What is the most liberal city in the South (crime, best, compared)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I knew Dallas repealed it which is why I added the word "had" in my sentence... And liberals know all about conservatives using fear as a motivating factor. I remember the opposition's ad: "No men in women's restroom."
C'mon seriously? You guys are so liberal yet you let some over the top fear mongering ad scare you out of voting for an anti discriminatin ordinance. So when they tell you Hillary Clinton is going to turn this into a communist country and the U.S. will get taken over by Muslims if she's elected, that should be enough to scare you guys out of voting for her.
People in Dallas wouldn't be phased by some typical conservative fear mongering advertisements like that. You say the "people didn't know." I know ppl in Houston aren't as bright as DFW ppl but damn. Know what you're voting for, no excuse! And you completely dismissed my bag tax argument, the fact that it was even a thing in Dallas and is a thing in Austin is sufficient evidence. Inner loop Houston would probably be the most liberal in the state but unfortunately you guys are so big that you have to include the entire city. Your comment about Austin's demographic also infers that someone's ethnicity determines their ideology. I'd bet a person's political party is more closely related to ideology than the color of their skin. Austin has a nude lake for crying out loud. Those liberal cities you speak of in California consist of a lot of liberal white folks so your argument against Austin is very debatable. Even Rick Perry referred to it as a blueberry in a bowl of tomato soup.
If it was about geographic proximity, then the residents of New Orleans could have just as easily went to Birmingham, AL. But no, Houston offered to take many displaced citizens in, sheltered them, and nurtured them to a degree no other US city did. It was the largest such sheltering operation in the country's history: Houston Strategies: Newsweek on post-Katrina Houston
I mean geographic proximity to a big city, and most likely one where the displaced residents already had familial ties. Being that Houston and Birmingham are equidistant from NOLA and Houston has several times more resources, jobs, etc., it's only natural that more New Orleanians would flock there over Birmingham. Even so, I'd expect even a big conservative city to welcome displaced residents; that has little to nothing to do with ideology, just common human decency. And if there is a correlation, I've seen studies where conservatives have been found to be a bit more charitable than liberals: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/1...-Conservatives
Quote:
You are falling for the illusion in Houston's politics, caused by the expansive sizes of both the city and the county. The key core areas in the city definitely take after those Berkeley values, and once they are unleashed, you will see the true liberal city Houston is. Again, nothing like Pacifica in the South, except in Houston; no steady stream of progressive values anywhere else in the South, but in Houston.
I'm sure there are key core liberal areas in Houston as in every big city, but what makes you think they'll be "unleashed" in a way to overwhelm the moderate/conservative elements in the city, which are much larger? And there are several other Southern cities that get a "steady stream of progressive values;" Pacifica has plenty of other affiliate stations all throughout the South and there are also several other local radio stations in other cities. Also, KPFT in Houston doesn't appear to have a particularly large listenership; the highest figure within the past decade I was able to find was about 150K. But for what it's worth, the station has survived in Houston for 40 years so there's obviously an audience for it.
Quote:
Furthermore, the three year time interval of desegregation for Houston (1960-1963) accounts for desegregation is general, not just for public facilities (at least, not outlined specifically in the article):
^So, the time interval was just the length of time for desegregation for large parts of Houston in general, not just for public facilities (movie theaters, as you mentioned earlier, weren't public facilities).
Well not quite; for instance, in Houston golf courses desgregated in the mid-50's, public facilities and movie theaters in the early 60's, and public school desgregation stretched into the 70's. It happened piecemeal everywhere.
^Were those riots the ones you were referring to? If not, there are your race riots.
There's no source for that statement; I'm thinking the 1965 reference should instead be 1966 which references the instance I spoke of previously which was not associated with desegregation efforts, and in all my research, I have not found any instance of a riot in 1968. That was the year Dr. King was assassinated and most riots that year were in response to that; Atlanta was one of the few major cities that did not riot. Now another source says there was a riot in both Atlanta and Houston in 1967, but I've not been able to find much information about them: https://books.google.com/books?id=oL...20riot&f=false
Quote:
As far as Civil Right's coverage, my conjectures are based on this:
Certainly desegregation efforts met with outright hostility and violence received the most coverage, but I've already shown that sit-ins, marches, protests, etc. in Atlanta were not marred by violence. However, given that many of these efforts were student-led and Atlanta has the largest concentration of HBCUs in the country and was the nerve center of the CRM where many prominent Civil Rights leaders participated in these demonstrations, of course there would be coverage. And to be clear, Houston's desegregation efforts didn't receive coverage essentially because censorship was at work; backroom deals were worked out with local news outlets where it was agreed that they wouldn't cover such events, albeit non-violent, and national news media criticized the city for that.
Quote:
No disagreement. However, I will say that Houston, innately, is much more liberal than Dallas/Atlanta, given that attitudes and personalities can be influenced by geographic location, economy, and demographic make-up, and considering Houston's traits in each of those categories. Dallas and Atlanta, however, both had harsher scars and wounds from history to cover-up, and they did so through pushing policies at a quicker pace than Houston, which did not have as many scars.
The OP asked which city is the most liberal in the South, without any specific qualifiers; thus, the answers can be determined through looking at the liberalism in terms of both practice, and in innate feeling. While innate feeling may not seem as important, it really is huge in terms of strong potential, and ease at which big time policies can be enacted, and the experience visitors have when they interact with a populace.
All in all, this is honestly a very interesting, and engaging discussion. Thank you for your time.
The problem I have with this is that there's no way to quantify "innate feeling" apart from things that actually get DONE--ordinances, measures, protections, etc. If you have the former but not the latter, then you have what I've said several times now: indifference, which means absolutely nothing on a practical level which is what really counts. So when you speak of Houston having potential I can agree with that, but let's realize that potential refers to that which has not yet been actualized; it does not speak to present reality.
The big Texas cities are a lot more liberal now than they have ever been, but they are still very much dominated by conservatives imo.
I don't feel anymore conservatism in the Texas cities than I do with Atlanta, or even Miami. When I stay in the inner cores of Houston, and Dallas, I feel like I am pretty much devoid from conservative experiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FJB327
I knew Dallas repealed it which is why I added the word "had" in my sentence...
So Dallas had it, and in the end, repealed it; the liberal policy stopped being enforced. There goes your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FJB327
And liberals know all about conservatives using fear as a motivating factor. I remember the opposition's ad: "No men in women's restroom."
C'mon seriously? You guys are so liberal yet you let some over the top fear mongering ad scare you out of voting for an anti discriminatin ordinance. So when they tell you Hillary Clinton is going to turn this into a communist country and the U.S. will get taken over by Muslims if she's elected, that should be enough to scare you guys out of voting for her.
People in Dallas wouldn't be phased by some typical conservative fear mongering advertisements like that. You say the "people didn't know." I know ppl in Houston aren't as bright as DFW ppl but damn. Know what you're voting for, no excuse! And you completely dismissed my bag tax argument, the fact that it was even a thing in Dallas and is a thing in Austin is sufficient evidence. Inner loop Houston would probably be the most liberal in the state but unfortunately you guys are so big that you have to include the entire city. Your comment about Austin's demographic also infers that someone's ethnicity determines their ideology. I'd bet a person's political party is more closely related to ideology than the color of their skin. Austin has a nude lake for crying out loud. Those liberal cities you speak of in California consist of a lot of liberal white folks so your argument against Austin is very debatable. Even Rick Perry referred to it as a blueberry in a bowl of tomato soup.
Nothing much I haven't already addressed in my earlier post, so I will just take on some aspects of this post.
1.)The fact that the plastic bag tax got taken away would mean that the point you were trying to put forth (with Dallas being liberal for that) was moot.
2.)I already addressed that Houston's large city limit area causes an illusion in the political data of the city, making it appear more conservative than it really is.
3.)Houston's diversity and cosmopolitan nature compared to Austin means more awareness and alertness in regards to the world, which, in turn, leads to more tolerance, and acceptance of elements outside of a comfort zone, which, in turn, leads to more liberal viewpoints. Houston, on top of that, has a stronger developed fine arts and food scene compared to Austin (greater creativity and innovation, another liberal trait).
4.)Austin has a nude lake? Okay, Houston has Pacifica Radio, streaming ideas to the city straight from Berkeley, CA since 1970. And Houston is the largest consumer of renewable energy in the USA.
5.)All the large Texas cities, not just Austin, at some point, have been referred to as "blue dots in red seas," or "oases."
You are going to have to do better than this; you never put much effort in debunking the points put forth in my earlier post to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
I mean geographic proximity to a big city, and most likely one where the displaced residents already had familial ties. Being that Houston and Birmingham are equidistant from NOLA and Houston has several times more resources, jobs, etc., it's only natural that more New Orleanians would flock there over Birmingham. Even so, I'd expect even a big conservative city to welcome displaced residents; that has little to nothing to do with ideology, just common human decency. And if there is a correlation, I've seen studies where conservatives have been found to be a bit more charitable than liberals: Who
It wasn't so much about just taking them in as it was providing massive amounts of resources for sheltering operations, treatment and care, etc for the New Orleans residents. Conservative cities wouldn't give out as much resources to the people as liberal cities, since such social welfare isn't really in conservative viewpoints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
I'm sure there are key core liberal areas in Houston as in every big city, but what makes you think they'll be "unleashed" in a way to overwhelm the moderate/conservative elements in the city, which are much larger? And there are several other Southern cities that get a "steady stream of progressive values;" Pacifica has plenty of other affiliate stations all throughout the South and there are also several other local radio stations in other cities. Also, KPFT in Houston doesn't appear to have a particularly large listenership; the highest figure within the past decade I was able to find was about 150K. But for what it's worth, the station has survived in Houston for 40 years so there's obviously an audience for it.
Complacency, unfortunately, was a trait seen in many Houston area progressives, due to reasons I stated earlier in the thread (SCOTUS ruling, not much social disturbances in the city, etc). The defeat of HERO might have been the needed wake-up call to mobilize the epic amounts of progressive elements Houston has always had.
Like I said, Houston is the only city in the South with a true Pacifica outlet, meaning it is the only city in the South that is receiving such a constant streaming of Berkeley-style liberal ideas. Other affiliates won't be quite the same. Of course there are other sources of progressive ideas, and such sources are seen in many Southern cities, but Houston has Pacifica along with those other sources; thus, Houston has that much more of an accumulation of progressive ideals compared to other Southern cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
Well not quite; for instance, in Houston golf courses desgregated in the mid-50's, public facilities and movie theaters in the early 60's, and public school desgregation stretched into the 70's. It happened piecemeal everywhere.
I was just saying that the time interval did not specifically outline desegregation for just public facilities; it just gave it out for desegregation throughout the city in general. Not that it invalidates your overlying point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
There's no source for that statement; I'm thinking the 1965 reference should instead be 1966 which references the instance I spoke of previously which was not associated with desegregation efforts, and in all my research, I have not found any instance of a riot in 1968. That was the year Dr. King was assassinated and most riots that year were in response to that; Atlanta was one of the few major cities that did not riot. Now another source says there was a riot in both Atlanta and Houston in 1967, but I've not been able to find much information about them: https://books.google.com/books?id=oL...20riot&f=false
Okay, thanks for clarifying. I will look into this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
Certainly desegregation efforts met with outright hostility and violence received the most coverage, but I've already shown that sit-ins, marches, protests, etc. in Atlanta were not marred by violence. However, given that many of these efforts were student-led and Atlanta has the largest concentration of HBCUs in the country and was the nerve center of the CRM where many prominent Civil Rights leaders participated in these demonstrations, of course there would be coverage. And to be clear, Houston's desegregation efforts didn't receive coverage essentially because censorship was at work; backroom deals were worked out with local news outlets where it was agreed that they wouldn't cover such events, albeit non-violent, and national news media criticized the city for that.
Alright, maybe not violence, as in having actual fisticuffs, but those actions in Atlanta, for the reasons you described, would have been more dynamic, significant, and accompanied with greater tension, compared to those events in Houston. Thus, my theory (on why Houston is so complacent) still holds, meaning that my master argument (that innately, Atlanta, Dallas, and even Miami, aren't more liberal than Houston) still stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
The problem I have with this is that there's no way to quantify "innate feeling" apart from things that actually get DONE--ordinances, measures, protections, etc. If you have the former but not the latter, then you have what I've said several times now: indifference, which means absolutely nothing on a practical level which is what really counts. So when you speak of Houston having potential I can agree with that, but let's realize that potential refers to that which has not yet been actualized; it does not speak to present reality.
Liberalism can be gauged just by innate feelings alone; just simple talking with the citizens of the city, for instance allows the visitors to be exposed to such innate feelings, allowing them to then make a judgement on the liberalness of the city, based on the amount of passion displayed in the conversations.
If there are feelings, but no actual practice, and yet the citizens feel strongly for such practice, what is present, rather than plain indifference, is complacency; the citizens though that their victory was assured no matter what (which, of course, was a miscalculation). However, now Houstonians know better; the present reality is that this recent defeat of HERO just made the lava start bubbling in the proverbial volcano that is Houston's progressive action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterlemonjello
Two things:
1) Using a Wikipedia article to prove Dallas is conservative is bunk.
2) If you have to remove transgender protections from the ordinance for it to pass a vote, your city isn't liberal.
1.) The text in that specific portion of the Wikipedia article detailing Dallas County politics is based on legit, outside sources, and thus is not bunk. One of many: Dallas: A Blue City in a Red State
2.)I only talked about lack of clarification of the restroom part being the aspect voters took issue with, causing them to vote down the ordinance; never did I say that complete removal of Transgender rights was needed to allow Houston's bill to pass. In fact, I outlined specifically that the LGBT community in Houston was sticking strongly with each other, no matter what, when transgenders could have easily been pushed aside to allow quick passage of the ordinance.
3.) Just go sit down somewhere; maybe you would then be less clueless and confused at the concepts being discussed here.
I live in Miami and it ain't liberal, people. Not compared to Seattle, San Francisco, or Portland, OR.
Miami is full of followers, posers and very traditionally minded Latin Americans. People in Miami arent environmentally conscious, dont have liberal marijuana laws, it not a safe-haven city with progressive politics. HA! Miami is anything but.
I
1.) The text in that specific portion of the Wikipedia article detailing Dallas County politics is based on legit, outside sources, and thus is not bunk. One of many: Dallas: A Blue City in a Red State
2.)I only talked about lack of clarification of the restroom part being the aspect voters took issue with, causing them to vote down the ordinance; never did I say that complete removal of Transgender rights was needed to allow Houston's bill to pass. In fact, I outlined specifically that the LGBT community in Houston was sticking strongly with each other, no matter what, when transgenders could have easily been pushed aside to allow quick passage of the ordinance.
3.) Just go sit down somewhere; maybe you would then be less clueless and confused at the concepts being discussed here.
The article you posted proves my point, not yours. But thanks.
As to point two, there was no need for clarification. Its illegal to discriminate against transgender people in Dallas or Austin. Period. It never became about the bathrooms because the fear mongers never made it about that in both cities. If you are a transgender woman who was born a man, you can use the women's restroom. It wasn't about the wording of the ordinance, it was about how the opponents of said ordinance made their fight.
The article you posted proves my point, not yours. But thanks.
If you had paid even the slightest bit of attention at all to this discussion, you would have noticed that my point was that a lot of the difference in liberalism between Dallas/Dallas County, and Houston can pretty much be explained by the differences in set-ups and jurisdictions between the two metro areas. As the article notes, a lot of Dallas County's democratic gains were due to conservatives flocking away to the exurbs, many of which would be outside the city/county, due to the set up of DFW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterlemonjello
As to point two, there was no need for clarification. Its illegal to discriminate against transgender people in Dallas or Austin. Period. It never became about the bathrooms because the fear mongers never made it about that in both cities. If you are a transgender woman who was born a man, you can use the women's restroom. It wasn't about the wording of the ordinance, it was about how the opponents of said ordinance made their fight.
So, are you saying that opponents of the EROs in Austin and Dallas didn't use the same tactics that those of Houston's did?
*I know wording was never the problem, and that the whole bathroom argument was a sham; I was just saying that many of the people who voted NO otherwise would have voted YES if they had been clarified on the restroom aspect, or even the ordinance itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterlemonjello
As to the nice little dig you tried to throw at me, you're a child in college. You have no real world experience. Go get some and come back to me.
Real world experience comes simultaneously with the college lifestyle. Try again.
Meh. Protected groups have been and will continue to be discriminated against in every major city in this country. HERO was a tool designed to hitch Houston onto the LGBT bandwagon, since everyone knows that your city can't be seen as progressive unless it's giving gays everything they want.
Meh. Protected groups have been and will continue to be discriminated against in every major city in this country. HERO was a tool designed to hitch Houston onto the LGBT bandwagon, since everyone knows that your city can't be seen as progressive unless it's giving gays everything they want.
Yeah, civil rights are very important and progressive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
