
The effects of living in a poor neighborhood - micaeloliveira
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/6/11852640/cartoon-poor-neighborhoods
======
lacker
Hmm, wait a moment.

 _59% of white kids moved up._

 _43% of white kids moved down._

Even accounting for rounding, there's no way to get those numbers. It's even
worse in other places:

 _25% of black kids had parents who grew up in the bottom two levels and moved
up at least one._

 _78% of black kids had parents who grew up in the top three levels and moved
down at least one._

Those two groups should sum to _less_ than 100%, certainly not 103%.

Also, except for the "Moving to Opportunity" experiment, most of this seems to
ignore the distinction between correlation and causation.

This reminds me of the recent finding that 50% of papers in reputable psych
journals reported mathematically impossible data.
[https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-grim-test-a-method-
for...](https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-grim-test-a-method-for-
evaluating-published-research-9a4e5f05e870#.61n0pjt6s) The more people start
to dig in, the more the "social sciences" look unscientific.

~~~
Timothee
That infographic and the text that goes with it could be made _much_ clearer
but your interpretation is not how it should be read. (as far as I can tell)

For one thing, as ASpring mentioned, the text about white kids were shortened,
with the implication that the same sentence structure as for the black kids
should be used. I'm assuming it was done to make the drawing easier to read
(i.e. less text) but it certainly added confusion.

I.e. it reads "25% of black kids had parents who grew up in the bottom two
levels and moved up at least one" and it should read "59% of white kids had
parents who grew up in the bottom two levels and moved up at least one"
instead of just "59% of white kids moved up".

As for "Those two groups should sum to less than 100%, certainly not 103%.",
this is incorrect: the 25% refers to the kids who had parents in the bottom
two levels, while the 78% refers to kids who had parents in the top three
levels. Those are separate groups. (same for the number with white kids)

So, if you look at kids coming from the 40% poorest (unclear if it's overall
or amongst white/black people), from 1955 to 1970, only 25% of the black kids
moved up while 59% of the white kids moved up.

And if you look at kids coming from the 60% wealthiest, 78% of black kids
moved down while 43% of white kids moved down.

In other words, poor black kids are more likely to grow up and stay poor than
poor white kids. Rich black kids are more likely to grow up and become poorer
than their parents than rich white kids.

To simplify a bit (not 100% accurate with the available data but close):
regardless of poverty level when growing up, only 22 to 25% of black kids
moved up (or stayed the same), while 57 to 59% of white kids did.

~~~
Camillo
His interpretation _is_ how it should be read in English. It may be not how it
should have been _written_.

> 78% of black kids had parents who grew up in the top three levels and moved
> down at least one.

Let B = all black kids; BT = black kids who had parents who grew up in the top
three levels; BD = black kids who(se parents) moved down at least one level

The _only_ way that sentence can be interpreted in English is:

|BT ∩ BD| / |B| = 78%

If what they wanted to say was:

|BT ∩ BD| / |BT| = 78%

Then the way to say that in English would have been:

> Of the black kids whose parents grew up in the top three levels, 78% moved
> down at least one.

~~~
Timothee
You're right. Somehow it made sense to me when reading the article, but
reading your comment I see how it doesn't make sense as stated.

I probably implied the "who" since there was no way to have a group qualified
by two conditions like these end up so high. (regardless of totals of the two
percentages)

------
ashwinaj
One of the comments I get people who visit India (I'm Indian) is that how is
there a slum next to a swanky high rise or classy residential/commercial areas
(at least in most big cities). I don't really have an explanation for this
(lack of space, cheap labor etc.), but the more I read about economic
segregation in the US the more I'm convinced that the inadvertent mixed income
neighborhoods in India could be a solution.

If you don't live around people who are less fortunate than you, how can you
understand their plight and their point of view? Handing out a few bucks to a
homeless guy or cutting a check to a non-profit doesn't create any substantial
understanding of the issue.

Obviously there will be opposition to this in the US since people want to live
with other people in the same socio-economic strata as themselves. Other
reasons: 1) I don't want my property price to depreciate 2) I don't want to
live next to "da hood" etc. Until people have a drastic change in attitude
this will be ongoing. The article touches on this a bit (section 8 vouchers)
but why can't we have neighborhoods with multiple levels of housing options
encouraging people with mixed incomes to be around each other.

~~~
themartorana
Huge disclaimer. This is how it was explained to me by my Indian host while I
was working in India.

I remarked to someone basically the same thing - not only was it incredible
that slums - corrugated-cardboard-house slums - sat right next to the 5 star
hotel my company put me up in, but they were relatively _safe_.

One night we were walking through a slum because an Indian gentleman wanted to
expound on my remark, and we came to a square that was decorated with lights
and candles and flowers and all sorts of beautiful things. He said the people
there had pooled their money, despite having so little. He then told me a lot
had to do with the Hindu religion. Most Hindu's believed the position they
were born into in life was the place in their spiritual journey they were
meant to be, and doing well in that life was fundamental. It's a completely
different way of looking at one's poverty.

He remarked that I wouldn't find the same type of sense of community in slums
in Muslim parts of India, because their beliefs about their poverty and their
lot in life was different.

I don't know if that's true, I didn't travel to any Muslim-dominated areas of
India. It may have been true, it may have been his perception, but for that
night, he was at least right about this local community, and it was a huge
culture shock for a young man in his early 20s who had only seen slums in the
US and, potentially more dangerous, Mexico City (and was warned to never, ever
go there by my private corporate-sponsored driver).

~~~
facepalm
I find that Hindu bit fascinating because it is presumably what allows so many
people to coexist on so little space. However, it is also a very convenient
belief for the people who are better off. Kind of like the meritocracy on
speed.

~~~
choosername
I don't see the difference to capatalism (disclaimer: hardly looked). The
believe that anything can be achieved when doing well enough is rather
fundamental, because it's tautological. The modesty to currently accept the
situation as limited by factors out of control is just a factor that can be
controled.

~~~
facepalm
By meritocracy I meant the American beliefthat everybody is responsible for
their own success - but in turn also for not being successful. That seems to
lead to less charity (judging from outside of the US). So Meritocracy might
make you believe that poor people deserve to be poor, just like Hinduism might
make you believe that poor people deserve to be poor. (Just pondering, I don't
have deep knowledge of either cultures).

------
mjevans
While the data might show these correlations I disagree on the premise that is
reached as a result.

It is not just economic stratification, but cultural differences.

Those who have great wealth, and are not celebrity, tend to respect education,
or at least attending 'upper tier academic institutions' for their upper
society connections. Among this group of people knowledge /is/ power and it is
respected.

In economically down-trodden situations it is as if the population has been
conditioned that they are beyond redemption, that there is no hope in
enlightenment bringing them a better future. Maybe they are correct in that
respect as greed is a major driving factor in politics.

I suggest that the culture must change to enshrine knowledge and intellect as
well as society rewarding normal productive labor for a real solution to these
issues.

~~~
ASpring
> I suggest that the culture must change to enshrine knowledge and intellect

How do you suggest to do this?

~~~
mjevans
I too am still only human; within my many flaws are gaps in my knowledge,
experience, and ability that limit my capacity for solving this issue to a
personal level.

That is, I try to set a good example and help those closest to me when I am
able.

Maybe you or someone else has a solution that scales better?

------
randyrand
This just in - being surrounded by good influences is good for you. And vis-
versa.

This isn't rocket science, of course. We've know about the important of
cultural influence for a long time. There was a reason my parents cared about
where I grew up, and who I hung out with.

If you grow up in a culture where people don't care about academics, where
welfare and child support are acceptable forms of provision, where machismo
and crime are glorified, where you are told that discrimination will prevent
you from otherwise succeeding, and that your failures can be blamed on racism
- no, I don't think that culture will have a good influence on you.

~~~
placeybordeaux
while the surrounding culture does matter a lot, it's more than that.

There are also more mundane things such as poor access to quality food,
education and secure places to relax. Malnurishment, poor education and
constant stress all have negative effects on people.

------
mc32
I can dig it.

Living in a bad neighborhood exposes you to an in-ideal living atmosphere. The
people you are around influence you in many ways and one of those ways is the
wrong way --not because people in the neighborhood want bad things for their
brethren --but because their way of life and expectations impinge on the
growth of the new young people in the neighborhood with respect to the wider
society.

Also, it's worth noting that widening inequality is a global phenomenon but
not only between people but amongst nations. The inequality between let's say
Mexico and Finland was different back in 1910 and what it is now. The
inequality between poor and rich in the US was also less in the US back in the
early 1900s.

~~~
Snargorf
Actually, wealth inequality in the West was higher before World War One. They
called it the 'gilded age' for a reason.

It only got a lot more equal because WW1, the Depression, and WW2 combined
destroyed most of the stuff the rich people had.

Only recently has wealth inequality re-approached pre-WW1 levels.

Source: Piketty.

~~~
btilly
_It only got a lot more equal because WW1, the Depression, and WW2 combined
destroyed most of the stuff the rich people had._

Don't forget 92% marginal tax rates on income over $1 million/year.

That was slashed to 72% under JFK. But regional inequality only took took off
after it was slashed to 50% then to 28% by Reagan.

Today the rich have lower tax rates than average Americans.

~~~
Snargorf
Those rates were basically fiction. All they led to (and the only reason they
could be levied) was a huge system of fake on-paper money-losing schemes.
People would arrange all sorts of business ventures and other schemes to
appear to be losing money, and thus reduce their taxes.

The actual tax receipts as a percentage of income were very close to what they
are today.

~~~
WalterBright
Reagan's tax deal with Congress was eliminate the tax shelters in exchange for
lowing the top rate. The former has been forgotten.

~~~
thowfaraway
The main goal of the 1986 tax deal was simplification, eliminating tax
shelters was inherent to the plan, not something traded for lower rates. If
there was any exchange for lower top rates, it was raising corporate and
capital gains taxes to keep the plan revenue neutral.

~~~
WalterBright
Wealthy people do not care about tax simplification, they care about how much
in tax they have to pay. So the trade was lower tax rates overall in exchange
for giving up the low tax rates that made tax shelters extremely attractive.

Your position underestimates how pervasive tax avoidance using shelters was at
the time. The wealthy were never going to give that up for simplification,
after all, they could have simplified their taxes anyway by not investing in
shelters if that was their issue.

------
aab0
A highly one-sided presentation. Let me point out some issues: it makes major
hay of Moving to Opportunity, but MTO is a notorious failure - it increased
crime rates in targeted areas, and showed no improvements on anything until
the cited Chetty paper managed to torture out of the data, just recently,
improvements in only 1 subgroup on only a handful of metrics (which, aside
from Vox misstating the Chetty results by implying it was _all_ MTO
participants, rather than one post hoc subgroup, contradicts the later
experiment: the claimed effects do not remotely overlap); non-randomized moves
are heavily confounded by upward mobility and human capital; many other
studies like Swedish lottery studies and the land lottery natural experiment
show that exogenous shocks of wealth do not produce meaningful improvements in
things like health anywhere remotely close to the observed correlations of
wealth/health; genetically informed family designs which account for
heritability by looking at siblings differentially exposed or by looking at
relatives tend to find that most 'poor neighborhood' effects are driven by
genetic confounds; specific versions of the 'poor neighborhood' hypothesis
tend to go down in flames when rigorously tested (most recently, the claim
that schizophrenia is caused by bad neighborhoods, which everyone was _sure_
about; polygenic scores for schizophrenia show that it is the other way around
- schizophrenics and those vulnerable to schizophrenia drift to poor
neighborhoods); in genetics studies, the correlation between wealthy parents
and one's own SES turns out to be entirely genetically mediated; the
parent/child IQ thing is differential regression to the mean; and so on. Many
of the claims made in OP are naively causal and are guaranteed to be
overestimated based simply on not including genetic relatedness. These are
just the recent contrary studies I happen to remember offhand.

When you look at especially the recent genetic studies using polygenic scores
from the GWASes to test environmental claims (eg Mendelian randomization),
it's becoming increasingly clear: the slate is not blank and the sociology
emperor has no clothes. I don't even know... what can be done about sociology?
It is 2016 and every time I see a newspaper article or editorial invoking
sociological results, it's totally wrong, and the sociologists quoted seem
100% committed to ignoring all the contrary evidence that not all differences
are 100% due to environments. I mean... can you imagine seeing Vox cite a
recent paper like "The Genetics of Success: How Single-Nucleotide
Polymorphisms Associated With Educational Attainment Relate to Life-Course
Development"
[http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/05/26/095679761664...](http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/05/26/0956797616643070.abstract)
or a newspaper article on it (which _didn 't_ quote some scientists arguing
that genetics research should be defunded or that the research is irrelevant)?
That would be nice - society needs to come to grips with the confirmation of
behavioral genetics. But it doesn't seem like it will happen anytime soon.
It's all terribly frustrating.

Anyway, I didn't mean to rant or try to write an in depth carefully cited
rebuttal, but I just wanted to say: it is not as simple as 'poor people are
poor and unhealthy because of racism and poverty', and there is lots of high-
quality evidence of this which tends to go undiscussed in liberal media
outlets, so pieces like this are closer to advocacy than research
popularization.

~~~
beatpanda
> society needs to come to grips with the confirmation of behavioral genetics.

In your opinion, what would that look like in the ideal case?

------
galfarragem
Empirically (aka having grown up in a poor neighbourhood) I would say that
during infancy it doesn't matter much, it mostly depends on your parents
background: they are the largest influence on you. It really starts to hurt is
during teenage years when kids get independent. Then one of two situations use
to happen: the environment pushes them down or they remove themselves from it
and grow lonely. None of the options is optimal.

 _Law 10: Infection: avoid the unhappy and the unlucky._ \-- Robert Greene (48
laws of power)

 _Law 18: Do not build fortresses to protect yourself – isolation is
dangerous_ \-- Robert Greene (48 laws of power)

------
dudul
"Another popular left-wing idea is a universal basic income" UBI is _not_ only
supported by left-wingers.

~~~
brogrammer90
As someone who actually owns rentals in poor black neighborhoods, UBI is the
most retarded ivory tower idea I've seen gain traction. All the black families
on my street have section 8 vouchers, so they basically have no debt service.
What do they do with all this free time? Deal drugs, look for marks to mug,
break into vacant apartments, wake up at 2 pm, etc. Drive through my street
around noon and count the number of able bodied men doing absolutely nothing
productive and you'll lose count. They're hopeless.

~~~
dragonwriter
Section 8 vouchers are a means-tested benefit program where the net benefit
decreases with outside income, and, as such, create a disincentive (especially
since people qualified for them also, nearly invariably, are on _other_ means-
tested benefit programs whose benefits _also_ decline with additional income
-- sometimes, in aggregate, leading to a _greater_ than 1:1 decline in
benefits compared to increased income) to productive activity.

This is precisely one of the problems with means-tested benefit programs,
especially with an uncoordinated collection of such programs, that UBI, with
its unconditional nature, is designed to solve. I don't see how that
description of the effect of Section 8 vouchers (even if it is assumed to be
both accurate, and generalizable) illustrates that UBI is a "retarded ivory
tower idea".

~~~
grahamburger
This is the thing I really don't get about UBI. It really, really doesn't
remove means testing. Your tax burden is still means based, and that
determines whether your ubi is net positive or net negative. So again, your
net benefit decreases with increased outside income, because you're paying
more in taxes.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
It's not means testing that's the problem. The problem is that a linear
combination of benefit programs with a below-unity benefit-to-income slope has
an above-unity slope, which means that making an additional dollar
disqualifies you from more money than the dollar gives you. The benefit
programs as a whole aren't designed holistically to avoid this (and other)
traps, so any welfare overhaul that consolidates multiple independent programs
into a systematic whole should solve these problems.

~~~
dllthomas
And even before unity-in-dollars, it can be way below unity-in-utility for
opportunities available.

------
known
Reminds me of
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility)
and
[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=433866](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=433866)

------
batat
Expected to see something like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt–Igoe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt–Igoe)
story.

------
dang
This looks like a pretty substantive article with an unfortunately
infantilized presentation. Let's try to stick to the important content if we
can.

~~~
minimaxir
Compared to the _quirky and random XD_ reaction GIFs and image macros that
populate modern thought pieces for _no constructive purpose whatsoever_ , the
images in the article are fine and provide a relevant visual aid.

~~~
fchollet
> the quirky and random XD reaction GIFs and image macros that populate modern
> thought pieces

I'm just glad that we don't read the same "thought pieces"

------
ausjke
Why blacks are not doing well?

Because they were from Africa, but new immigrants from Africa came to US earn
a pretty decent life quickly than those have been here centuries ago.

Because they're minority, but other minorities such as the Jews and Asians are
working hard and earning a decent life here.

Because of less chance to get education, but you have affirmative action that
you can get into decent college at a huge discount as far as scores go. Also
so many financial support for economically disadvantaged families.

Because of unfair tax system, election system... those seem not the key reason
to me too.

I might be missing something else.

I think it's probably more of a culture thing, that favors education, hard
working, loyal to family, etc. Without that, the civil rights law or various
diversity initiatives can only help that much. The black community needs to
address that gradually and it's the only way to fix the "poor neighborhood"
for good.

In where I live, the elected democratic officers decided to bridge the poor
community with "rich" community by building government-sponsored condos right
next to or in the middle of up-middle-class communities,the result is that
people move out and the house price drops, does not look like a right fix to
me.

~~~
bo1024
Yes: you are missing the history of the United States. This was most of the
point of the article: Black people disproportionately live in poverty (not to
mention the history of discrimination in this country), and the effects of
living in poverty are extremely harmful. Your post seems to be missing the
history of human slavery in the United States, the subsequent history of
discrimination, and the conditions it created whose effects and legacy are
still very strong today. You can't control for these factors by comparing to
other minority immigrant groups!!

One can argue that there are negative cultural effects, but it's a chicken-
and-egg issue because history has created conditions for cultures of e.g.
gangs and violence to arise. Similarly, the solution must address both the
chicken and the egg. Your comment about "the black community needs to address"
black culture, while perhaps well-intentioned, is the sort of argument
historically commonly used by powerful whites to justify a "not my problem"
philosophy toward black poverty and living conditions that create a negative
culture.

How does one create a culture that favors education when inner-city schools
provide useless educations and are filled with gang violence, when there is
little hope of using education for good? How does one create a "hard working"
culture when the best "jobs" that seem realistically available are selling
drugs, or when hard work fails to be rewarded due to discrimination? How does
one create a culture of "loyal to family" when 73% of black children live in
single-parent households (compared to 25% of white children)? (source:
[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2013/jul/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2013/jul/29/don-lemon/cnns-don-lemon-says-more-72-percent-
african-americ/) )

All I can do in closing is suggest that, if you really want to understand your
question "why are blacks not doing well", you should read some history,
studies/statistics, and accounts of what life is currently like for blacks in
the US.

(Edited to change the source of the data.)

~~~
BurningFrog
> Your comment about "the black community needs to address" black culture,
> while perhaps well-intentioned, is the sort of argument historically
> commonly used by powerful whites to justify a "not my problem" philosophy
> toward black poverty and living conditions that create a negative culture.

This is a terrible argument. Statements are not automatically false because
awful people agree with them. If Hitler thinks 2+2=4, decent people are not
forced to choose 3 or 5.

It seems to me that only black people can change black culture. Who else would
do it? How?

~~~
bo1024
It was not an argument, just a comment. But to address your second comment,
part of the point of my post is that people outside the black community can do
many things to improve the conditions that lead to a negative culture (which
is not necessarily about being black but more common to poverty broadly):
provide better schools, better housing options, decrease discrimination of all
forms, better/fairer policing, replace the war on drugs with a fight against
addiction, ...

------
cb18
Doesn't all this seem somewhat backward.

There's this victimization mentality that acts like poverty is this absolute
thing that is meted out like a cursed rock, outside the control and agency of
whom it's been placed upon.

Why don't we have more discussion about the _causes_ that lead to the _effect_
of poverty.

It's really more productive to see poverty as being an effect, or outcome of
other causes or actions. Change the input and get a different outcome. And at
a certain point it becomes a personal responsibility. If you want to help
someone else, great, but the two of you have to be pushing in the same
direction.

And likewise, external conditions do have effects, if it comes to light that
someone appears to be needlessly and negatively imposed upon there's clearly a
place in society for discussing how best we can optimize everyone's external
conditions. Everyone faces obstacles, but placing blame wholly outside oneself
is always going to be a losing battle.

> _On top of it all, if a murder occurred in a child 's neighborhood — in an
> area of about six to 10 square blocks — their score fell by 7 to 8 points._

This is so ridiculous that people can make a pronouncement like that, thinking
it's a reasonable analysis, or indeed the only analysis.

We know that intelligence is a highly stable trait. Meaning for intelligence
to be significantly diminished[0] requires something pretty drastic, like a
serious brain injury or some kind of long term deprivation. There is no reason
to think someone being killed within a particular distance of someone would
have any kind of effect. Do all soldiers come home as dunces?

Something seems to be missing from the kind of people that write these
articles. Hard to say what it is exactly, a more holistic view, better
analytical capabilities, less pre-conceived notions, _intelligence_?
something...

If they had whatever missing ingredient, then they might understand that an
analysis that stands up to rigor is something more like,

People tend to self-segregate along a whole host of traits[1], intelligence is
a trait. The trait of intelligence is linked to a propensity for certain types
of crimes. Murder among them, therefore it follows that the people that commit
murder are statistically likely to have lower intelligence, as are the people
around them.

> _Oh, another thing: Living in these poor neighborhoods makes you
> significantly less happy, less hopeful, and less healthy_

Oh, another thing: Any analytical mind of any worth can clearly see that the
inverse has just as much going for it, if not more.

It seems to clearly follow that people who are less happy, less hopeful, and
less healthy would make their neighborhoods poorer. How a focus on improving
happiness, hope, and health? Telling people their predicaments are caused by
factors outside of their control is the last way to improve any of those
things.

[0]7 to 8 points is half a standard deviation, i.e. significant.

[1]See Schelling's Macro Micro, for some of the mechanisms involved.

~~~
pjc50
_Do all soldiers come home as dunces?_

Many come home with post-traumatic stress disorder. Having people murdered in
your neighbourhood can also result in PTSD.

 _less happy, less hopeful, and less healthy would make their neighborhoods
poorer_

Which way does the causation really run here?

------
PoorBloke123
This article is the biggest bunch of rubbish that I have read in months. It
takes bias to whole new levels. People are starting to realize that "studies"
are almost always biased in the first place and should not be trusted.
Secondly, look at some of the examples used:

A comparison is made between:

> 25% of black kids had parents who grew up in the bottom two levels* and
> moved up at least one.

and

> 59% of white kids moved up

Notice any difference here? The whole article is like this. Comparing
completely separate things. This is laughable. I feel embarrassed by the bias
and sorry for those who read this article with a straight face.

~~~
dang
We've banned this account. Single-purpose accounts are not allowed on HN,
especially when their single purpose is to post political rants.

If you want to participate on HN in good faith, respecting the rules about
civil, substantive discourse, you're welcome to email us at
hn@ycombinator.com.

~~~
jamiequint
Did he edit his comment? He's obviously failing at reading comprehension, but
I don't see how his comment is a political rant in any way. He's (incorrectly)
pointing out Vox's bias in the way they present data.

Personally, I also don't trust anything on Vox after they posted this debacle
of statistics last year: [http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-
united-sta...](http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-
states-america) which attempted to make a point on why gun control was so
needed while completely failing to control for suicide (the most common cause
of gun related death) and trying to make points about how gun control lowered
suicide rates (by gun) while failing to note that a link between overall
suicide rates and gun control has not yet been established by any study.

While this particular poster is simply wrong about the data presented here, I
would hate to think that anything that doesn't conform to a left-wing
viewpoint on HN would be considered "political" just for that reason.

~~~
dang
It isn't just a question of that one comment. Even so, the amount of name-
calling and froth in there qualifies it for rant status in my book. YMMV of
course.

I would hate to think that too, and we try our best to apply the rules evenly
across political divides. Comments need to be civil and substantive; this one
was neither, and our tolerance for someone breaking the guidelines goes down
as the pattern of breaking them goes up. Users who feel that we misread their
intention and genuinely want to post civil, substantive comments don't
typically have a hard time persuading us to unban them.

~~~
benaiah
Reading his previous comments, and considering the brief age of the account
and the consistency of tone in the previous comments, I agree with your
decision - I think people forget that the mods here are quite approachable and
upfront when it comes to bans and ways to move forward from them.

Thanks dang, you’ve tangibly improved my opinion of both the comments here and
their moderation since you’ve come on board.

