Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1
Most of those cities on that list either aren't major cities or are even suburbs.
|
Are you blind?
San Diego, Boston, Seattle, Portland, Louisville, Austin, Nashville, Denver, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tuscon, Tulsa, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Albuquerque, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Raleigh, Kansas City, Norfolk/Virginia Beach/Newport News, Mobile, Charlotte, Buffalo, Syracuse, Tampa, Little Rock, Dayton, Albany, Akron, Toledo, Anchorage, Omaha, Des Moines, Boise, Salt Lake City, Lexington, Reno, High Point/Winston Salem, Fort Lauderdale, etc...
Those are all cities that are major nationally or on a state level, and they're all whiter than SF. More than a few of them are
FAR whiter than SF. There's a minority of big cities in the country that are less white than SF, and a majority that are more white, yet somehow SF is "extra white"? Bullshit. The stats speak for themselves, no matter what you want to desperately believe.
For the record, I included non-major cities in the list too (i listed probably over 90% of all cities in the US with over 100k people that are more white than SF), just so I could drive home the point of how stupid it is to consider SF as "extra white" by US standards. More like extra "not-white", really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
I don't think this is a reasonable response. These aren't major cities, and don't have comparable city boundaries.
Cities that one could reasonably compare to SF would probably be LA, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philly, DC, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami and the like. The biggest and most important U.S. cities.
|
And why exactly are those the only cities one can compare SF to? Because they're ones that you cherry-picked to support your argument?
Guess what? There are more cities in the US that are more white than SF than there are cities that are less white. You're comparing SF to some of the least white big cities in the nation, ignoring the much larger number of more white cities, and then claiming that it means SF is extra white for a US city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
Among these probably only Boston is as white, and even Boston is notably more nonwhite than SF in terms of regional context (Boston region is lily white compared to Bay Area).
|
What the hell is this even supposed to mean? Boston is more nonwhite than SF in a "regional context?" You have some interesting logic going on in your head to try and prove your theory of SF being extra white. Here's some context for you: Boston and the Boston metro are both more white than SF and the SF metro. And in case you forgot, SF is not the sole center city of it's metro. Neighboring Oakland is also less white than Boston (by an even larger degree than SF is, of course). So is San Jose.