who don't know what they're talking about without responding any more.

There are a lot of knowledgable folks on the forum in regards to highrise construction, zoning, etc. who were educated in the field, trained, and have years of experience to back up there opinions and share information. Similarly, sociologists research, study, and write about socioeconomic conditions, race, gender, and inequality with rigor. If you haven't spent any time reading in this field and evaluating your own social circumstances, you're deeply uniformed.

[BorisMolotov]

I would argue there ARE differences between "races" in humans that cause population-level differences in behavior that are inherent to the genetics of that population. I don't however, believe that any one race is superior to another - to me that is what a racist is, not rejecting the notion that every race is 100% identical.

And regardless, I believe the many people who love to toss around the word racist in 2018 are actually implying one believes a CULTURE is superior to another CULTURE, not a race

While certainly racists do believe in your first statement, with all due respect I think it is not valid. Your second statement here is more on the mark. And I would argue that we as a collective society made up of all these different cultures need to work together towards a revised social contract of what behaviors are and are not acceptable. Black gangbangers are just as unacceptable in our society as the white-run meth labs in central Illinois. A lack of black children growing up without positive parental figures is just as unacceptable as the white father who beats his wife and children. To me, those issues are the same, and they reaffirm the cycle of violence and poverty.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Ok, am I supposed to be surprised--did you start with that statement to appear that you are somehow objective, but ultimately more swayed by one argument than the other?

I stand behind my point. I just believe that shitty values--particularly American values when applied to a lower income setting--more than poverty and opportunity play a bigger role. You obviously think the opposite, and have even gone so far as to tell me that poverty in impoverished Chicago neighborhoods is my fault.

I've been on this forum long enough--it's a heavily liberal site and I know I'm not going to get anywhere with the local crowd. But don't count me as convinced

My initial statement was only to indicate which of the two participants in the discussion I was responding to I felt was closer to my own analysis.

While I am socially liberal, my extensive career in finance has had it's impact and I'm fairly conservative in areas of finance.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

lol, love a good social liberal fiscal conservative cliche, cute

"Anyone who doesn't agree with me on literally everything is a moron"

-Kenmore

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by cityofneighborhoods

I've been reading this forum pretty much every day for 10 years and have never found the majority of opinions expressed here as particularly "liberal" at all. You're definitely right that this forum is a bubble - but actually in that there is a total lack of different perspectives represented. I've read forumers openly call entire parts of town that are not the downtown or Northside shitholes, make claims that the only way to improve neighborhoods is via gentrification, claim it is irresponsible for families to live and send kids their kids to schools in certain South and Westside neighborhoods if they any means to "escape", there are no issues with housing affordability in the city, etc. I can't believe I have to point this out - but these classicly douchey assertions are from your perspective. This forum is overwhelmingly made up of downtown and Northside centric highly privileged perspectives. And that's okay, but I can't take reading this shit from people who don't know what they're talking about without responding any more.

There are a lot of knowledgable folks on the forum in regards to highrise construction, zoning, etc. who were educated in the field, trained, and have years of experience to back up there opinions and share information. Similarly, sociologists research, study, and write about socioeconomic conditions, race, gender, and inequality with rigor. If you haven't spent any time reading in this field and evaluating your own social circumstances, you're deeply uniformed.

I close my case with this ignorant post

[LouisVanDerWright]

To get back on topic:

https://chicago-suntimes-com.cdn.amp...e-cellphone%2F

Burke's cellphone was reportedly seized by the FBI. That's going to make for some interesting ledes to follow ...

[cityofneighborhoods]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I close my case with this ignorant post

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback! If you get a chance to give at least one example of how my post was ignorant, I'd love to hear your ideas.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by cityofneighborhoods

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback! If you get a chance to give at least one example of how my post was ignorant, I'd love to hear your ideas.

No, you don't want to hear my ideas. That's the whole point. You already decided that you understand them and that they are "classicly douchy".

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Please note that I edited my post from what you quoted.

And I don't even know what you're talking about.

I'll explain. You seem to hold others to a different standard than yourself. You want people to give you the benefit of the doubt, but don't seem interested in offering the same to everyone else.

An example, you want to be thought of as an open-minded, independent thinker. However, in this very thread you immediately dismiss anyone who disagrees with you because, you claim, SSP is:

a heavily liberal site and I know I'm not going to get anywhere with the local crowd.

This is an insult to everyone else on the site who thinks of themselves as open-minded and independent. It's a double-standard.

[the urban politician]

^ There is no open minded discussion happening--and there never will be.

People of your persuasion have made up your mind. If I put forth an argument, your first inclination will be to identify the "holes" or "faults" in it in order to dismantle it, and thus score a win and uphold your world view.

That's why I don't plan to bother. You aren't trying to learn a damn thing from me--you want to bring people like me down. It's why punitive laws like rent control are passed. So there is nothing to debate.

To at least partially illustrate my point, please look at this example:

Lets take a look at Representative Mattie Hunter-D, an Illinois representative. She and a panel of representatives are going around the State holding public meetings to discuss the pros and cons of rent control. But, and this is the ridiculous part, it's all a big charade. She isn't interested in a debate, she is simply going through the motions.

Why, do you ask?

Because she has already made up her mind! She is one of the chief sponsors of new rent control law that applies to the entire State. It dictates rent control boards for several districts across the State, and if you read it you can see is already pretty onerous and anti-landlord--and one can clearly see that a lot of time was spent on it.

How on earth am I supposed to believe that this lady who is parading around having "unbiased" public hearings on rent control is somebody that I'm supposed to trust to listen to anyone's opinion, when she already made up her mind and even DRAFTED A BILL. ??

To those who are interested, here is a link to the full text of the ridiculous law she is trying to pass:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...Sess=&Session=

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ There is no open minded discussion happening--and there never will be.

People of your persuasion have made up your mind. If I put forth an argument, your first inclination will be to identify the "holes" or "faults" in it in order to dismantle it, and thus score a win and uphold your world view.

That's why I don't plan to bother. You aren't trying to learn a damn thing from me--you want to bring people like me down. It's why punitive laws like rent control are passed. So there is nothing to debate.

To at least partially illustrate my point, please look at this example:

Lets take a look at Representative Mattie Hunter-D, an Illinois representative. She and a panel of representatives are going around the State holding public meetings to discuss the pros and cons of rent control. But, and this is the ridiculous part, it's all a big charade. She isn't interested in a debate, she is simply going through the motions.

Why, do you ask?

Because she has already made up her mind! She is one of the chief sponsors of new rent control law that applies to the entire State. It dictates rent control boards for several districts across the State, and if you read it you can see is already pretty onerous and anti-landlord--and one can clearly see that a lot of time was spent on it.

How on earth am I supposed to believe that this lady who is parading around having "unbiased" public hearings on rent control is somebody that I'm supposed to trust to listen to anyone's opinion, when she already made up her mind and even DRAFTED A BILL. ??

To those who are interested, here is a link to the full text of the ridiculous law she is trying to pass:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...Sess=&Session=

You have only further illustrated my point. You don't believe anyone who disagrees with you is capable of their own original thought. You place all of them into a box that you have created, which is the very thing you accuse me and others of.

Mattie Hunter doesn't represent my perspective and the fact you bring her up as someone who does proves you don't have a clue about my worldview. For example, I both (1) disagree with your initial claim that people are scared to talk about crime because they might get labeled as racist AND (2) think rent control is a stupid idea in Chicago/Illinois.

As you have admitted, your perspective doesn't allow me to hold both of those positions. Instead of engaging on what I actually believe, you choose to just dismiss me out of hand and make assumptions on what I would say. All the while complaining that I "want to bring people like you down."

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

lol, love a good social liberal fiscal conservative cliche, cute

I'm glad you love me, though dismissively calling someone "cute" because you are incapable of honest debate and would rather presume superiority rather than either explain your position, butt out of other people's discussions, or explain why you feel there are problems with someone else's position, does more to diminish others' view of you than anything else.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

You have only further illustrated my point. You don't believe anyone who disagrees with you is capable of their own original thought. You place all of them into a box that you have created, which is the very thing you accuse me and others of.

Mattie Hunter doesn't represent my perspective and the fact you bring her up as someone who does proves you don't have a clue about my worldview. For example, I both (1) disagree with your initial claim that people are scared to talk about crime because they might get labeled as racist AND (2) think rent control is a stupid idea in Chicago/Illinois.

As you have admitted, your perspective doesn't allow me to hold both of those positions. Instead of engaging on what I actually believe, you choose to just dismiss me out of hand and make assumptions on what I would say. All the while complaining that I "want to bring people like you down."

I don’t have the luxury of acknowledging that people like you exist.

For every person like you, 10 knuckleheads who are motivated by the need to win votes at all cost are out there wreaking damage to my business because “oh well it’s your problem, deal with it”, and of course many of them are elected officials.

And I am far from alone in this. It’s just a fact of life when an abusive, corrupt, and overbearing Government wants to stick their nose into every nook and cranny of life.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/pi...l-park-bisnow/

The end of the article states that one woman's property taxes rose by $630 from 2014 to 2018. She described the increase due to the "developments", which definitely caused her assessed value to increase.

The odd thing in these articles is the lack of discussion around the increased property taxes due to pensions. Property taxes were raised by $838 million since 2015.

Yet the $838 million of property tax hikes are never discussed. Maybe it's just easier to blame "the developers" because they bring change to neighborhoods and are an easier scapegoat than politicians?

It’s the same dumbing down of topics that fucktard politicians latch onto to win votes—and we see it everywhere.

It never gets better

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I don’t have the luxury of acknowledging that people like you exist.

But god forbid we not recognize you as the special, individual snowflake that you are. Not everything is a grand clash of ideals or "Freedom vs Government" (which you somehow turned this discussion into).

You would make a lot more progress by reaching out to people than you do by actively pushing them away and assuming your own superiority. Either way, lets get back on topic as there doesn't seem to be much that will sway your thought process.

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I don’t have the luxury of acknowledging that people like you exist.

For every person like you, 10 knuckleheads who are motivated by the need to win votes at all cost are out there wreaking damage to my business because “oh well it’s your problem, deal with it”, and of course many of them are elected officials.

And I am far from alone in this. It’s just a fact of life when an abusive, corrupt, and overbearing Government wants to stick their nose into every nook and cranny of life.

suburban^

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

suburban^

Tired

[cityofneighborhoods]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

If I put forth an argument, your first inclination will be to identify the "holes" or "faults" in it in order to dismantle it, and thus score a win and uphold your world view.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

No, you don't want to hear my ideas. That's the whole point. You already decided that you understand them and that they are "classicly douchy".

I actually do want to hear what you have to say, and I really have no desire to be posting on these topics or scoring wins, but the point needs to be made that these assertions I listed are extreme and leave no room for intelligent conversation. The only time I see people identifying holes or faults are with the extreme, absolutist views that are not supported by anything other than prejudice.

1.) Writing off entire neighborhoods as "shitholes": do you personally know people who live in Englewood, Greater Grand Crossing, etc.? If so, do they call their neighborhoods shitholes? Do you tell them their neighborhoods are shitholes? I do know quite a few people in these communites, who love where they live, live there by choice, and choose to raise their families there. I've been to nearly every neighborhood in Chicago and found things that I love. Are there grave problems in many of these communities? Of course. But the majority are still working familes who care about their neighborhood, kids, and families. There are also quite a few people within those communities who are trying to make things better. Would it be douchey to say suburbs like Libertyville are soul sucking hellholes and everyone who lives in them are vacant and out of touch? I think that would be douchey and don't believe that but know plenty of people who do. You can make the point about all the ways these neighborhoods are struggling or suggest that they do something differently but making blanket statements these neighborhoods are shitholes is deeply offensive.

2.) There are [I]no[I] housing affordability issues in Chicago/only gentrification can solve all our problems. Again, according to your perspective. If you are upper-middle to upper-class and have had the privilege to live in NYC and SF and are comparing Chicago's affordability to that, of course Chicago is significantly more affordable. But for many working-class families struggling to get by, are there concerns and struggles not valid? Would it be douchey if I moved to a city in a 3rd world country and told the working poor that they are lucky the housing is so affordable because I can afford a lot more than I could in the U.S.? I personally know people who work full time are actually from the neighborhoods and had strong connections to their communities who had to move because they could no longer afford rising rents. I don't believe that gentrification is either all bad or all good, but to say that these people's experiences and concerns don't matter, only market rate housing is acceptable, unrestrained gentrification is the only way is disturbing to me.

3.) The notion that the South and West side don't have good schools is just plain ignorance. Are there a lot that are really struggling? Again, of course. And your definition of good may be different but just for the top schools rated by Chicago magazine: https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-M...hools/Chicago/. In Natalie Moore's book [I]The South Side[I], she describes how middle to upper class non black and Latino families will send their kids all over the city to magnet and selective enrollment schools, but will not send their kids to high performing schools if they are especially predominately African-American. This is a complicated issue and no one needs to be condemned, but it is a situation that is just not discussed on this forum - because it's not on people's radar on this forum.

It's absolutely absurd to think this forum is a representative cross section of the demographics of Chicago who might see things in a different way. Just something I hope people keep in mind when posting. I'll go away now