|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 08 2018 08:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2018 07:57 zlefin wrote:On April 08 2018 07:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 08 2018 07:49 zlefin wrote:On April 08 2018 07:45 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 08 2018 07:38 zlefin wrote: also, remember this is the US politics thread, so we use the US politics terminology; so right wing and conservative go together a great deal. and conservative does imply right wing in the US parlance. This doesn't make sense to me. Right wing is surely a subset of conservative that implies certain far-right beliefs, regardless of the country or setting. I can understand how a conservative could be a right winger, but they are not identical, even in the USA. Peterson doesn't hold far-right or extreme views at all, not in any way. right wing doesn't imply far-right beliefs; it includes moderate-right beliefs. they need not be extreme to qualify as "right wing" by the american parlance standards. they may not be identical, but they're pretty overlapping in the way the terms are used here. words mean different things in different places; so it needn't "surely" be that. it makes perfect sense (insofar as anything in language does); it's just not the definitions you're used to; you're thinking using the british definitions rather than the american ones. Fair enough. Going back to the original point though, the article in question was written by the Guardian, a British media organization. yes, but a media organization, and hence familiar with international term usage and its variations. and it's being written about a canadian (i don't know what the standards are in canadian parlance). maybe they use the standards of the nation they're from; or are applying american standards given the amount of talking he does in america/to americans. and was it made more for international consumption on their website, or for offline purposes in britain? and the point where you object to the article bein tagged alt-right, and clal that a smear job, reeks of you wanting to find an objection, rather than reasonably looking at the situation. because a) the tag could be because the article discusses alt-rigthness, and hence is about that topic, regardless of the conclusion as to whether he's in it; and b) tagging of stuff is often done sloppily anyways. The reason I have come to the conclusion that the Guardian is smearing Peterson is that I have actually read the articles that they have written about him. None of them address his arguments because all they need to do to discredit him to Guardian readers is say how awful, right wing and transphobic he is, then repeat that over and over again. I have seen people criticize him fairly, but not really in the mainstream media, because they have an easier way out which eliminates the need to think critically. So, given that you are arguing so 'reasonably', how did you find the Guardian articles on Peterson? Are they fair? Do they represent his opinions properly? now you're shifting your claims and trying to put the blame on me for your own failure to state your claims properly; the example you cited, was about tagging, I rightly and reasonably responded to the point you stated, not other points.
If you haven't seen any fair criticisms in the mainstream media, you aren' tlooking, because the mainstream media is pretty big, and would certainly include some simply as a result of volume of material. or there are fair criticisms, that you simply refuse to see/admit are fair. that would also explain it. at any rate, it's clear this discussion has ended the potentially fruitful phase, so i'm not going to talk with you anymore about this matter, still willing to talk with others about it.
|
Would you be able to tell someone else your opinions on the articles, whether they are fair to Peterson, or his output in general?
I'm just wondering whether you know anything at all about the subject you are arguing about..
|
Ted Kennedy, the senator from Massachusetts, never became president. That being said, he definitely brought something to politics in America that is unforgettable. Too bad that he was taken down by the whole car accident scandal in the 60's, otherwise he would have been president for sure. As the "liberal lion" in the senate, definitely he had some major clout in the political scene & that's something. I guess the liberals might make a resurgence in the Senate in these upcoming November 6 elections by bringing up some figures in their party that are doing well for themselves. It's difficult to predict how things will go in the future, though, so, who knows what might happen.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/ted-kennedy-chappaquiddick-scandal-legacy/
|
Peterson is interesting in the way that all Christian existentialists are interesting - because there's something in Counter-Enlightenment irrationalism mysticism that lots of people find very alluring. Where Peterson is not interesting is politically (and this is the political thread), in which he has the same old anti-academia, individualistic, anti-social and economic justice view that conservative intellectuals have had for like 50 years now. I saw him described as the 'foremost right wing intellectual since William F Buckley', which kind of sums it up.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/
Here's an interesting article for anyone concerned with 'mainstream' takedowns of Peterson that links in his irrationalist views with his politics.
|
On April 08 2018 09:02 kollin wrote:Peterson is interesting in the way that all Christian existentialists are interesting - because there's something in Counter-Enlightenment irrationalism mysticism that lots of people find very alluring. Where Peterson is not interesting is politically (and this is the political thread), in which he has the same old anti-academia, individualistic, anti-social and economic justice view that conservative intellectuals have had for like 50 years now. I saw him described as the 'foremost right wing intellectual since William F Buckley', which kind of sums it up. http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/Here's an interesting article for anyone concerned with 'mainstream' takedowns of Peterson that links in his irrationalist views with his politics.
I see your convincing and historically supported review and raise you with this far snarkier one with much more direct language.
https://johannesburgreviewofbooks.com/2018/04/04/richard-poplak-sets-jordan-b-petersons-house-in-order-a-scorching-review-of-12-rules-for-life/
Imagine a self-help book written by the Darth Maul of tenured campus bad boys, an act of trahison des clercs so severe that it calls into question the entire five-thousand-year academic project—a book that seeks to make accessible to a general audience a mélange of mysticism, philosophy, psychology and dietary recommendations, assembled into a package so intellectually low-cal that it would be hilarious were it not basically a to-do list for a generation of tiki torch-wielding neo-Klansmen.
|
On April 08 2018 04:24 Kickboxer wrote: There is nothing vague about "maps of meaning" or "personality and its transformations". Which, incidentally, cover most of the truly interesting things he's talking about.
Yes there is, rofl. Have you not seen those diagrams? I'd need to be home and not on my phone to craft a more complete answer but just the sight of the diagrams should really be enough said.
(Incidentally I'm in the US right now so, hi guys)
|
|
On April 08 2018 11:03 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2018 04:24 Kickboxer wrote: There is nothing vague about "maps of meaning" or "personality and its transformations". Which, incidentally, cover most of the truly interesting things he's talking about.
Yes there is, rofl. Have you not seen those diagrams? I'd need to be home and not on my phone to craft a more complete answer but just the sight of the diagrams should really be enough said. (Incidentally I'm in the US right now so, hi guys) https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
Sorry to keep linking articles but this one is fullll of quotes from his work that show how much he struggles to express himself with any degree of clarity or in an at all concise manner. I think the vagueness in what he says works to his advantage though because he literally is a modern day wanna be mystic.
|
~53% of verified gang members in Mississippi are white
100% of the people prosecuted under the state gang law between 2010 and 2017 were/are Black.
A phenomena interesting enough on it's own, representative I suggest, of a failure of our society to reconcile where we've been as a nation, where we are, and where we want to go.
The following article digs into this a little bit. + Show Spoiler +I don't endorse everything the article says or think it covers everything involved but I'll pull out some interesting bits
Ivey, now 41, is muscular and likes to keep fit, even though he only weighs 160 pounds. He sports a buzz cut and has tattoos over much of his body. He proudly calls himself a “redneck”.
Gesticulating passionately during a driving tour of Jackson houses he broke into over the years, Ivey explains the absurdity of the media fixating on “inner-city” gangs. “The world should know there are whites struggling in hoods as well as any other race, and more often than not those kids become gang members or drug addicts,” he says.
Ivey was 12 when he began sniffing Scotchgard. He soon followed his adoptive parents and two uncles – all school dropouts – into addiction. His dad made $20 an hour as a carpenter, but most of it paid for their habits.
By 15, Ivey had dropped out of school and broken into probably 200 houses, robbed a crack dealer, had a cop kick his face into the pavement, and started selling meth to support his own addiction. He went in and out of juvenile detention and Mississippi’s notorious “training schools” that, before being reformed, were near-torture chambers for mostly African American and poor white delinquents.
At 21, Ivey was living with other drug users who helped run dope out of a small rental house.
Not a fan of the intro sentence, but an interesting story and Ivey has an valuable point about the lack of coverage on people like himself and the folks he ran around with. I think why it isn't covered has several factors. I think that's worth discussing. Not sure if I'm required/expected to take a position myself, but one I would draw attention to is that finding out that the US is failing white citizens on massive scales damages a much needed mystique to perpetuate the capitalistic oppression of people domestic and abroad.
+ Show Spoiler +The Royals’ roots date to Chicago’s North Side in 1952, when two violent white “greaser” gangs – the Ashland Royals and Simon City – guarded Simon Park turf as Puerto Ricans moved in.
Early greasers were immigrants, often Italian, maligned by wealthier whites for greasing machines in blue-collar jobs. In 1968, the greasers united as the Simon City Royals, often rumbling with the nearby Latin Kings as well as the white supremacist Gaylords. (Their rhetoric is familiar: a Gaylords nostalgia website called Latino gangs “storage bins for illegal immigrants”.)
The Royals were one of the biggest and most violent street gangs in Chicago by the 1970s, when they joined the Folk Nation alliance with the Black Gangster Disciples, began admitting Hispanics and, later, women and black members.
But by the 1980s, the gang had weakened after its leadership got locked up or killed.
Strength shifted to prisons, and the brand spread to midwestern and southern states like Mississippi, where the Royals are now one of the largest and most violent gangs in the state.
Some fascinating gang history of the South. Also personally had no idea that's where 'greaser' comes from. Totally thought that was about hair styles.
+ Show Spoiler +Surveys of young Americans have shown that 40% identifying as gang members are white, but police tend to undercount them at 10% to 14% and overcount black and Hispanic members, says Babe Howell, a criminal law professor at City University of New York who focuses on crime and race.
“Police see groups of young white people as individuals, each responsible for his or her own conduct, and hold young people of color in street gangs criminally liable for the conduct of their peers,” she says.
I think this shows the pattern in Mississippi, while exaggerated, isn't unique. ____________
+ Show Spoiler +How law enforcement labels specific gangs may also obscure white membership, a 2012 study published in the Michigan Journal of Race and Law posited.
Jordan Blair Woods researched how the feds had applied the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico) to various gangs. Congress passed Rico in 1970 to target the mafia as organized “criminal enterprises”. In the early 1990s, the attorney general, Janet Reno, started using Rico to charge criminal street gangs.
Woods explains that law enforcement typically splits gang activity into three groups: white supremacist prison gangs, outlaw biker clubs and criminal street gangs. He concluded that systemic racism often keeps white gangs categorized as prison and biker groups instead of street gangs – the category drawing the toughest charges and sentences.
An interesting bit about the disparate and disproportionate systemic application of laws. ____________
This next bit is something else. I'm pretty familiar with all this stuff, but to see someone talk about it like this is still a little shocking.
+ Show Spoiler +In 2004, Ivey was locked up for four years for manufacturing crystal meth. He ran his chapter via cellphone (“a little gangster would hold it for me”) and he sent missive “scrolls” to Royals on the outside.
In 2008, he returned to a trailer park where a mother of two called Spirit lived and assisted with operations. She helped Ivey administer the Royals’ fund; he required each of the 150 members to contribute $12 a month. They could borrow for a child support payment or to keep their lights on.
Thomasa ‘Spirit’ Massey was 'queen' of the Simon City Royals chapter Benny Ivey ran from her trailer in Rankin County, Mississippi. She helped administer the shared Royal 'poor box' fund and was in charge of other women who joined the gang. She also worked as a paralegal until she was arrested.
If they didn’t repay, or violated other rules, Ivey assigned Royals to beat them.
His members prided themselves on not being racist. Ivey’s members were all “100% fine” being allied with a black gang, but his Royals weren’t diverse. “It was an all-white organization,” he says. Still, he didn’t see much bigotry among his members. “I think everything depends on the person … Hell, a lot of the Royals acted more black culturally than white.”
There's so much to unpack in just that italicized part I'm getting tired just thinking about it. ______
More interesting personal story overlapping with Mississippi gang activity and law enforcement.
+ Show Spoiler +By late 2008, Ivey’s organization started to unravel internally. His first lieutenant, Kruz, started squabbling with two young members called Smash and Street, whom he suspected were talking to the cops. Soon afterwards, police told Ivey that no Royal better touch their informants. “If anything happens to them boys, we coming for you,” a local lieutenant warned.
Spooked, Ivey left town for a few weeks, but a mob of Royals beat up Smash and Street while he was gone and were arrested on $1m bonds. When leaders get locked up is a prime time for violence – which is now more often intra-gang than between different gangs, Northwestern University sociologist and violence expert Andrew Papachristos reports.
Then 32, Ivey was sent to the private Delta correctional facility because of gang activity. There, he gathered the Royals in the yard.
“I have to retire because I’m a liability,” he said.
Nobody objected.
Law enforcement say the Royals started growing exponentially on the Gulf coast in 2008 – the year Ivey retired– and are now Mississippi’s third largest criminal street gang.
They now refer to themselves as “Chapter 13” and the Mississippi Combat Legion. Police say the gang traffics guns and narcotics, with some members participating in gruesome violence against snitches.
Finally a fascinating summary of some of the various ideas running through his and I'd imagine a lot of people like his minds about various aspects of race and justice in the US.
+ Show Spoiler +Over the last year, Ivey built a large deck for Sunday cookouts, positioned a flatscreen for Nascar viewing and turned his garage into a workout studio with a large Confederate flag over his weight set.
“I’m not racist, but I like the flag,” he says, calling it defiance of those who put rednecks down. “People up north like to make fun of us.”
Still, the flag was gone in December when the black photographer he had gotten to know for this article visited. “I didn’t want to hurt Imani,” he says later. “The flag is not about racism to me.”
Ivey’s brother Danny, who is now in rehab, had turned Aryan Brotherhood in prison, tattooing a swastika on to his chest. But Ivey says he has spent too much time around black people with similar struggles to think he’s superior to them.
He also doesn’t believe “white privilege” is a thing. “I think it’s wealth privilege. I don’t care what color you are, if you’re poor, you get treated like crap. Because I never had none of that white privilege,” he says.
“We have the same problems as all other races when it comes to money, social stature, living with nothing, drugs, addiction, poverty,” Ivey says. “All that is all too real for a lot of us.”
Ivey attends a church by the interstate with a few black members. He works on houses in formerly lily-white South Jackson, where race demographics have flipped since his family house-hopped there. But he passed on talking to kids at a Jackson YMCA about avoiding the gang life.
“It’s all black kids,” he says. “They’re not gonna listen to my cracker ass.”
Today, many locals are surprised to learn that white gang members ran drugs and kicked in doors for two decades between Jackson and its majority-white suburbs.
“We watch the news every morning,” Ivey says. “My little girl comes in here and says, ‘Why do black people commit so many crimes?’”
“Baby, because we have Jackson news, and there’s two-thirds black in Jackson,” he tells her. “White people do bad, too.”
www.theguardian.com
There's a lot there, but I'd be interested in discussing any of the sections I pulled out, or for those that are big supporters of a more racially inclusive approach there's more in there about white plight worth discussing as well if you want to highlight it.
|
I think the only part of that I'm capable of participating in an informed discussion on is the last section you pulled out. In my opinion, the most valuable insight in the entire article is probably the support Ivey gives to the idea that the best way to fight racism is integration. It resulted in someone who proudly calls himself a redneck, likes the confederate flag as a symbol of his heritage, but still recognizes that it's a symbol of people fighting for slavery to others and takes it down when someone who might be hurt by it will be there.
I'd also like to ramble a little about the efficacy of fighting poverty compared to fighting structural racism. At the level of poverty Ivey is described as dealing with, I can understand the idea of wealth privilege rather than white privilege. I think he's wrong, though. His skin color probably helped at sentencing, or at least didn't hurt him. It also arguably helped keep him from getting shot instead of arrested
Still, I would agree with his overall assessment of discrimination based on wealth being the more apparent problems, given that intentional racism built into societal structure in the past was crafted to make black people poor and keep them that way. When the powers that be couldn't set poor white people against poor black people, the poor white people became acceptable collateral damage.
Societal views about poverty and employment are still downright Puritan/Victorian amongst some segments of society, which really does lead to structural discrimination against poor people. I think that reducing and eliminating structural barriers to poor people moving out of poverty would also ameliorate some of the effects of structural racism. It wouldn't do a damn thing about police shooting unarmed black men, but actions such as improving schools in poor neighborhoods would hopefully lead to a more integrated society which should eventually improve the police shooting situation.
Before anyone jumps on me for that last bit, waiting a few generations for the situation to improve with regards to police killing black people is not acceptable. I just think that fighting for an overhaul of the police shouldn't necessarily totally eclipse fighting for an overhaul of our economic system.
|
On April 08 2018 12:03 Kyadytim wrote: Societal views about poverty and employment are still downright Puritan/Victorian amongst some segments of society, which really does lead to structural discrimination against poor people. I think that reducing and eliminating structural barriers to poor people moving out of poverty would also ameliorate some of the effects of structural racism. It wouldn't do a damn thing about police shooting unarmed black men, but actions such as improving schools in poor neighborhoods would hopefully lead to a more integrated society which should eventually improve the police shooting situation.
Before anyone jumps on me for that last bit, waiting a few generations for the situation to improve with regards to police killing black people is not acceptable. I just think that fighting for an overhaul of the police shouldn't necessarily totally eclipse fighting for an overhaul of our economic system.
I largely agree with the part I cut out and the rest but I wanted to focus in on a particular aspect.
I'm of the opinion that we must tie inextricably the economic fight to the racial justice one. Otherwise we end up with another generation of comfortable white liberals and conservatives who don't understand why impoverished Black people are so pressed in such a great country that just reinvigorated communities across the nation with an economic platform that lifted millions. Then another few decades of funding, finding, compiling, analyzing data, and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Black people were left out of it. Then another few decades arguing with the liberals about how much justice, and how fast is enough to satisfy Black people but not upset their corporate donors or right leaning elected officials/electorates.
EDIT: Ideally for those in control, long enough for the data to fall out of date and new superficial reforms can be pointed to as having already been working on addressing the issue (even if they selectively track their success).
EDIT2: To put some perspective/context to this, think about what statistical figures we can point to, to demonstrate anything has gotten better to close the gap between white and black US communities since the 60's or since before that even.
|
On April 08 2018 11:03 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2018 04:24 Kickboxer wrote: There is nothing vague about "maps of meaning" or "personality and its transformations". Which, incidentally, cover most of the truly interesting things he's talking about.
Yes there is, rofl. Have you not seen those diagrams? I'd need to be home and not on my phone to craft a more complete answer but just the sight of the diagrams should really be enough said. (Incidentally I'm in the US right now so, hi guys) Welcome to Freedom Land. It staggeringly large here.
|
United States41970 Posts
On April 08 2018 12:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2018 11:03 Nebuchad wrote:On April 08 2018 04:24 Kickboxer wrote: There is nothing vague about "maps of meaning" or "personality and its transformations". Which, incidentally, cover most of the truly interesting things he's talking about.
Yes there is, rofl. Have you not seen those diagrams? I'd need to be home and not on my phone to craft a more complete answer but just the sight of the diagrams should really be enough said. (Incidentally I'm in the US right now so, hi guys) Welcome to Freedom Land. It staggeringly large here. With levels of conspicuous consumption you’d never dream of.
|
On April 08 2018 13:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2018 12:46 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2018 11:03 Nebuchad wrote:On April 08 2018 04:24 Kickboxer wrote: There is nothing vague about "maps of meaning" or "personality and its transformations". Which, incidentally, cover most of the truly interesting things he's talking about.
Yes there is, rofl. Have you not seen those diagrams? I'd need to be home and not on my phone to craft a more complete answer but just the sight of the diagrams should really be enough said. (Incidentally I'm in the US right now so, hi guys) Welcome to Freedom Land. It staggeringly large here. With levels of conspicuous consumption you’d never dream of. I strongly recommend visiting a car dealership or cellphone store just to see the nightmare in full swing.
|
On April 08 2018 13:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2018 13:04 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2018 12:46 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2018 11:03 Nebuchad wrote:On April 08 2018 04:24 Kickboxer wrote: There is nothing vague about "maps of meaning" or "personality and its transformations". Which, incidentally, cover most of the truly interesting things he's talking about.
Yes there is, rofl. Have you not seen those diagrams? I'd need to be home and not on my phone to craft a more complete answer but just the sight of the diagrams should really be enough said. (Incidentally I'm in the US right now so, hi guys) Welcome to Freedom Land. It staggeringly large here. With levels of conspicuous consumption you’d never dream of. I strongly recommend visiting a car dealership or cellphone store just to see the nightmare in full swing. Apple store. If you want to see the true horror, go to an Apple store. It's basically a temple to wasting money on a regular basis.
|
The biggest culture shock for me is how square everything is in terms of city planning, the blocks and the streets and all. It feels really artificial or something.
But yeah, I'm hit by the freedom too of course
|
On April 08 2018 11:18 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2018 11:03 Nebuchad wrote:On April 08 2018 04:24 Kickboxer wrote: There is nothing vague about "maps of meaning" or "personality and its transformations". Which, incidentally, cover most of the truly interesting things he's talking about.
Yes there is, rofl. Have you not seen those diagrams? I'd need to be home and not on my phone to craft a more complete answer but just the sight of the diagrams should really be enough said. (Incidentally I'm in the US right now so, hi guys) https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserveSorry to keep linking articles but this one is fullll of quotes from his work that show how much he struggles to express himself with any degree of clarity or in an at all concise manner. I think the vagueness in what he says works to his advantage though because he literally is a modern day wanna be mystic.
Thank you (and others) for posting analyses of Peterson, especially this one. It seems that the more we come to understand about his work, the more we realize how unimpressive it is.
|
America continues to fairly directly compete with China on monetary issues but there is little interest in that in most voters as what they consider important are law-and-order concerns such as national security & national identity, as well as free water and & a mechanism for trying to connect people with jobs. Those things continue to work good. That said, this trade thing matters as well as there are a lot of jobs that are involved in that. Manufacturing, agriculture, & aircraft development - these are important sectors of the US economy. What seems to be happening is that there is more nationalism in the US & also more nationalism in China nowadays. That in & of itself is not such a bad thing - patriotism helps unity & helps people feel that they belong.
I think that there is too much competition going on between the US & China & that is a cause for concern. I guess I don't really know what a "trade war" is supposed to be, but it seems that there probably will be slightly more obstructions to the flow of goods between the US & China than there has been in the past, so that's a bummer. India also has a developing economy & probably could provide more raw materials to US businesses if they are willing to dither & sort out the details of how that process is going to work. In my opinion, the US should imitate Germany & become a little more nativist than they are now. I guess Bavaria is dealing with issues of fair trade, immigration, & national identity as well, so there is some common ground there.
https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21739965-new-favourite-word-germanys-csu-heimat-bavarias-conservatives-are-embracing-identity
|
On April 08 2018 14:08 Nebuchad wrote:The biggest culture shock for me is how square everything is in terms of city planning, the blocks and the streets and all. It feels really artificial or something. But yeah, I'm hit by the freedom too of course data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/41f32/41f32ccbf9c308e87a90fa896d4fd874e9b79ee6" alt=""
Come to SoCal and you'll see and feel something more organic in that regard data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt=""
+ Show Spoiler +I'm assuming you are in the east
|
On April 08 2018 15:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2018 14:08 Nebuchad wrote:The biggest culture shock for me is how square everything is in terms of city planning, the blocks and the streets and all. It feels really artificial or something. But yeah, I'm hit by the freedom too of course data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/41f32/41f32ccbf9c308e87a90fa896d4fd874e9b79ee6" alt="" Come to SoCal and you'll see and feel something more organic in that regard + Show Spoiler +I'm assuming you are in the east I dunno. LA has big square city blocks and squat concrete buildings as far as the eye can see. New Would cities are just far more planned out in general, or maybe just haven't had time to evolve their own collection of bending alleys, and generally nonsensical street layouts. It also helps that there were no US cities in the middle ages when most of this mess happened (the existence of city walls with a growing population are the main culprit).
|
|
|
|