It's because in the US historically black neighborhoods have a unique history of racism and disinvestment.

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.

▲

zozbot234 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but the flip side of that argument is that whenever you do see higher investment and better amenities in a historically marginalized neighborhood, that gets loudly deplored by faux-progressive activists as harmful "gentrification" and "changing the character" of the neighborhood. Y'all should pick one stance or the other; you can't have it both ways!

▲

tialaramex 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So the thing about "Ya'll should ..." is that it's often mistaking "Group A and Group B hold conflicting beliefs but share a characteristic" with "Group C, all the people with this characteristic, all exhibit an incoherent belief structure".

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.

▲

0xDEAFBEAD 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You might as well argue: "Part of my brain thought A at time Y. A different part of my brain had a different thought B, at a different time Z. Why the accusations of hypocrisy?"

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.

	▲	Lerc an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>I've never seen a progressive say: "You make a good point, we'll have to debate on that." For what it's worth I had someone who identifies as progressive say something to that effect to me just last night. It happens.
	▲	shermantanktop 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I've never seen a progressive say: "You make a good point, we'll have to debate on that." 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.

▲

jasonwatkinspdx 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're attributing views to me I do not hold.

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.

▲

zozbot234 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I actually agree that building smaller/denser housing would be great and address the needs of many existing residents, but those same faux-progressive activists will decry that in the strongest terms, and insist that any increases in density will only further even worse gentrification and change the historical "flavor" of the neighborhood in extremely detrimental ways. Again, progressive activists cannot have it both ways; they should pick one or the other.

	▲	actionfromafar 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You totally crushed that strawman. Or something. Yes, hypocrites are everywhere, but what are we debating here exactly?