I think it was problematic because when I was called out it was because I had made a comment about one particular poor/inexpensive neighbourhood being less desirable than other poor/inexpensive neighbourhoods “because then you have to live next to the dysfunctional poor.” Meaning that this particular poor neighbourhood had more drug dealers, pimps, thieves, child abusers and animal-setters-on-fire relative to other poor neighbourhoods.

Which went counter to the thesis of my post that dysfunction is everywhere. Trying to reconcile the two statements would have taken a sociology course, and then I might have turned out to be wrong about one or both.

And no, I am not singling out “traditional working class neighbourhoods” as being the only ones where I think there can be concentrations of dysfunction. You know those fathers who kill their families? They tend not to live in “traditional working class neighbourhoods,” but neither are they evenly distributed. Just as I would prefer not to have to live in certain poor neighbourhoods, I would prefer not to have to live in the kinds of isolating suburbs where mass-murderers incubate.

But this is getting too complicated. I couldn’t simplify it so I didn’t post it.

That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t welcome your thoughts.