Comments on: White Guilt Hates on Art Galleries in the SF Chronicle

By: Jessica

Jessica — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:46:15 +0000

I am a latina born and raised in the Mission and i think white people need to stay out of the mission district because none of the latinos really want you here and quit trying to claim that whites were here before latinos cuz that some bullshit and you know it!! Go take over the asians hood if you havent already fuckin typical white people’s goal in life!

By: piratesnack

piratesnack — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:56:06 +0000

Mario, Sorry, my mistake, you’re right. You’re not actually saying anything at all. Bye.

By: Mario Incandenza

Mario Incandenza — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:50:11 +0000

“Mario, are you saying that customers of check cashing places would actually be better off if the check cashing place left? I.e., if they could no longer patronize the business of their choosing? You think all those customers are just being duped? That they don’t really know what’s best for them? It’s an interesting theory, ” blah blah etc.

(hint: no, that’s not what I said at all, and i don’t care enough to reply again. kbye.)

By: piratesnack

piratesnack — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:02:52 +0000

Mario, if what I addressed was a “straw man” then what is your argument? That check cashers charge high interest rates? I don’t think anyone disagrees that they are higher than bank rates.

But what you actually said was that they are “unjust.” That is exactly the argument I addressed. What criteria are you using to determine whether a loan is just? The loans are consensual and serve a needed purpose for those customers. I don’t see why that is a straw man argument.

By: Mario Incandenza

Mario Incandenza — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:57:07 +0000

Hey, sweet straw man argument, guy.

Payday loan interest rates are worse than those of loan sharks. Keep trying to convince yourself that that’s a good thing.

By: piratesnack

piratesnack — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:07:59 +0000

Mario, are you saying that customers of check cashing places would actually be better off if the check cashing place left? I.e., if they could no longer patronize the business of their choosing? You think all those customers are just being duped? That they don’t really know what’s best for them? It’s an interesting theory, but in the absence of evidence, I think it’s safer to think that people patronize businesses that provide them with the goods and services that are the best for them.

And a loan with a high interest rate is a very sensible and useful service to provide when the alternative is paying bounced check fees, late payment fees on your rent, having your car repossessed that you need to get to work, etc. A high interest rate on such short term loans to high risk borrowers is likely necessary to cover the costs of doing business.

By: Mario Incandenza

Mario Incandenza — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:02:52 +0000

@piratesnack: customers of check cashing places probably know exactly how fucked up those places are. Loans with annual interest rates of several hundred percent are not a valuable or just service to provide.

By: mango

mango — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:29:08 +0000

Agreed. Who are these people? debating the meaning of getting “forced out” ??? reducing it to choice? are you kidding me? privileged myopia.

By: C.

C. — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:18:54 +0000

I’m sorry, Sha, but Stephen Elliot garnered the lifetime appointment to that position through his artfully mendacious termination of the horrific American Apparel threat to Mission realness. He deleted his most hater-like comments — and some of the most pointed criticism from others — from the Stop AA blog, but, sorry, he did it, so he still wins.

By: one

one — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:18:21 +0000

if these tired intellectual and yet, at the same time, profoundly ignorant and misinformed comments don’t illustrate gentrification in the mission, I don’t know what the fuck does.

By: one

one — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:16:20 +0000

mendacity, it makes the world go ’round.

By: one

one — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:12:02 +0000

you’re kidding, right?

um, little boutiques are hardly the enemy.

By: one

one — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:05:26 +0000

GENTRIFICATION??? holy fuck where the has SHE been for the last 30 years?!

coming up – the obligatory recitation of ‘artists move into low income district make it groovy, then wannabees without authenticity move in and drive prices up…’ blah blah blah. it’s not news. christ.

By: piratesnack

piratesnack — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:01:05 +0000

Of course everyone agrees that, in a democracy, people should have a say about “what goes on” in a neighborhood. We don’t want theft and graffiti in our neighborhood, so we outlaw theft and graffiti. But whether any particular exercise of the democratic process is wise is another question. Saying “people should have a say” does not answer the question of “What should the people say?” So far, you haven’t ever answered that question. Are you saying people should vote for income districts? Are you saying people should vote to keep white people out of neighborhoods? I mean, really, how are you suggesting people exercise this right to “say what goes on in their neighborhood”? And how far does that right extend? Should the previous residents of the Mission exercised that say to keep the Hispanics out? Should the previous residents of the Castro used it to keep the gays out? Should the residents of Russian Hill decide that their rents are too high and therefore exercise their say to keep people out?

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 02:52:13 +0000

True, we can’t always determine what has value. But the residents of a neighborhood can (and should) have a say over what goes on in that neighborhood.

If you disagree, you may end up living in a cream-colored condo above a Wal-Mart store where your Victorian studio apartment used to be.