And presumably you can afford to out bid all the other people who want what you want. Its great that you are wealthy and/or able and willing to spend a very high fraction of your income on non essentials like walking to nice restaurants and being near cool people you want to be near.
The problem is that people who can't afford that think it is a hate crime if they can't afford to live in Brooklyn with the rest of the hipsters.
> The problem is that people who can't afford that think it is a hate crime if they can't afford to live in Brooklyn with the rest of the hipsters.
City planning is hard, but it's absolutely the case that cities just do it very stupidly and poorly and myopically and to preserve the wealth of the wealthy at the expense of the everyone else. There are not any good reasons for Cambridge, MA to have a 35 foot maximum height limit, only shitty ones. It's not a hate crime, but it is both hateful and a crime against society.
It's literally not a crime, and it's not even an action motivated out of hate.
I think it would do you good to work out the difference between things that make you angry and things that are unjust.
I agree with you, transportation and planning is intentionally manipulated by wealthy landlords to maintain their high rents. Absolutely. So don't live there? Don't base your self worth on how impressive the resume's of your neighbors are? Find other neighborhoods that aren't based on inherited multi-generational snobbery and artificially restricting access to education to elite morons?
You're using a specific definition of "crime" that is different than the one the people you're arguing against are using, and that makes the argument not apt.
Being shameful for causing harm is also what calling something a crime can mean.
Right, you are using a second or forth definition of crime, changing to that despite the original context of the first definition. I'm the one who originally said it's not a hate crime, as much as people act like it is. That you would then accuse me of trying to play games with definitions is really quite remarkable.
But lets go along with your desire to get away with using your definition instead of the original way the word was used in this context. Is it really a 'grave offense against morality' for a city to democratically decide to not allow skyscrapers? What would be the consequence of not allowing skyscrapers, is it that people like BugsJustFindMe starve to death? nope. That you will be deprived of basic human needs like shelter or the right to self determination? nope. The 'grave moral harm' done to you is that you can't afford to live within walking distance to that cool bar you like to go to. How ridiculous are you going to be?
Your “non-essential” is someone else’s “essential”. Everyone has different needs and wants, and it’s just a useless flamewar. It’s the same as the discussion of whether the cities should stop subsidizing suburbs and other areas. Absolutely useless as everyone have their preferences and we have to find some sort of compromise.
What things are essential? A tent, water fountain, and scavenged scraps will keep someone alive. Is a toilet essential, or could you just use the street like the birds and squirrels do without complaint? Is a bidet essential, or could you scrape your anus with paper until you see spots of blood like many americans do? Is internet access essential or could you just go to the library which is free and open to all? I think there are not any objective definitions of what makes a housing situation essential.
So in that light, I think if we're going to consider physical needs, we should probably also consider emotional wellbeing.
well, as someone who grew up extremely poor (to the point of living in a tent on the side of the river in HS) I'm here to tell you nothing you mentioned is essential.
I looked up the average salary in NYC out of curiosity and I make well above the average there.
but I live extremely cheaply and part of that is the lessons I learned as a child. I could afford a much bigger house, much nicer cars, more toys. I choose not to.
I know people who will finish paying off a vehicle and turn it in for another one. Not essential.
Just because someone _feels_ as though something is important doesn't mean that it is. The difference between middle class and poor is that poor has to deal with reality, middle class gets to keep the delusion that things like nice cars are essential.
These people are choosing not to move. It's great that they can afford it but maybe they should stop complaining vociferously about how victimized they are for choosing to live in that area.
I don't know that I would take that stance but certainly a bidet and a nice car do not fall under that category, nor does being able to walk to a restaurant.
You may try and argue some of the grey areas, but most of the things you listed are _clearly_ not essential, they're desirable by specific people, as you said.
What makes a toilet essential but not a bidet? Plenty of people manage to survive without toilets. Some of them even in downtown San Francisco (you can tell by the state of the sidewalks). They don't tend to thrive with dignity though. Is it not the dignity and thriving aspect that's ultimately important? What things make you thrive? What things make you feel dignified? Are they essential for your wellbeing?
(personally speaking, like many people I have eczema, and my wellbeing tends to be diminished by having a scraped anus)
I'm interpreting that as you have eczema on your genitals or anus, I don't know much about eczema so can't speak to the condition so I'll speak in general.
My mother has heart issues and she has a pump that's connected to her 24/7. She has a medical condition and so has special needs. I would not call that pump an essential but it certainly is essential for her.
The context of this conversation has been _in general_, my responses were never meant to apply to those with medical conditions.
to answer your question, a bidet is a nice to have, a toilet would be an essential otherwise you're shitting in the street, as you implied about downtown SF. Because toilet here does not mean literally toilet, but someplace reserved for using the restroom. When I go to the river to fish they have an outhouse there and I absolutely use it, as do construction workers with the mobile outhouses they employ.
defecating and urinating are absolutely essential activities, how you clean yourself afterwards needs to happen but any specific way of doing it is not essential.
I mean, you're free to make the claim and I honestly hope it makes you feel better about yourself.
buuut... well you know your response is bullshit.
hey guys, dontcha know the only essentials are death and taxes! otherwise you have to admit that a brand new car driven off the lot is also an essential!
Care to elaborate? Obviously something “essential” is a subjective take other than the most basics like “food and shelter”. Walking or being able to take transit to my grocery store is a strict essential for me, but I am sure for people who live in suburbia it is not.
I was born and raised in a city with >2M population, and surely my needs are extremely different than someone who is accustomed to a rural life. Even small things like, sleeping in an extremely quiet rural town has been a torture for me every time I tried it. And I am sure, opposite is true for people who are used to hearing absolutely no sounds at night.
For instance… I am medically… complicated. Living somewhere rural where I’m more than 10 or 15 minutes from an ER isn’t really viable for me. Well, I mean, it would be, right up until it isn’t.
The problem is that people who can't afford that think it is a hate crime if they can't afford to live in Brooklyn with the rest of the hipsters.