New York times op ed on maintaining black spaces

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you link it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/05/opinion/gentrification-los-angeles-little-library.html

Aaaaaaand this is why people will be voting Republican in November. This myopic singular focus on identity politics. This is just utter, navel-gazing, polarizing click bait tripe that further Balkanizes an already polarized United States. At worst the author is a clueless naive bigot and at worst a racist. Oops I forgot in this day and age she can’t be racist.

^^^ Proof positive that Republicans are racist white supremacists right here, where the reaction to a perceived threat by black people is to vote republican.

[Anonymous]

How is it different when the races are switched around? Especially when we are talking about a little library on your front lawn that is supposed to be for everyone in the community. What is the author arguing for? Does she want explicit white and black neighborhoods where the races don't mix? Would that make her happy? I'm with you OP, I just don't get it. This is the NY Times here, not an anonymous post on a message board or nextdoor or facebook where people can vent about every little thing.

This. Not sure what the author wants, so the whole thing is a waste of ink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NYT should not be publishing racial garbage like that article. It’s truly appalling.

There's nothing wrong with it. You're mischaracterizing it, which is what's really appalling. You're just proving the author's point that black people aren't allowed to have an identity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand OP why it bothers you to hear opinions that you disagree with or makes you sad. The author is entitled to express her opinion and feelings just like Tom Cotton or the many other voices we hear in media.

The only person who should take this personally are the white people the author discuss. How often are Black people confronted with bad feelings from whites?

How do you think the white people the author discusses should feel? And sure, it is her right. but if many black people feel this way, how will our nation ever heal?

I’m white so I can’t answer how our country will heal but I suspect it will involve affordable housing for all in racially and economically diverse neighborhoods. Gentrification is tough. Housing is so expensive and difficult to secure in CA (and elsewhere). It isn’t on Black people to change, it’s on whites. We are the dominate culture and largely run the institutions in this country, until we change nothing will improve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rather than considering the entire op-ed, y'all are cherry picking certain passages that trigger your fear cortex.

This! Most are missing the point.

[Anonymous]

If you are upset by this article, try reading it from an open point of view with empathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rather than considering the entire op-ed, y'all are cherry picking certain passages that trigger your fear cortex.

Rather than considering the whole article you are happily green lighting woke racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I usually do a mental exercise when I read stuff like this where I switch the races up. Could you imagine the NYT publishing an article with the following text:

What I resented was not this specific couple. It was their blackness, and my feelings of helplessness at not knowing how to maintain the integrity of a White space that I had created.

How is it different when the races are switched around? Especially when we are talking about a little library on your front lawn that is supposed to be for everyone in the community. What is the author arguing for? Does she want explicit white and black neighborhoods where the races don't mix? Would that make her happy? I'm with you OP, I just don't get it. This is the NY Times here, not an anonymous post on a message board or nextdoor or facebook where people can vent about every little thing.

It's different because blacks have historically been persecuted by whites. If you'd read the entire article, you'd get that.

Be more precise: at some point in the past, some blacks were persecuted by some whites. In both cases, most of the relevant parties are now gone. However, some people now want to claim that wrongs occurring in the past (that didn't happen to them) give them a right to treat other people poorly now (again, these other people did not commit any of the alleged wrongs).

The truth is that lots of minorities are incredibly racist. Indeed, this brain dead CRT stuff has encouraged minorities (including ones that immigrated relatively recently and have never suffered any real discrimination) are acting virtuously if they spew racist bile at white people. Minorities have not had to confront their own prejudice and racism in the way that they demand white people must do.

[Anonymous]

That op ed viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint in today’s climate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather than considering the entire op-ed, y'all are cherry picking certain passages that trigger your fear cortex.

Rather than considering the whole article you are happily green lighting woke racism.

Please define woke racism?

[Anonymous]

White people moving in is gentrification. White people moving out is white flight. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I usually do a mental exercise when I read stuff like this where I switch the races up. Could you imagine the NYT publishing an article with the following text:

What I resented was not this specific couple. It was their blackness, and my feelings of helplessness at not knowing how to maintain the integrity of a White space that I had created.

How is it different when the races are switched around? Especially when we are talking about a little library on your front lawn that is supposed to be for everyone in the community. What is the author arguing for? Does she want explicit white and black neighborhoods where the races don't mix? Would that make her happy? I'm with you OP, I just don't get it. This is the NY Times here, not an anonymous post on a message board or nextdoor or facebook where people can vent about every little thing.

It's different because blacks have historically been persecuted by whites. If you'd read the entire article, you'd get that.

Be more precise: at some point in the past, some blacks were persecuted by some whites. In both cases, most of the relevant parties are now gone. However, some people now want to claim that wrongs occurring in the past (that didn't happen to them) give them a right to treat other people poorly now (again, these other people did not commit any of the alleged wrongs).

The truth is that lots of minorities are incredibly racist. Indeed, this brain dead CRT stuff has encouraged minorities (including ones that immigrated relatively recently and have never suffered any real discrimination) are acting virtuously if they spew racist bile at white people. Minorities have not had to confront their own prejudice and racism in the way that they demand white people must do.

Racism is not a thing that happened in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That op ed viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint in today’s climate.

I would actually argue that it is a viewpoint that is implicit in a lot of today's climate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I usually do a mental exercise when I read stuff like this where I switch the races up. Could you imagine the NYT publishing an article with the following text:

What I resented was not this specific couple. It was their blackness, and my feelings of helplessness at not knowing how to maintain the integrity of a White space that I had created.

How is it different when the races are switched around? Especially when we are talking about a little library on your front lawn that is supposed to be for everyone in the community. What is the author arguing for? Does she want explicit white and black neighborhoods where the races don't mix? Would that make her happy? I'm with you OP, I just don't get it. This is the NY Times here, not an anonymous post on a message board or nextdoor or facebook where people can vent about every little thing.

It's different because blacks have historically been persecuted by whites. If you'd read the entire article, you'd get that.

Be more precise: at some point in the past, some blacks were persecuted by some whites. In both cases, most of the relevant parties are now gone. However, some people now want to claim that wrongs occurring in the past (that didn't happen to them) give them a right to treat other people poorly now (again, these other people did not commit any of the alleged wrongs).

The truth is that lots of minorities are incredibly racist. Indeed, this brain dead CRT stuff has encouraged minorities (including ones that immigrated relatively recently and have never suffered any real discrimination) are acting virtuously if they spew racist bile at white people. Minorities have not had to confront their own prejudice and racism in the way that they demand white people must do.

Racism is not a thing that happened in the past.

Meant to add: it’s still with us!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I usually do a mental exercise when I read stuff like this where I switch the races up. Could you imagine the NYT publishing an article with the following text:

What I resented was not this specific couple. It was their blackness, and my feelings of helplessness at not knowing how to maintain the integrity of a White space that I had created.

How is it different when the races are switched around? Especially when we are talking about a little library on your front lawn that is supposed to be for everyone in the community. What is the author arguing for? Does she want explicit white and black neighborhoods where the races don't mix? Would that make her happy? I'm with you OP, I just don't get it. This is the NY Times here, not an anonymous post on a message board or nextdoor or facebook where people can vent about every little thing.

It's different because blacks have historically been persecuted by whites. If you'd read the entire article, you'd get that.

Be more precise: at some point in the past, some blacks were persecuted by some whites. In both cases, most of the relevant parties are now gone. However, some people now want to claim that wrongs occurring in the past (that didn't happen to them) give them a right to treat other people poorly now (again, these other people did not commit any of the alleged wrongs).

The truth is that lots of minorities are incredibly racist. Indeed, this brain dead CRT stuff has encouraged minorities (including ones that immigrated relatively recently and have never suffered any real discrimination) are acting virtuously if they spew racist bile at white people. Minorities have not had to confront their own prejudice and racism in the way that they demand white people must do.

Racism is not a thing that happened in the past.

There is virtually no real racism today. Not like in the past. And, if you are PP, you justified the author's behavior on the grounds that "blacks have HISTORICALLY been persecuted by whites."