Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

That was hilarious, the CU debacle, but only in a horrormirthy way.  Mental instability works out that way, sometimes.

And we already have one doomed to repeat it. 

Maybe somebody will hand him a board. Not this one, though.

[Luna]

 

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Here ya go, holist. Your pulpit:

http://www.mybb.com/

:bye:

[Dildo Argentino]

Here ya go, holist. Your pulpit:

http://www.mybb.com/

:bye:

But I already have one! its at http://holist.hu ...
Though I've recently taken almost everything down
And you don't read Hungarian, anyway... sorry

Bye for now, see you soon!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So I am not saying it is a pack of lies.

Instead, I am going to say that when I made the reference to some thirld-world cities not being cities in the European sense, I should have said "first-world sense", and acknowledged that the first, second and third worlds, so nicely separated not so long ago, have been going through a bizarre process of fractal nesting for some time now which has resulted in the first and the third world being available within a few hundred miles in practically all locations on Earth. I corrected that statement, when Nigel called me on it, but that was not enough for her, because she enjoys bullying. Only on the internet, I imagine (I hope), where it is nice and depersonalised, and the person you are so enjoyably wiping the floor with is unlikely to come and visit all the way from fucking Hungary or whereever he is from.

I wanted to quote this part because it was funny.

Holist, sometimes people quite close to me say things that make them sound foolish, too, and I don't hesitate to point that out. If they're being jerks about it, I point that out too, even though many of them live in the same city and I am a 5'3" woman of middle age (who doesn't act ladylike enough, according to you) with three kids. They are, for the most part, unlikely to "come visit me" in the sense you seem to be implying because they're bipedal human beings, though some of them have visited me in a friendlier sense, over beer.

Also, your ongoing misuse of the terms "first world countries" and "third world countries" is making me cringe. Most people today who are educated in the social sciences don't use those terms anymore, as they are outdated and don't really refer to socioeconomic status.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/the-term-third-world-country-refers-to-the-politics-and-economic-structure-of-a-country-not-its-developmental-state-or-wealth/
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

[Phox]

So I am not saying it is a pack of lies.

Instead, I am going to say that when I made the reference to some thirld-world cities not being cities in the European sense, I should have said "first-world sense", and acknowledged that the first, second and third worlds, so nicely separated not so long ago, have been going through a bizarre process of fractal nesting for some time now which has resulted in the first and the third world being available within a few hundred miles in practically all locations on Earth. I corrected that statement, when Nigel called me on it, but that was not enough for her, because she enjoys bullying. Only on the internet, I imagine (I hope), where it is nice and depersonalised, and the person you are so enjoyably wiping the floor with is unlikely to come and visit all the way from fucking Hungary or whereever he is from.

I wanted to quote this part because it was funny.

Holist, sometimes people quite close to me say things that make them sound foolish, too, and I don't hesitate to point that out. If they're being jerks about it, I point that out too, even though many of them live in the same city and I am a 5'3" woman of middle age (who doesn't act ladylike enough, according to you) with three kids. They are, for the most part, unlikely to "come visit me" in the sense you seem to be implying because they're bipedal human beings, though some of them have visited me in a friendlier sense, over beer.

Also, your ongoing misuse of the terms "first world countries" and "third world countries" is making me cringe. Most people today who are educated in the social sciences don't use those terms anymore, as they are outdated and don't really refer to socioeconomic status.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/the-term-third-world-country-refers-to-the-politics-and-economic-structure-of-a-country-not-its-developmental-state-or-wealth/
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

Not to mention, that East St. Louis, Detroit, and New Orleans qualify, under holist's definitions, as third-world cities.  I'm unfamiliar with European cities, but I would imagine that some also qualify, and that would negate his idea that those cities aren't "cities in the European sense".

ETA: Quote fix.

[Dildo Argentino]

So I am not saying it is a pack of lies.

Instead, I am going to say that when I made the reference to some thirld-world cities not being cities in the European sense, I should have said "first-world sense", and acknowledged that the first, second and third worlds, so nicely separated not so long ago, have been going through a bizarre process of fractal nesting for some time now which has resulted in the first and the third world being available within a few hundred miles in practically all locations on Earth. I corrected that statement, when Nigel called me on it, but that was not enough for her, because she enjoys bullying. Only on the internet, I imagine (I hope), where it is nice and depersonalised, and the person you are so enjoyably wiping the floor with is unlikely to come and visit all the way from fucking Hungary or whereever he is from.

I wanted to quote this part because it was funny.

Just to make sure you don't start claiming that I was actually threatening you, let me make it clear that that when I said "come and visit", all I had in mind was the totally scringey embarrassment that I am pretty sure would ensure, were we to meet face to face.

Holist, sometimes people quite close to me say things that make them sound foolish, too, and I don't hesitate to point that out. If they're being jerks about it, I point that out too, even though many of them live in the same city and I am a 5'3" woman of middle age (who doesn't act ladylike enough, according to you) with three kids. They are, for the most part, unlikely to "come visit me" in the sense you seem to be implying because they're bipedal human beings, though some of them have visited me in a friendlier sense, over beer.

I am 5'6". "Unladylike" is not a term I would use in criticism of you. I think we'd probably warm to each other if we met, but I could be wrong.

Also, your ongoing misuse of the terms "first world countries" and "third world countries" is making me cringe. Most people today who are educated in the social sciences don't use those terms anymore, as they are outdated and don't really refer to socioeconomic status.

Well mm'kay... so I guess I've been terminologically corrected, but has this clouded the bloody simple point I was trying to get across over and over again to an extent that precluded further discussion and necessitated immediate nitpicking? I mean look at the quoted exchanges, please!

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/the-term-third-world-country-refers-to-the-politics-and-economic-structure-of-a-country-not-its-developmental-state-or-wealth/
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

Now the thing is, this is a quote from your first link:
"a "Third World" country is not a country that simply is primitive, underdeveloped, or poor, as most people think.  In fact, a third world country is actually just a country that is not considered a capitalist country (first world) and not considered a communist country (2nd world)."

Whereas this is from your second:
"What makes a nation third world?
Despite everevolving definitions, the concept of the third world serves to identify countries that suffer from high infant mortality, low economic development, high levels of poverty, low utilization of natural resources, and heavy dependence on industrialized nations. These are the developing and technologically less advanced nations of Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Latin America. Third world nations tend to have economies dependent on the developed countries and are generally characterized as poor with unstable governments and having high rates of population growth, illiteracy, and disease. A key factor is the lack of a middle class — with impoverished millions in a vast lower economic class and a very small elite upper class controlling the country's wealth and resources. Most third world nations also have a very large foreign debt. "

So I am somewhat confused. WHich is the correct usage, in your opinion? And why?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The second quote there is talking about common or colloquial use. Read an anthropology textbook, or read several sites online and try to determine consensus. I am not interested in having a conversation with you. Although I'm totally going to dig out your quote where you said I wasn't acting like a lady.  Dishonest wanker.

[Dildo Argentino]

So I am not saying it is a pack of lies.

Instead, I am going to say that when I made the reference to some thirld-world cities not being cities in the European sense, I should have said "first-world sense", and acknowledged that the first, second and third worlds, so nicely separated not so long ago, have been going through a bizarre process of fractal nesting for some time now which has resulted in the first and the third world being available within a few hundred miles in practically all locations on Earth. I corrected that statement, when Nigel called me on it, but that was not enough for her, because she enjoys bullying. Only on the internet, I imagine (I hope), where it is nice and depersonalised, and the person you are so enjoyably wiping the floor with is unlikely to come and visit all the way from fucking Hungary or whereever he is from.

Not to mention, that East St. Louis, Detroit, and New Orleans qualify, under holist's definitions, as third-world cities.  I'm unfamiliar with European cities, but I would imagine that some also qualify, and that would negate his idea that those cities aren't "cities in the European sense".

I wanted to quote this part because it was funny.

Holist, sometimes people quite close to me say things that make them sound foolish, too, and I don't hesitate to point that out. If they're being jerks about it, I point that out too, even though many of them live in the same city and I am a 5'3" woman of middle age (who doesn't act ladylike enough, according to you) with three kids. They are, for the most part, unlikely to "come visit me" in the sense you seem to be implying because they're bipedal human beings, though some of them have visited me in a friendlier sense, over beer.

Also, your ongoing misuse of the terms "first world countries" and "third world countries" is making me cringe. Most people today who are educated in the social sciences don't use those terms anymore, as they are outdated and don't really refer to socioeconomic status.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/the-term-third-world-country-refers-to-the-politics-and-economic-structure-of-a-country-not-its-developmental-state-or-wealth/
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

Yeah. Right. And this is why I said, in response to you, a little while ago:

No-no, you try again. The first thing I did upon being challenged is to admit, straight up, that I probably picked the wrong cities and explain that it was not crucial to my point. Later on, Subsymbolic explained in painful detail what he thought my initial assertion was about, which was ignored or ridiculed. The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high. In a first-world neighbourhood, if you show signs of above-average affluence, you may still walk around without clear and present danger of being mugged or beaten or even killed for a few of your possessions. This is partly because state-provided coercive mechanisms are in place to prevent this, but also partly because there aren't that many people who are desperate enough to do something like that. In third -world neighbourhoods, this is not the case.

First-world city story (true one, happened to me): my kid's bicycle gets stolen from my yard. I report it to the police. A couple of months later, in an unrelated case, police catch a petty thief. They find the bicycle I reported stolen in the thief's back yard. I get bicycle back.

Third-world city story (very likely to be true one, related by my Somali refugee friend Hussein, whom I've known for 15 years, and whom I helped get out of the terrible Hungarian refugee-processing meat-grinder): man arrives in Mogadishu airport (back when there were still commercial,scheduled flights going there). Leaves terminal. Man comes up, points at a car parked nearby with driver in it, and asks: "dou you like that car?" Recent arrival responds with a half-hearted 'yes'. Man proceeds to shoot driver and says: "You can buy it off me for 500 dollars".

I think the contrast there is real and actually bloody obvious. The obstinate efforts to turn it into a story about me failing to acknowledge that I was wrong are frustrating and unfair.

So? What do you think?

[Dildo Argentino]

The second quote there is talking about common or colloquial use. Read an anthropology textbook, or read several sites online and try to determine consensus. I am not interested in having a conversation with you. Although I'm totally going to dig out your quote where you said I wasn't acting like a lady.  Dishonest wanker.

To provide some incentive: the moment you do, I will adopt the name "Dishonest wanker" on this board.

Cheers, happy digging
holist

[Phox]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

[Phox]

So I am not saying it is a pack of lies.

Instead, I am going to say that when I made the reference to some thirld-world cities not being cities in the European sense, I should have said "first-world sense", and acknowledged that the first, second and third worlds, so nicely separated not so long ago, have been going through a bizarre process of fractal nesting for some time now which has resulted in the first and the third world being available within a few hundred miles in practically all locations on Earth. I corrected that statement, when Nigel called me on it, but that was not enough for her, because she enjoys bullying. Only on the internet, I imagine (I hope), where it is nice and depersonalised, and the person you are so enjoyably wiping the floor with is unlikely to come and visit all the way from fucking Hungary or whereever he is from.

Not to mention, that East St. Louis, Detroit, and New Orleans qualify, under holist's definitions, as third-world cities.  I'm unfamiliar with European cities, but I would imagine that some also qualify, and that would negate his idea that those cities aren't "cities in the European sense".

I wanted to quote this part because it was funny.

Holist, sometimes people quite close to me say things that make them sound foolish, too, and I don't hesitate to point that out. If they're being jerks about it, I point that out too, even though many of them live in the same city and I am a 5'3" woman of middle age (who doesn't act ladylike enough, according to you) with three kids. They are, for the most part, unlikely to "come visit me" in the sense you seem to be implying because they're bipedal human beings, though some of them have visited me in a friendlier sense, over beer.

Also, your ongoing misuse of the terms "first world countries" and "third world countries" is making me cringe. Most people today who are educated in the social sciences don't use those terms anymore, as they are outdated and don't really refer to socioeconomic status.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/the-term-third-world-country-refers-to-the-politics-and-economic-structure-of-a-country-not-its-developmental-state-or-wealth/
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

Yeah. Right. And this is why I said, in response to you, a little while ago:

No-no, you try again. The first thing I did upon being challenged is to admit, straight up, that I probably picked the wrong cities and explain that it was not crucial to my point. Later on, Subsymbolic explained in painful detail what he thought my initial assertion was about, which was ignored or ridiculed. The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high. In a first-world neighbourhood, if you show signs of above-average affluence, you may still walk around without clear and present danger of being mugged or beaten or even killed for a few of your possessions. This is partly because state-provided coercive mechanisms are in place to prevent this, but also partly because there aren't that many people who are desperate enough to do something like that. In third -world neighbourhoods, this is not the case.

First-world city story (true one, happened to me): my kid's bicycle gets stolen from my yard. I report it to the police. A couple of months later, in an unrelated case, police catch a petty thief. They find the bicycle I reported stolen in the thief's back yard. I get bicycle back.

Third-world city story (very likely to be true one, related by my Somali refugee friend Hussein, whom I've known for 15 years, and whom I helped get out of the terrible Hungarian refugee-processing meat-grinder): man arrives in Mogadishu airport (back when there were still commercial,scheduled flights going there). Leaves terminal. Man comes up, points at a car parked nearby with driver in it, and asks: "dou you like that car?" Recent arrival responds with a half-hearted 'yes'. Man proceeds to shoot driver and says: "You can buy it off me for 500 dollars".

I think the contrast there is real and actually bloody obvious. The obstinate efforts to turn it into a story about me failing to acknowledge that I was wrong are frustrating and unfair.

So? What do you think?

I think that if that's your definition of third-world, then East St. Louis, New Orleans, Vancouver, Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and numerous other cities are "third-world cities".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Ah yes, that is what I was remembering. 

[Dildo Argentino]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes), I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So I am not saying it is a pack of lies.

Instead, I am going to say that when I made the reference to some thirld-world cities not being cities in the European sense, I should have said "first-world sense", and acknowledged that the first, second and third worlds, so nicely separated not so long ago, have been going through a bizarre process of fractal nesting for some time now which has resulted in the first and the third world being available within a few hundred miles in practically all locations on Earth. I corrected that statement, when Nigel called me on it, but that was not enough for her, because she enjoys bullying. Only on the internet, I imagine (I hope), where it is nice and depersonalised, and the person you are so enjoyably wiping the floor with is unlikely to come and visit all the way from fucking Hungary or whereever he is from.

Not to mention, that East St. Louis, Detroit, and New Orleans qualify, under holist's definitions, as third-world cities.  I'm unfamiliar with European cities, but I would imagine that some also qualify, and that would negate his idea that those cities aren't "cities in the European sense".

I wanted to quote this part because it was funny.

Holist, sometimes people quite close to me say things that make them sound foolish, too, and I don't hesitate to point that out. If they're being jerks about it, I point that out too, even though many of them live in the same city and I am a 5'3" woman of middle age (who doesn't act ladylike enough, according to you) with three kids. They are, for the most part, unlikely to "come visit me" in the sense you seem to be implying because they're bipedal human beings, though some of them have visited me in a friendlier sense, over beer.

Also, your ongoing misuse of the terms "first world countries" and "third world countries" is making me cringe. Most people today who are educated in the social sciences don't use those terms anymore, as they are outdated and don't really refer to socioeconomic status.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/the-term-third-world-country-refers-to-the-politics-and-economic-structure-of-a-country-not-its-developmental-state-or-wealth/
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

Yeah. Right. And this is why I said, in response to you, a little while ago:

No-no, you try again. The first thing I did upon being challenged is to admit, straight up, that I probably picked the wrong cities and explain that it was not crucial to my point. Later on, Subsymbolic explained in painful detail what he thought my initial assertion was about, which was ignored or ridiculed. The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high. In a first-world neighbourhood, if you show signs of above-average affluence, you may still walk around without clear and present danger of being mugged or beaten or even killed for a few of your possessions. This is partly because state-provided coercive mechanisms are in place to prevent this, but also partly because there aren't that many people who are desperate enough to do something like that. In third -world neighbourhoods, this is not the case.

First-world city story (true one, happened to me): my kid's bicycle gets stolen from my yard. I report it to the police. A couple of months later, in an unrelated case, police catch a petty thief. They find the bicycle I reported stolen in the thief's back yard. I get bicycle back.

Third-world city story (very likely to be true one, related by my Somali refugee friend Hussein, whom I've known for 15 years, and whom I helped get out of the terrible Hungarian refugee-processing meat-grinder): man arrives in Mogadishu airport (back when there were still commercial,scheduled flights going there). Leaves terminal. Man comes up, points at a car parked nearby with driver in it, and asks: "dou you like that car?" Recent arrival responds with a half-hearted 'yes'. Man proceeds to shoot driver and says: "You can buy it off me for 500 dollars".

I think the contrast there is real and actually bloody obvious. The obstinate efforts to turn it into a story about me failing to acknowledge that I was wrong are frustrating and unfair.

So? What do you think?

That you are pulling a classic evasion maneuver by claiming that you misspoke and really meant something else... in other words, shifting goalposts. I also want to know in what way your attempt to redefine the conversation relates to the original point you were attempting to make.