Confronting Urban vs. Rural Prejudices

[Babale]

@Ulfreida

The left is also very white, and what is perhaps more daunting to outsiders, very highly educated and super-verbal. You may not understand this, but people who aren’t as educated as you are extremely intimidated by that.

The fact that so many people in this nation take pride in their ignorance (and this problem is by no means limited to rural areas, though it is certainly widespread there) is exactly the problem. If you’re unwilling to educate yourself about issues like climate change and because of that you just go with your gut and declare that humans couldn’t possibly impact something as big as the planet, you’re screwing over all of us.

Eta: or as noted in the post above, if you refuse to educate yourself about COVID, you hurt us all, too

[Hari_Seldon]

@eschereal

Ah, so you just have to threadshit. What a worthless turd you have pinched out here.

He is not threadshitting. You have gone over the line. Official warning

[DavidNRockies]

I’m trying to watch TV and have a conversation with my wife as I type this, so please forgive the somewhat disjointed nature …

@Ulfreida

That’s why it’s better to talk about livestock, or your mom in hospice, or how to make peach pie. If you can’t see them as human, how can they see you as human?

I respect your perspective and appreciate learning about your experiences.

I think there’s a lot of intolerance to go around, but – specifically – I think there’s a bit of a rural tendency to be intolerant of those who are different, where – IMHO – I think the left/urban tend to be more intolerant of intolerance.

@Ulfreida

The left is also very white, and what is perhaps more daunting to outsiders, very highly educated and super-verbal. You may not understand this, but people who aren’t as educated as you are extremely intimidated by that. It’s a small step from feeling awkward and ignorant to feeling that you are MADE to feel awkward and ignorant by those with more schooling and a different “higher” culture.

I think there also is a large measure of intellectual insecurity, which – though sometimes exacerbated by those who feel ‘better than --’ isn’t really the latter’s fault.

When you can’t really talk politics if your positions differ, and/or when you are made to feel uncomfortable or unsafe because you don’t look, act, or think like others, and – at the end of the day – when the quiet majority tends to put some of your most basic rights to a vote … that’s a recipe for enmity.

When you can’t even have frank discussions with people because your beliefs are different from theirs … how easily do you think people with very basic differences will fit into their world – take any minority class.

As others have described, there tends to be more effort from the ‘rural’ folk to legislate their views onto the urban folk. I’ll also concede to some of the reverse (eg, guns).

When ‘city folk’ exacerbate some underlying intellectual insecurity in denizens of rural America … the rural Americans often fight back … in pretty extreme and insidious ways.

[Acsenray]

@puddleglum

Cities are richer than rural areas. They have been for thousands of years. Liberalism’s number one goal is to tax money from the rich to give to the poor. Since rural areas are poorer they get more tax money spend on them proportionally. This is what liberals voted for.

The problem is that having gotten the benefits of some of the tax money on their end, they then vote to prevent us from spending other parts of the tax money on other people, like urban poor, minorities, immigrants, etc. Having gotten their share, suddenly they’re against anyone else getting a share.

[DavidNRockies]

I wanted to point to a post I made in another thread … that may be duplicative of what’s already here, but …

What (if anything) is good about rural America?

We live in a relatively small town. This. When we have visitors from diverse metropolitan areas, one observation seems to break into two camps: They love the homogeneity – the very narrow demographic. They’re tired of “Pressing ‘1’ for English” They’re a bit disquieted by the stark lack of diversity. One termed it a “white utopia.” And it isn’t always benign. The lack of diversity has a very insidious side that comes off as judgment, bigotry, fear, and intolerance. Or worse. The…

[Babale]

@Acsenray

The problem is that having gotten the benefits of some of the tax money on their end, they then vote to prevent us from spending other parts of the tax money on other people, like urban poor, minorities, immigrants, etc. Having gotten their share, suddenly they’re against anyone else getting a share

This is a a very succinct way to put it.

[k9bfriender]

@Ulfreida

The left is also very white, and what is perhaps more daunting to outsiders, very highly educated and super-verbal.

I don’t agree with this. The left is the party that supports unions and good jobs for those who are not highly educated. I personally have only a high school diploma and part of an associates degree in a vocational trade. The left is the one who would like to offer an education to anyone who wants it.

Now, it is true that those on the left tend to delve deeper into the nuance of things, to discuss policy on a more specific level, rather than just spouting slogans. It does require a bit more cognitive rigor to keep up in those conversations. But it is not anything that requires advanced degrees or special schooling, just a willingness to learn and pay attention to the world around you.

@Ulfreida

It’s a small step from feeling awkward and ignorant to feeling that you are MADE to feel awkward and ignorant by those with more schooling and a different “higher” culture.

What you are describing are elitists, and you will find those both on the left and the right. Maybe your only experience with people on the left are of that sort, but nearly all of my lefty friends are in similar situations to me.

@Ulfreida

I’ve had many encounters with people who assumed I was a big snob because I know a lot of words. Of course, I am a big snob, but I’m weirder than that.

I’ve had people insult me for sounding edumecated, but it has nearly universally been an insult from my right leaning acquaintances. I’ll point out to them that they have a college degree and a job that pays 6 figures, so why am I the one who is acting “snobbish”?

@Ulfreida

I don’t disagree. I just have a different point to make.

The overwhelming vast majority of conversations I have with people both on the left and the right have nothing to do with politics. Well, the last few months, my conversations with those on the left have tended to include them, for obvious reasons.

However, anytime politics do come up, you cannot express a different opinion without an extreme reaction. I avoid any political discussion around my family, and yet, they find the need to occasionally get little barbs in, to try to get me to respond with something that they can get angry about.

With my left friends, we are all over the place with regards to healthcare. Some want a pure single payer govt run system, others want simple subsidies, many would like a public option, others like the ACA with just some tweaks. We can have in depth conversations about the merits of the different systems, and even though it is rare for someone to actually change a mind as to their preference, everyone comes away feeling that their position was respected, and could probably live with a different system than their preferred one being implemented.

Among my right acquaintances, the govt shouldn’t be involved in health care, period. Even the ones on Medicaid or Medicare feel this way. Any suggestion that the govt should ensure that everyone has access to health care will be shouted down, often with insults, always with falsehoods.

Same with pretty much all discussions as to any sort of policy, from education to climate change. There are nuanced discussion and cordial disagreement on the left, and a demand that you accept the single position from the right.

@DavidNRockies

I’ll also concede to some of the reverse (eg, guns).

I don’t think that that is a good concession. The cities just want to be able to control the guns that are in the city. They don’t really care what those in rural areas have, as long as they don’t find their way into the city.

[Kron]

@k9bfriender

Now, it is true that those on the left tend to delve deeper into the nuance of things, to discuss policy on a more specific level, rather than just spouting slogans. It does require a bit more cognitive rigor to keep up in those conversations. But it is not anything that requires advanced degrees or special schooling, just a willingness to learn and pay attention to the world around you.

As I mentioned upthread, a definite “aggressive incuriosity”. Not only no desire to learn about things that don’t directly affect them, but many are hostile to the very idea.

I’ve never understood why, which is why I’ve always felt out of place.

[DavidNRockies]

@k9bfriender

@DavidNRockies

I’ll also concede to some of the reverse (eg, guns).

I don’t think that that is a good concession. The cities just want to be able to control the guns that are in the city. They don’t really care what those in rural areas have, as long as they don’t find their way into the city.

I understand that point, and think it’s valid, but …

It’s hard to argue that the likely policy prescriptions in order to control which guns hit the city won’t affect the rural areas at all.

It’s like saying that Chicago has a high gun murder rate and tough gun control laws: Chicago isn’t a literal island [‘an island surrounded by big water.’ G-d, I despised that man.]

One could easily argue that, since we’re all in this together, rural America might have to make a few sacrifices to keep urban gun crimes and mass shootings down.

But it would be hard to argue that they wouldn’t be affected at all.

I also suspect that they see gun crime as an overwhelmingly urban issue, making any sacrifice on their part akin to your best friend asking you to stop drinking because he’s going to join AA.

[DavidNRockies]

@Kron

As I mentioned upthread, a definite “aggressive incuriosity”. Not only no desire to learn about things that don’t directly affect them, but many are hostile to the very idea.

I’ve never understood why, which is why I’ve always felt out of place.

I love my brother and SIL dearly, but they are very right wing and very religious.

I believe their brains, literally, work far better with certainty. It was often said about George W. Bush, “Often wrong, but never in doubt.”

Certainty is comforting. Uncertainty, doubt, and complexity can be frightening (though, clearly, some of us literally embrace it).

IME, there’s a certain kind of person who virtually never asks questions (in a discussion, f’rinstance). Their computer keyboard shows absolutely zero wear on the question mark key.

It’s an ominous sign. It basically says, “Caution: Aggressively Incurious Person Ahead.”

[Retzbu_Tox]

@Exapno_Mapcase

How stereotypical of a ruralist not to think globally. Yes, cities need food and raw materials – but they don’t have to come from inside their own country.

The original intended topic is prejudices, not the pros and cons of global trade. I think saying it is “stereotypical of a ruralist not to think globally” is an example of prejudice. I am a liberal, an atheist, I have a degree in psychology, and have spent the last 30 years working with people with mental illness and with teens in the criminal justice system. I happen to live in a rural area. I bought a piece of property in the country from my wife’s family where we built our house. I rent (cheaply) the tillable part of my property to the same farmer who had been renting it for decades before I bought it. I worry about global warming. I don’t like to see habitats of endangered animals around the world destroyed. I don’t like to see the exploitation of workers in poor countries.

There are many crops that aren’t grown in the US, or products that are not manufactured here. I have no problem with importing such things, or with imports that compete with US production. I do not like sweat shops and slave labor. I like the idea of leveraging imports to help improve the lives of people everywhere. Buy from companies that pay and treat their workers better. Help develop farming practices that don’t involve further destruction of the environment.

I assume that if I made a statement like “It’s stereotypical of a city dweller to think blah blah blah”, that I would give the appearance of being a prejudiced redneck with no concept of the diversity of values present in cities. Not all rural people are the same. Trump got 75% of the local votes in 2016, but got 72% this year. His popularity here declined, at least a little, although his supporters have gotten annoyingly more vocal.

At any rate, “How can we create a strong and ethical global economy” would be a great topic for another post, if you wanted to start one.

[Retzbu_Tox]

@Hari_Seldon

Moderating:
Accusations of trolling are not permitted outside the pit. If you think a post is a troll, flag it and let the moderators decide. No warning but don’t do it again.ttps://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-urban-vs-rural-prejudices/924916/70

Can do. I’m too used to self-policing my own topics on other media. I can let someone else handle that! Sorry!

[Acsenray]

@Retzbu_Tox

I think saying it is “stereotypical of a ruralist not to think globally” is an example of prejudice.

In a discussion about trends, using yourself as an example of an exception is very, very irrelevant. It’s also disingenuous to accuse people of stereotyping when the whole point of a conversation is broad trends ans generalisations.

Look, the data is in—by and large, rural people manifest certain behaviors and attitudes and urban people manifest certain behaviors and attitudes.

It’s fair to say:

1. You’re reading the data wrong. Here’s what it really says

2. Your data is out of date or disputed. Here’s why

3. You’re getting the causes wrong. Here’s what I think the causes are

An illegitimate response is:

“I’m not like that so your assertions are prejudiced.”

If you’re an exception, this conversation is not about you.

[k9bfriender]

@DavidNRockies

It’s hard to argue that the likely policy prescriptions in order to control which guns hit the city won’t affect the rural areas at all .

There may be some down the road, but for the most part, there has been pushback as to what can be done in cities. Heller, for instance didn’t affect rural areas at all, but was pushed by the right. Due to that precedent, cities are extremely limited in what gun control measures they can implement within their own boundaries. Reversing that wouldn’t make any difference in rural area’s access to guns.

At worst, down the road, there may be slight inconvenience to rural areas if handgun sales are better regulated and tracked.

@DavidNRockies

But it would be hard to argue that they wouldn’t be affected at all.

A comparison of harms. Will they be more affected by regulations to control gun violence within city limits, or are cities more affected by gun violence within city limits.

It would be very selfish of them to insist that they are not asked to make any sacrifice at all, when it is their refusal to make that compromise that causes fairly extensive harm to others.

They should absolutely be a part of the discussion, to find the best way to decrease the number of irresponsibly or criminally owned guns in a city, while minimally impacting their convenience, but if they just walk away from the table, then they have chosen not to be a part of it.

@DavidNRockies

I also suspect that they see gun crime as an overwhelmingly urban issue, making any sacrifice on their part akin to your best friend asking you to stop drinking because he’s going to join AA.

I’d compare it more to your best friend asking you to stop bringing beers with you when you visit because he’s going to join AA.

And it’s not like rural areas are unaffected by gun violence. There is crime, increasing crime, in fact, in rural areas. There are “accidents” fairly regularly in rural areas.

It may be by your best friend asking you not to bring beers when you visit, you find that you too could stand to cut back a bit on the drinking.

[Retzbu_Tox]

There have been a lot of comments relating to subsidies to rural areas or to urban people’s taxes being spent in rural areas, but is mostly been opinions and anecdotes. There have been few cites to show what those numbers are. I spent several hours the last two days trying to find accurate information about at least the farming/agriculture part of rural subsidies. I haven’t had a chance yet to look at other spending on rural infrastructure. I am definitely not an economist, and many of the places putting out articles and studies are likely biased one way or the other, and I have difficulty penetrating some of the jargon or weasel words.

Anyway, it doesn’t look like farm subsidies are going where I thought they were going, and maybe not where other posters thought they were going either. The bulk of farm subsidies go to wealthy corporate farms by the billions. They generally do not go to the little family farms. It’s not as much a subsidy of rural people as a subsidy for the grain industry.

This article includes a list of some of those most benefitting from farm subsidies.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2018/08/14/mapping-the-u-s-farm-subsidy-1-million-club/?sh=574c2e673efc

Another article (link below) on farm subsidies states: “Between 1995 and 2019, the top 10% of recipients received 78% of the $223.5 billion doled out, according to EWG.9 The top 1% received 26% of the payments. That averages out to $1.7 million per company.
Fifty people on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans received farm subsidies. On the other hand, 62% of U.S. farms did not receive any subsidies.”
https://www.thebalance.com/farm-subsidies-4173885

I don’t know that I would have any problem with those subsidies being stopped. For all I can tell, that might make grain prices go up and actually benefit the small family farms.

[Retzbu_Tox]

@Acsenray

using yourself as an example of an exception is very, very irrelevant.

It seemed to me that elaborating what my views are in response to Exapno_Mapcase’s statement regarding my thinking being stereotypical of a ruralist was entirely relevant.

Exapno_Mapcase can likely defend his/her own premise. I don’t want to argue with people, I want to understand them. Perhaps Exapno_Mapcase and I have viewpoints that are actually more similar than is immediately obvious.

[Babale]

The singular form of “data” is not “anecdote”. There are exceptions to every rule. If 75% of your county voted for Trump, 3 out of 4 of them voted for ignorance and dishonesty. I don’t think they did it because they’re all terrible people. They were fooled. The question is, why? And how do we fix it?

[Retzbu_Tox]

In my rural county, 75% voted for Trump 4 years ago. His support where I live dropped to 72% this year. Nationwide, Republican support by whites declined. (See article.)

https://www.brookings.edu/research/2020-exit-polls-show-a-scrambling-of-democrats-and-republicans-traditional-bases/

I hope that is actually a trend and that it continues. Why did Black, Latinx, and Asian-American support for Democrats also decline? That’s something else to be concerned about.

In addition to support from whites declining in general, the whites-without-a-college-degree demographic group is shrinking.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/03/907433511/trumps-base-is-shrinking-as-whites-without-a-college-degree-continue-to-decline

Why were people fooled by Trump? To me, tribalism and placing greater value on believing what you want to hear rather than using critical thinking skills would be a couple of the important factors.

How do we fix it? Again, to me, figuring out some way to reduce the divisive rhetoric and push education would be a couple of things. I am so sick of seeing all the mocking divisive memes from either side. Why would anyone want to listen to a person who opens the dialogue with a mocking cartoon of why they think you are stupid/gullible/evil? If social media didn’t make it so easy to spread poison, that would be nice.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Retzbu_Tox

It seemed to me that elaborating what my views are in response to Exapno_Mapcase’s statement regarding my thinking being stereotypical of a ruralist was entirely relevant.

You took that word far more seriously than I was applying in, so I apologize for not being clearer that I was poking fun at the way people were lumping together large groups statistically or attitudinally.

But it’s impossible not to do. As Acsenray correctly said, you are a blue dot in a sea of red and you’ve provided no explanation for why 3 out of 4 people in your county think the way they do. I think it’s fair to say they think more like each other than they think like you, at least on politics.

I’ve been saying for four years that Trump won because he hated the same people his voters hated. That’s not new: it’s the standard tactic of the Republican Party. Nixon pioneered it and Reagan made it the basis of party ideology. Gingrich and Bush’s crew and the Tea Party followed along and Fox News and right-wing radio and websites and social media do nothing else.

There is no equivalent on the left. Redneck jokes about local yokels and militias operate at maybe one percent of the volume and frequency.

I also have to come back to the topic you keep skating past. The anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-Jew, anti-immigrant, anti-people who don’t think and look like us mentality and rhetoric are critically important in maintaining the split. Who’s getting farm subsidies is a trivial matter comparatively.

Hate and prejudice are killing the country. We need to address that first and foremost.

[Retzbu_Tox]

This is a “Great Debates” topic, and it is about Confronting Urban vs. Rural Prejudice. If anyone, myself included, makes a statement that is perceived by someone as prejudiced, pointing it out and discussing why it seems prejudicial is in line with the topic’s purpose. Please try to be open to hearing what other people are saying. Maybe it will help break down some of our own prejudices, or maybe it will help us learn how to refute prejudicial beliefs of others in a manner that that is persuasive rather than divisive.