Why China Won't Rule the World

[Razgovory]

Yes to all 3.  I think you have caricatured "ardent Leftists" here.  Detroit?

Fair enough.  I have a cite.  The new urban colonialism: gentrification in a global context by Dr Rowland Atkinson.  Now, you tell me what has changed.

I didn't know Mr. Bean was a doctor.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Yes to all 3.  I think you have caricatured "ardent Leftists" here.  Detroit?

Fair enough.  I have a cite.  The new urban colonialism: gentrification in a global context by Dr Rowland Atkinson.  Now, you tell me what has changed.

I didn't know Mr. Bean was a doctor.

As a matter of fact, he is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO0f2ue_ecI
Though how being a surgeon qualifies him to comment on urban colonization by leftist Chinese is beyond me.

I love the smell of frantic googling to find flimsy shit to support points made in haste.

I prefer frantic googling to find funny videos and pictures.

[ulmont]

So, as I expected, you actually didn't care about sources, and simply were going to believe what you believed no matter what!    That's kinda what I thought; I suspected that the call for a citation was not honestly meant.

I went through your book, searched, and everything, which is more than you provided to me, so fuck you.

[ulmont]

Reading through a portion of the book (via google books) the author's main point is gentrification=colonialism.  He almost seem to imply that neighborhoods should not be rescued or gentrified.

So it doesn't make the exact point you were attributing to leftists (that the failure to rescue Detroit = colonialism) but it is close enough and crazy enough for me to concede that someone, somewhere almost certainly has said such a thing.

It looks to me like the book grumbler has cited makes the exact opposite point.

[DisturbedPervert]

As a matter of fact, he is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO0f2ue_ecI

That would have been much better with a turkey on his head

[Barrister]

Reading through a portion of the book (via google books) the author's main point is gentrification=colonialism.  He almost seem to imply that neighborhoods should not be rescued or gentrified.

So it doesn't make the exact point you were attributing to leftists (that the failure to rescue Detroit = colonialism) but it is close enough and crazy enough for me to concede that someone, somewhere almost certainly has said such a thing.

It looks to me like the book grumbler has cited makes the exact opposite point.

Nah.  I couldn't quite figure out exactly what "point" the book was making since it seemed to ridiculous, but it was clearly tying urban development to the concept of colonialism.  I didn't see a specific passage about Detroit, but it was a good enough source for me.

[ulmont]

tying urban development to the concept of colonialism.

That's the exact opposite of "failing to save" a city.

[Barrister]

tying urban development to the concept of colonialism.

That's the exact opposite of "failing to save" a city.

Not really - they seem to want the government to spend money in urban areas, just not in ways that any rational person would do it.

[ulmont]

tying urban development to the concept of colonialism.

That's the exact opposite of "failing to save" a city.

Not really - they seem to want the government to spend money in urban areas, just not in ways that any rational person would do it.

At best, you're now several steps removed from "OMG!  THE FEDERAL GUMMINT NOT SAVING DETROIT IS COLONIALISM!"  The items being complained of as colonialism are not gummit actions...

...and, that book clearly supports a "leftists have called gentrification colonialism" statement.  But, as seen by the whole "$1 houses in Detroit" thread, whatever has happened in Detroit is not gentrification; gentrification *improves* property values.

[grumbler]

So, as I expected, you actually didn't care about sources, and simply were going to believe what you believed no matter what!    That's kinda what I thought; I suspected that the call for a citation was not honestly meant.

I went through your book, searched, and everything, which is more than you provided to me, so fuck you.

But you dismissed the claim despite having a source that suported it, because you couldn't immediately find something that said what I said.  Of course, you needed iron-clad evidence to accept my assertion, but wanted your assertions (which were not even sourced at all) accepted with no support. 

The "so fuck you," by the way, is a classy touch.

In short, you don't understand what the urban colonialism movement is about, but you are going to claim that it doesn't exist anyway.  I can tell you right now how this conversation is going to go:
(1) Eventually, you will concede that it exists, but argue that it doesn't consider gentrification to be the urban colonization.
(2) Eventually, you will concede that it considers gentrification to be the urban colonization., but argue that it doesn't consider the US government's lack of infrastructure support in the cities (until the gentrification is underway) to be a cause of the "colonization."
(3) Eventually, you will concede that it considers the US government's lack of infrastructure support in the cities (until the gentrification is underway) to be a cause of the "colonization," but argue that this doesn't include Detroit.
(4) Eventually, you will concede that this includes Detroit, but argue that these aren't ardent leftists.
(5) Eventually, you will drop out of the argument rather than concede that these are ardent leftists.

How do I know that?  Because I know the movement exists, and what it preaches (Obama was peripherally involved with some of these people, though I don't think he bought into the ideology), and that Detroit isn't excluded from their movement's interests.  I have no idea why you picked this particular isue to rear up on your hind legs, but it probably isn't one you want to ride down in flames on.  If you want to refute the argument that "to the hard Left, of course, just about any injustice is 'colonialism'" then you should probably keep your eye on the ball.

[ulmont]

But you dismissed the claim despite having a source that suported it, because you couldn't immediately find something that said what I said.

So...you refused to point out the actual part that would support your claim; awesome.   

[MadImmortalMan]

tying urban development to the concept of colonialism.

That's the exact opposite of "failing to save" a city.

Not really - they seem to want the government to spend money in urban areas, just not in ways that any rational person would do it.

At best, you're now several steps removed from "OMG!  THE FEDERAL GUMMINT NOT SAVING DETROIT IS COLONIALISM!"  The items being complained of as colonialism are not gummit actions...

...and, that book clearly supports a "leftists have called gentrification colonialism" statement.  But, as seen by the whole "$1 houses in Detroit" thread, whatever has happened in Detroit is not gentrification; gentrification *improves* property values.

I think we should call it Kwamefication.

[Tonitrus]

I read enough of the referenced book to get the "kill whitey" gist.  That was enough for me.

[grumbler]

But you dismissed the claim despite having a source that suported it, because you couldn't immediately find something that said what I said.

So...you refused to point out the actual part that would support your claim; awesome.   

Still at stage one, I see.  Since we both know where this is going, no, I am not going to jump through hoops and type shit out because you want me to.  I have demonstrated my good faith by providing a book that talks about the movement.  Until you pony up some counter-indicative evidence, I am going to rest on my oars.

[Camerus]

Another potentially interesting thread falls victim to a "tedium hijack".  Sadly, those are becoming more common than even the ACW hijacks were at their zenith.