The most fair answer civilized society has some up with in the modern era is money. Which seems a lot more impartial than racist ideals about keeping certain people out to preserve “culture” or whatever

I don't know how you are getting down voted for this. Pricing people out of their homes into unknown and probably worse living situations is definitely a violent act. And if you stay in your home or apartment after eviction the state will physically and violently remove you.

Whites move in? Gentrification

Whites move out? White Flight

Just can’t win.

Saying that certain people belong in certain places and have “their” neighborhoods vs the “other” neighborhoods is deeply problematic. It’s the same rationalization that whites used when complaining about people of color moving into their neighborhoods.

No one has any right to a certain space. If others are willing to pay more than you to live somewhere, you have precisely zero moral ground to live there instead of them. Complains of gentrification largely boil down to racist qualms of having diverse spaces. Opponents of gentrification are, more often than not, trash people with thinly coated racist beliefs who hide behind dog whistles of “preserving their culture” and “maintaining community.”

Then it doesn't improve...

They also give all reasoning a bad name. But academic philosophy is designed to keep people ignorant, like with the veil of ignorance though experiment.

What definition are you using?

The only thing worse than gentrification is no gentrification.

> an awful lot of people who are financially conquered are willing participants in our economy and monetary system

Lol... what a non-sequitur. You need to participate in money economy to not starve.

You make it out like the opposite of being forced to leave your neighborhood is being forced to stay in your neighborhood! It's a false dichotomy that you have committed here!

People want the ability to continue to live in their homes. And the ability to leave them. They want freedom.

Honestly, I can't believe that this intellectual dishonesty is present in a discussion on philosophy.

I don't think that the poor are wishing to stay poor! They just want to stay in their neighborhood while it improves!

> there's also nothing you can do about them.

Probably some peasant working a king's field said the same, centuries ago. As did an American slave in a cotton field 200 years ago.

They were both proven wrong. Will you one day be proven wrong, too? I hope so!

The author brought up the point of freedom from domination, positive rights, and negative rights. That's philosophy.

Or you know, they're just a good way to explain a dilemma or philosophical notion, most if not all of which have no "correct" answer. Framing in language in general and its influence on our moral judgement of a situation are the actual issues and in my opinion should be the focus instead of "curtailing the use" of good tools. But hey, understanding something is harder than rejecting it.

Eating oysters used to unite rich and poor in New York.

What is it about seafood?! 😆

(That sounds like a very interesting racial diversification! Not the kind of gentrification that I've experienced! Cool to hear!)

From this comment and the one above, seems like too much discussion is about race. Race is just the most obvious visual aspect of gentrification. I worry that if we focus on it too much then we'll get bogged down in examples and counter examples that are all, frankly, kind of reductive. I don't think that people seeing each other as just members of a race. Like, if you're forced to move due to gentrification, you're upset about moving away from your neighbors that you love and not just about the color of their skin, right?

Which is why we need to stop tiptoeing around the idea of class. In some neighborhoods the whites are displacing the Latinos and in others it's the Indians displacing blacks. Whatever. In all cases, the rich are able to displace the poor when they feel like it because housing as an investment is opposed to housing as a right.

It's all just class struggle and we ought to not focus on race.

You've erected a straw man in focusing on the word "white". Sure, it was flashy and the author uses it to make a point that the class divide is often along racial lines. And I agree with you that sometimes it's not white but Asian or Indian or whatever that is doing the gentrifying.

Two things: One, maybe the author used "white" as an example because for this particular neighborhood it's accurate? And two, maybe the author intentionally decided to use "white" to avoid words like "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" in order to not sound too Marxist?

Anyway, race is clearly not the point of the article. If you want to attack it then be honest in your attack. Attack the main point and not the racial angle it uses sparingly.

Philosophers, metaphysicians or social psychologists frequently employ thought experiments, such as the Trolley or Gettier cases, to study important epistemic notions or how people think about what is right or wrong, what is morally permissible or not. But these experiments suffer from significant limitations, argues philosopher of science Edouard Machery. In the Trolley case, for instance, people respond differently depending on the way in which the test is phrased and the order in which they read it. This is what psychologists refer to as “framing effects.” Moreover, demographic and cultural factors can have a significant effect on how people respond to these experiments. Edouard Machery asks us to recognise that intuition is not as reliable as we would like to think and to be more critical of the conclusions we draw from thought experiments.

London ULEZ zone does exactly that. Can't afford a new car right now: pay through the nose and be pushed out

1. People may agree to execute criminals and will very likely agree to involuntary taxation, given the coordination problem and benefits of collective action.

2. The article’s goal is only to say what morality is and isn’t. To the extent that issue is in dispute, as it is in meta-ethics, then having at the very least a defined term is useful for settling disagreement. I’ll get into more specifics in later pieces on what “reasonably rejectable” really means.

I consider myself an anti-natalist but also an amoralist. I do not use any moral argument to defend my anti-natalist position, but instead put forward what I care about and what this entails. In this way, I care most about strangers whose suffering is so extreme, prolonged and awful that their lives might be considered fates worse than death; subjectively so, from both their own and my own point of view. I still care about other people, almost universally, but the top of my priorities are people (and animals) in extreme suffering whose existences I would rather see prevented.

I do not know if this is a unique psychological quirk I have, or if other people can be convinced of the same, but I really cannot stand the thought of even a single individual leading a life of extreme suffering and mostly tearful existence; each life of predominant suffering can be considered a universe of horrors on its own. But consider the scale of suffering on Earth: this planet is estimated to be able to sustain life for a maximum of another billion years. This undeniably means at least billions, but realistically trillions, of humans and animals who will need to endure horrifying lives, even according to most standards. Even if most individuals lead happy lives, these billions or trillions of predominantly miserable lives are what I would like to prevent at their very root.

That said, I value the lives of myself, my friends and family higher than mere strangers. But if I was completely selfless and had no friends and family, I would want the erasure of all life on this planet out of simple altruism. The reason I can consider myself an anti-natalist despite being partially selfish, as well as not willing to sacrifice my friends and family, is that the lifeless world I want would likely take centuries to achieve. And even then, a small retinue of humanity would likely need to continue existing, only to prevent the undeniable horrors of Darwinian evolution to kick-start once again.

Be well brother

Gentrification is issue of the poor, so if you have property in a place that faces skyrocketing land value and decides to stay in such a place being poor for reasons you listed instead of selling it to improve your life it is definition stubborn choices.

It would be ok for everyone, you can stay and be significantly worse of than all your neighbours if it would not include endless outcry about how unjust it is that everyone around you is now better off...

> conquest has served as a non-philosophical assertion.

It's not the most complicated philosophy but still one, through monopoly of force do we dictate who lives where.

Lobsters were once considered to be filthy creatures, and only 'the poors' were unlucky enough to have to actually eat them.

Even our food gets gentrified. The philosophical implications are profound.