Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

newrepublic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#51

Post by kemonocode »

Dig1t wrote: post #39
stopwithslurs wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you people stop using my mother's name as a slur that means obnoxious white woman? I'm used to this bigotry on Reddit but why is it ok here? I'm so sick of it.

I do agree with you, it would be super frowned upon to go around doing the same thing with common names of other ethnicities. I don't think its right that we're okay with low-key disparaging one race but not another. At one point in time I think people would have considered that to be racist, but I guess that's not a thing anymore.

You can't help being born black, or being born a woman. However, you can not be an entitled person who abuses their privilege in order to get ahead of literally everyone else, which is the attitude a "Karen" embodies. Sure, I'll concede the name has been picked poorly, but to be honest, I really do not think it's nearly on the same category as racism or sexism.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#52

Post by [deleted] »

Spooky23 wrote: post #37
perardi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, I hate to pull this out, by: NIMBY-ism. To a first approximation nobody wants an SRO on their back yard. Me? I am just fine with it, I have lived near SROs for years . But…oh whatever, I’ll be blunt: Karen doesn’t want a giant building full of itinerant men on her block, and she is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing.

Lol. Only on HN. I got rid of an SRO in my neighborhood. It was a shitshow... drug deals, issues with open containers and prostitution, car break ins, etc. There are NIMBY assholes. But there are people who just want to live their life peaceably. Something like an SRO can turn from OK to a nightmare with a change in management or ownership. Nobody in their right mind wants one nearby.

[deleted]

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#53

Post by euroderf »

bilbo0s wrote: post #24
andrew_v4 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I completely agree, but I definitely do think this kind of project can be derailed by proponents who want to be uncompromising about it and don't think it's acceptable to compromise in something like location because its harder to get built where people don't want it. An example people probably won't like is those mixed income buildings (can't remember where now) that had separate entrances for the subsidize…

It was NYC. (Manhattan.) And they didn't have separate entrances for subsidized units, they had separate entrances for wealthy penthouse owners who really did have greater security concerns than the run of the mill residents living on lower floors. People who can afford a 20 to 50 million dollar penthouse do think long and hard about security. But the masses simply ignored the service provision aspect and screamed "W…

I guess I didn't get the memo. When we say "security" in this context, what do we mean ? Kidnaping ? Assassination ?

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#54

Post by watwut »

perardi wrote: post #7
hellbannedguy wrote: post #6

I would like to see America build more of these. Even lightening building codes, and zoning requirements (allow for very small rooms). If the Infrasctructure bill promised more of this type of housing I would be thrilled. I'd be happy with a few public restrooms strategically placed around cities, but I guess I'm the only one that needs easy access to a bathroom! 1. It's obvious homlessness is just getting worse. I j…

Ugh, I hate to pull this out, by: NIMBY-ism. To a first approximation nobody wants an SRO on their back yard. Me? I am just fine with it, I have lived near SROs for years . But…oh whatever, I’ll be blunt: Karen doesn’t want a giant building full of itinerant men on her block, and she is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing.

It is always womens fault. Whatever it is.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#55

Post by FDSGSG »

euroderf wrote: post #53
bilbo0s wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was NYC. (Manhattan.) And they didn't have separate entrances for subsidized units, they had separate entrances for wealthy penthouse owners who really did have greater security concerns than the run of the mill residents living on lower floors. People who can afford a 20 to 50 million dollar penthouse do think long and hard about security. But the masses simply ignored the service provision aspect and screamed "W…

I guess I didn't get the memo. When we say "security" in this context, what do we mean ? Kidnaping ? Assassination ?

More basic things like robberies. It's nice to have the building security guy open the door of your car and walk you inside when you're carrying hundreds of thousands worth of jewelry on you.

I don't live in a dangerous area (Westminster), but targeted robberies happen here too. I (and much less my girlfriend with her high jewellery obsession) wouldn't feel super comfortable living in a townhouse or apartment building without 24/7 security staff.

If someone wants to kidnap or assassinate you, this kind of security will probably do nothing to stop them. At least it'll disincentivize robberies, there are easier targets out there.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#56

Post by another_sock »

kemonocode wrote: post #51
Dig1t wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree with you, it would be super frowned upon to go around doing the same thing with common names of other ethnicities. I don't think its right that we're okay with low-key disparaging one race but not another. At one point in time I think people would have considered that to be racist, but I guess that's not a thing anymore.

You can't help being born black, or being born a woman. However, you can not be an entitled person who abuses their privilege in order to get ahead of literally everyone else, which is the attitude a "Karen" embodies. Sure, I'll concede the name has been picked poorly, but to be honest, I really do not think it's nearly on the same category as racism or sexism.

ok Tyrone

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#57

Post by bombcar »

bilbo0s wrote: post #24
andrew_v4 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I completely agree, but I definitely do think this kind of project can be derailed by proponents who want to be uncompromising about it and don't think it's acceptable to compromise in something like location because its harder to get built where people don't want it. An example people probably won't like is those mixed income buildings (can't remember where now) that had separate entrances for the subsidize…

It was NYC. (Manhattan.) And they didn't have separate entrances for subsidized units, they had separate entrances for wealthy penthouse owners who really did have greater security concerns than the run of the mill residents living on lower floors. People who can afford a 20 to 50 million dollar penthouse do think long and hard about security. But the masses simply ignored the service provision aspect and screamed "W…

Honestly if having varying levels of service enables services that wouldn't exist otherwise, I'm all for it. First Class seats don't hurt me and subsidize my flights, so yay first class!

I've often wondered if mass transit would do better if we just openly had first class cars and otherwise segregated them on a price level.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#58

Post by imtringued »

baron816 wrote: post #9
perardi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, I hate to pull this out, by: NIMBY-ism. To a first approximation nobody wants an SRO on their back yard. Me? I am just fine with it, I have lived near SROs for years . But…oh whatever, I’ll be blunt: Karen doesn’t want a giant building full of itinerant men on her block, and she is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing.

It’s not just NIMBY-ism, and NIMBY-ism isn’t what drove these away. What it is is pretty much the minimum mage—housing has to meet a minimum threshold in quality or else it can’t exist. Never mind that people might still be willing to live there and are able to make their own decisions. And some people might not have other options. To many, this seems like exploitation. They’d rather have people living on the street…

>They’d rather have people living on the street than have a business make money off of them.

Considering the way these cities are going they will end up with a lot of people on the street.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#59

Post by dang »

perardi wrote: post #7
hellbannedguy wrote: post #6

I would like to see America build more of these. Even lightening building codes, and zoning requirements (allow for very small rooms). If the Infrasctructure bill promised more of this type of housing I would be thrilled. I'd be happy with a few public restrooms strategically placed around cities, but I guess I'm the only one that needs easy access to a bathroom! 1. It's obvious homlessness is just getting worse. I j…

Ugh, I hate to pull this out, by: NIMBY-ism. To a first approximation nobody wants an SRO on their back yard. Me? I am just fine with it, I have lived near SROs for years . But…oh whatever, I’ll be blunt: Karen doesn’t want a giant building full of itinerant men on her block, and she is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing.

> Karen

I'd put this in the same category as "ok boomer" (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Society may be divided about how ok those putdowns are relative to others, but in an HN context it's flamebait and name-calling, so it breaks the site guidelines. Your comment would be fine without it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#60

Post by dang »

bilbo0s wrote: post #18
gwright wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I'm working from incomplete data and confirmation bias, but it seems to me that those who fight against permanent facilities also seem to be against taking action against ad-hoc encampments. This just one of an almost endless set of contradictions I see in discussions of public policy these days.

I'm fair certain Karen is leading the charge to shut down ad-hoc encampments as well. Let's be honest, we have a lot of Karens in the US, and they're well known for not liking things like tent cities.

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26880612 and make your substantive points without swipes.
Post reply on HN