NYT: ‘There Goes the Gayborhood’

If gays and blacks and and Jews and latinos own their own neighborhoods, and try to keep others out, then do whites get own their own neighborhoods too?

New York Times:

SAN FRANCISCO — The artist John Criscitello of Seattle first became angry a few years ago about the changes in his beloved neighborhood, Capitol Hill, historically the city’s enclave for gay men and lesbians. The area had become decidedly more straight and, in his view, infuriatingly obnoxious.

“On Friday and Saturday nights, it’s like Mardi Gras,” Mr. Criscitello said. He called the area “a puke-and-leave drinking destination” for the city’s young heterosexuals, who seemingly have little regard for, and some hostility toward, the gay people who have lived there since the 1960s.

Posted in America | Comments Off on NYT: ‘There Goes the Gayborhood’

LAT: ‘Lyft Shuttle: Another Silicon Valley effort to shelter the well-off from those pesky poor people’

It sounds to me like a service to help non-blacks get away from blacks.

For people who ride public transport, all the low-lifes, transients, parolees and welfare users on board make the experience miserable, and a disproportionate number of these low-performers are black. Non-blacks will not use public transport with large numbers of lower class blacks, if they have a choice. Non-blacks don’t like to live around lower class blacks and do all they can to avoid black neighborhoods and large numbers of blacks in almost any context.

Given the astronomical black crime rate, this might be a rational choice, even if many individual blacks are wonderful.

Los Angeles Times:

According to Pew Research Center data, “Americans who are lower-income, black or Hispanic, immigrants or under 50 are especially likely to use public transportation on a regular basis.” Meanwhile ride-hailing apps, reports Pew, are especially popular among college grads with incomes above $75,000 a year. You don’t need a route map to see where this is going.

Lyft, for its part, has carefully avoided the word “bus.” But whatever we call it, Lyft Shuttle is just another way that wealthier Americans are paying for reliable and convenient services rather than demanding improvements to existing public goods.

Services like Lyft are also giving customers the ability to live insulated from those who have less money. That’s a time-honored tradition. To take just a few examples:

The Los Angeles Country Club: A park without poor people. Do you love to socialize outdoors but shudder at the thought of a less-than-pristine restroom situation, a raucous barbecue nearby, or a germy drinking fountain? Try this innovative, membership-based solution.

Carbon Beach: A beach without poor people. Ok, so technically it’s a public beach, but with confusing signage and a hostile attitude toward strangers who happen to venture onto the sand, it’s effectively private. Sunbathe without ever having to worry about bumping into a weird old stoner dude or a picnicking family again!

Postmates: Meals on Wheels without poor people. Sure, you are physically and financially able to go to the grocery store, but your time is valuable. Just get dinner delivered, plate it at home, and it’s almost like you’ve got a private chef. You’ll never have to cross paths with someone using food stamps again! If you’re a real DIY type, try a meal-kit service like Blue Apron for a similar effect.

Private jets: Air travel without poor people. Sick of sneezing seatmates and crammed overhead bins? Hate the looks that fellow travelers give you as they file back to economy class, where they’ve paid $60 for an additional four inches of legroom? There’s a better way!

Posted in Blacks, California | Comments Off on LAT: ‘Lyft Shuttle: Another Silicon Valley effort to shelter the well-off from those pesky poor people’

LAT: ‘An LAPD officer needs a bone marrow transplant. His ethnicity limits his chances of getting one’

I thought race was a social construct? But this story claims that race is real and your life might depend on racial compatibility.

Los Angeles Times:

Matthew Medina’s doctors diagnosed him with a rare blood disease a few months ago and told him he would probably die without a bone marrow transplant.

With that prognosis came another: The 40-year-old Los Angeles police officer had a less than 50% chance of finding a donor because he is not white.

Most successful matches for bone marrow transplants involve a donor and patient of the same ethnicity. But the majority of the 25 million registered donors nationwide are white, and Medina is Filipino. So far, no match has been found.

“You’re basically looking for a genetic twin,” said Athena Mari Asklipiadis, who runs Mixed Marrow, an L.A.-based organization that is trying to increase diversity in the bone marrow donor registry. “It’s not like we have more of a chance we would get a disease, or that we’re harder to match, it’s just that there’s not representation in the national registry.”

It’s a familiar problem for any nonwhite person who has needed a bone marrow transplant.

A white American of European descent has a 75% chance of finding a perfect match in the national donor registry, compared with a 40% chance for Filipinos. Few Filipinos in the U.S. have signed up as potential donors, and there is no registry in the Philippines.

I wonder why Filipinos are not signing up to donate blood marrow? I wonder why whites donate in large numbers?

Posted in Race | Comments Off on LAT: ‘An LAPD officer needs a bone marrow transplant. His ethnicity limits his chances of getting one’

Nation-Building in Afghanistan, from Sean Connery to Brad Pitt

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Continuing to pour resources into a war after sixteen years is an indication that the military-industrial complex really does govern the United States. The rest of us just live here.

* It’s interesting that the Pentagon was unenthusiastic about starting the war in Libya, but went along with the State / White House war fever. It’s sort of a One War for You, One War for Me deal. We’ll fight your war if you let us keep fighting our war.

Posted in Afghanistan | Comments Off on Nation-Building in Afghanistan, from Sean Connery to Brad Pitt

The affective politics of keeping it real

Commie academic Justin Murphy writes:

Today, there is no longer any mass audience to speak to through dominant channels, overwhelming majorities do not trust mass media, and even the cognitively fragmented semi-mass audiences that remain will only listen to what they already think. Not to mention the masses probably have less power today than anytime in the twentieth century, so why bother even trying to speak to the masses? As a young academic, if I play by the rules for the next 10 years so that I might be respected by influential academics or gain access to regularly speaking on BBC or something like that, I would have sacrificed all of my creative energy for quite nearly nothing. As far as I can tell, today, the idea of biding your time as a young and respectable intellectual, to one day earn a platform of political significance, appears finally and fully obsolete. In one sense, this is already obvious to the millions who long ago stopped following mainstream media and long ago lost all respect for academic credentials; but in another sense, an overwhelming number of human beings continue to think, speak, and behave as if we are still operating in this old world, as if there is some reason to not say everything one feels like saying, as if there is some social or political or economic reward that will come toward the end of a respectable career of professional self-restraint. It’s easy for autodidacts and natural outsiders to say, “Duh, we told you so,” but this in no way comprehends or solves the really striking and politically significant puzzle that an extraordinary degree of human power remains voluntarily repressed for rewards and punishments that no longer exist.

Just as the self-restrained professional intellectual is shaped by the rewards of a media environment long dead, so too are they shaped by punishments which are little more than paranoid fears. Many academics and professionals believe that for the sake of their careers they must exercise the utmost discretion in what they put online, and they confidently tell young people to exercise the same discretion for the sake of their own futures. But the reality is almost the exact opposite. First of all, with some important exceptions of course, nobody gives a shit about what you put on the internet. Nobody with any power over you has the time to follow, and the few that do won’t care enough about you to follow or dig very much. In my now slightly above-average history of recklessly posting to the internet, before and after getting a competitive professional job, the worst that has ever happened is that nobody cares (and that’s most of the time). But the best that has happened, here and there, is that a lot of people care and appreciate it and new friends are made and all kinds of new paths appear, individually and collectively.

The self-restraining, strategic professional intellectual is not only operating on incorrect beliefs but beliefs which are almost exactly inverse to the truth: today, playing by rules of respectability is perhaps the straightest path to unemployment and impotent resentment, while simply cultivating the capacity to say or do something real (by definition prohibited by respectability), is a necessary (and sometimes even sufficient) condition for being genuinely valued by anyone, anywhere. Obviously if you have certain dimensions of poor character (i.e. you’re a racist or something) then reckless posting to the internet will likely, and perhaps rightly, lead to many negative consequences. But if you’re a basically decent person who just wants to push a little harder on what you really think, what you really feel, your experiences or your interests, or even just fuck around, the conventional wisdom still drastically overestimates the punishments and underestimates the rewards of doing so.

If these comments feel to you outdated because you think all of this already happened years ago with the initial rise of the internet, I would say you underestimate the quantity of human beings (and the qualitative intensities they could produce), who have yet to fully update their beliefs and behaviors around these matters. In some sense, the United States only just now, in 2016, elected its first President of the internet age. The fact that millions of people are genuinely perplexed and horrified by what is happening in this regard, is an index of how little the internet’s rewiring of power circuits has actually been integrated in the perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors of most people.

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on The affective politics of keeping it real