Confronting Urban vs. Rural Prejudices

Great Debates
122

We produce the materials to make the clothing from, the materials for home maintenance, and quite a lot of those tools. We have schools, we can and have and in some places do produce electricity. And the cities would starve much faster than the farming country would, if they were split apart; at which point the internet won’t do them much good. Pointing out that cities can buy their needs from further away than the immediate vicinity doesn’t change that – they’re still dependent on rural inputs, even if those are coming from a different country.

Nobody whatsoever that I can see in this thread is claiming that rural areas aren’t better off with multiple interconnections with cities. What we are saying is that this is also true the other way around. Cities and rural areas each benefit from the other. You appear to be claiming that it’s all one way.

So much of the essential work of the country should be done by people who don’t get to live anywhere in particular and very often aren’t allowed to vote?

Admittedly, that would guarantee that they wouldn’t vote in ways that Ascenray or k9bfriender disagree with. But it seems very odd to me to be claiming this as a liberal position.

And “efficient” is an interesting term, because it depends on what your measures are. Most yield by weight per acre? Most nutrition per acre? Most of either weight or nutrition per person? Most per calories of inputs? Most per financial cost of inputs? Most per use of non-renewable inputs? Most per amount of topsoil lost or gained per decade? Most per any of the above taken as needed directly on the farm, or as needed through the entire food chain? Those are all different sorts of measures, and they’re not all going to give the same answer.

Since gun control regulations are very often state-wide, this isn’t true.

That is, it may be true that most people in the city don’t care whether people outside the city have guns. But it isn’t true that the regulations they vote for don’t affect rural areas.

(I generally agree with those regulations. But that’s a different point. And I know R-voters who agree with many of them too.)

Why do you think that because something is “presented” to us we all believe it?

Seems to me that it’s often “presented” to city areas that all rural areas and all people living in them are alike. And that you’re doing your best to present that idea here – you appear willing to allow what you think are rare exceptions, but to be claiming that they don’t matter.

That’s your specific experience.

I’m white and cis. I’m also female, non-Christian, non-gender-conforming. The first and last of those are obvious and the non-Christian comes up in casual conversation. I’ve also often had people of color (various colors and genders) living here, and all my neighbors know this, and have been friendly with them. I rarely hear racist comments, and I call people on them when I do. I’ve called people out on untrue and/or inconsistent political things they’ve said; I don’t necessarily convince them, but I’ve never been ostracized for this.

It’s only my family that I have this problem with. And my family don’t live around here – they live in cities.

So we’re having a conversation about how broad generalizations about people are perfectly fine? Me, I was hoping – and I think the OP was hoping – that this thread would be about how we shouldn’t do that.

Thanks for this post. You’ve saved me the work of making it.

That is indeed a very good question. I wish more of this thread were about it.

Offering to replace them all with migrant workers (not your suggestion) is IMO very much not the right way to do it.

123

You’re missing the point. I’m not claiming that urban people are intrinsically better than rural people. I’m not claiming that urban people can or should do without rural people.

It is not the liberal position to wipe rural people off the land and hand over everything to megacorporations and migrant workers who don’t have workers rights or other civil protections.

The point is this: We want to pay for all these things for rural people. But we also want to pay for things for other kinds of people too. We want free and good schools and universities for everyone. We want worker protections for everyone. We want free or cheap health care (including mental health) for everyone. We want social safety nets for everyone—good and cheap housing, unemployment benefits, disability benefits. We want to extend these things to everyone. And as the richest country in the world, we could easily afford to.

But rural people will consistently vote to block us from doing this. They will claim the moral high ground. They will claim to be the real Americans. They will disparage “takers.” They will say that we should all just roll up our sleeves and earn what we get. They will claim that they don’t accept “handouts” and do everything for themselves. They will say stupid shit like “get government hands off my Medicare.”

That’s the fucking problem. We are happy to make rural lives better with government action. But when we try to make other lives better, suddenly it’s denounced as “socialism” and other nonsense.

124

I agree with what you are saying, Exapno_Mapcase, except on the proportion of Left/Right jokes or memes. I see maybe 20% pro-Left memes, so maybe that varies depending on region and circles of acquaintances. Possibly Lefties where I live are more prone to fight fire with fire. I went to high school with a guy who makes Lefty memes on Facebook, and he has almost 120,000 followers.

https://www.facebook.com/middleageriot

I find him funny, but I don’t know if what he does wins any converts.

125

Yes, I see this among some/many people where I live. They refuse to acknowledge that white privilege exists. Some Conservatives dialogue amongst themselves about how to refute Liberal thinking, and coach themselves in advance to argue using both nonfactual (untrue, but they believe it) and cherrypicked factual statements and examples. I cannot figure out how to get through to them.

Of the ones I know, the most vocal proclaimed they were voting Libertarian, so not all of the votes from that camp necessarily go Republican. I know that Libertarians amounted to a very small percentage of the vote, but the margins that Biden won by were also very small in some places, and if Libertarians had voted Republican, the results in some states could have been quite different.

126

I am not claiming that it is all one way. I am only responding to when the threat is made that they could stop selling us food if we don’t give them everything they want.

No, I actually prefer the way it is. But I am not the one looking to revisit the deal. I am just pointing out the consequences that would befall rural communities if they tried following through on their threats.

No more odder than your assertion that that is mine.

It’s pretty simple, and already stated. My measure is cost to purchase at my grocery store.

There are other things that I could want, other negative side effects I would like to avoid, and other side benefits that I would like to see happen, but ultimately, that’s what is most important. I’m willing to pay a bit more for my produce to know that those who grew it have a happy and productive lifestyle, but it’s not actually necessary.

That’s only because cities are not allowed to make their own gun laws, and such legislation has to be done at the state level in order to be valid.

Not all, but those who voted for Trump do.

Yeah, hardworking, upstanding, strong. The “real” heartland of America is how the rural areas are presented to all of us, city and rural alike.

Yeah, it is. And so is yours. I do deal with a few dozen people a day, and as my service is a bit more intimate, my discussions are a bit more than just price and service.

Before the pandemic, I was extremely social, rarely spending an evening at home, meeting people of all types. I talk to other business owners and community leaders.

As long as national politics don’t come up, it stays civil.

That’s your specific experience.

Now, I’ve not been ostracized for my views, but I also don’t make them all that plain. I don’t know that I would call it ostracization, but I did lose acquaintances over having an Obama sign in 2012.

You may have been ostracized by certain groups, and don’t even know it. They don’t put up a sign, they just don’t call you, or talk to you when they see you.

My family is the only ones that I will put up with while they are spewing their garbage.

127

I can see using discussions of “where would you get your food, then” as a hypothetical, but threats that food would actually stop being sold are ridiculous. Just laugh at those.

128

I don’t know about nationwide, but Chicago has it’s own gun laws on top of the state’s laws. It’s a fairly contentious issue in Illinois.

129

I empathize with that. Signs make some people go crazy. There were lots of stories over the last few months about people stealing or vandalizing signs, the boobytrapped Trump signs that people were getting injured on, etc.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/09/us/michigan-man-stitches-boobytrapped-campaign-sign-trnd/index.html

130

So neither of you meant what you said in your posts?

Nobody made any such threat.

Nor, as far as I can see, accused you of ‘threatening’ to cut off our electricity, either.

No matter what the damage is elsewhere.

If the immediate cost to your personal pocket is your measure, then that’s your measure. But it’s not the only possible measure; and presenting it as such is absurd.

Stupid, simplistic, uneducated, flyover country.

You’ve never seen that crap?

Me too.

So does NYCity.

Lots of things are possible; including that a person hypersensitive to such behavior doesn’t notice when it’s happening. I’m not trying to imagine ways to cancel your experience. Why are you trying so hard to come up with ways to cancel mine?

131

Alright, so I’ve seen mention of “liberal contempt for rural values”.

Can anybody tell me which rural values liberals hold in contempt?

132

I have reasonably open (if not seething) disdain for religion and nationalism, except as rather abstract (and very personal) constructs.

It may have been Deepak Chopra who said that religion and nationalism are two scourges of humanity.

And I’m guessing he didn’t drive an old F100.

ETA: my particular concern with religion and nationalism is how they are often used to excuse nearly anything and how they tend to be used as cudgels, domestically and abroad.

133

Wanted to add one more piece to this:

I find that the easiest thing in the world is to call yourself a Christian (or a patriot). All too often, though, it’s a substitute for doing … well … anything that aligns with the teachings of your religion or that truly inures to the benefit of your country.

Symbols. Jingoism.

I find that outside of town far more than in town.

134

That, at the end of the day, is the problem. This is not an uncommon attitude among educated people on the left. Even if they themselves are religious or have great love for their country, they hold the idea of basing the system of morality that’s used for national decision making on religion or nationalism in contempt.

And rightly so, I might add, if history us any indication.

But that’s the issue I run into. How can we agree on what is moral if the source of our morality is so completely different?

135

I think we’re back to the concepts of dogamatism, cognitive rigidity, and ‘aggressive incuriosity.’

My ‘moral code’ stems from my own credo: don’t hurt people … unnecessarily.

This leave me wide open to discussions about what passes and what fails, where the lines are drawn, and where on the continuum people, events, and actions fall.

And … being intrigued (not frightened) by complexity leaves me open to shifting perspectives and admitting to not knowing.

Which puts me at diametric odds with the “infallible word of God” crowd, many that they are.

When they argue morality as if it’s immutable, because it arises from a book, I tend to counter with the Harry Potter series.

Which wins one no friends, incidentally :wink:

I agree with your basic premise, but I fear morality simply shouldn’t come from a text, and often agree with those who say that … if you need a book to tell you how to be a good person … you might not be so good a person to begin with.

136

I would assume there are few if any values, contemptible or not, that are unique to rural areas, as in no one in a city shares that same value. I take it that the objectionable “rural values” in the conversation we have all been having equates pretty much to whichever “Conservative values” liberals find most offensive. Pro gun rights, anti-abortionism, anti-immigrationism, or American isolationism are examples of values/issues dear to Conservatives, and thus disproportionately supported in rural areas, although also supported by a Conservative minority in cities.

137

I think this entire topic inherently requires that we generally agree on, and accept the validity of, certain stereotypes.

Which, of course, doesn’t preclude objecting to uses you view as wrong and characterizations that don’t really fit as well as one might believe.

And, of course, none of these agreements will preclude the existence of exceptions – maybe lots of exceptions.

138

And I keep making reference to that keyboard study (see post #110).

I struggle with Constitutional ‘originalists’ because even the framers believed the document should be flexible – suggesting that it be cracked open for revision once a generation.

And that was written when ?

Life has changed … often dramatically – maybe moreso in the cities than in the country, but in the country too.

And the major religious texts suffer from the same problem, but orders of magnitudes worse.

The keyboard study – great cognitive dissonance when faced with change.

139

What stereotypes should we accept the validity of, and how?

Something like “For purposes of discussion, let’s assume that all rural Conservatives have these twenty traits or values in common”, although we would acknowledge that in reality many rural Conservatives may only display some of these traits"? And not, “All farmers are Nazis” or “All liberals drink baby blood.” :smile:

140

I think this one probably has to play itself out, meaning … if somebody’s comment implies a stereotype that you don’t think is valid, I think it may be best to challenge it as it arises.

But a thread about prejudices kind of has to tease out what those perceptions are that underlie those prejudices.

If others are willing to draw out a list of the attributes they think defines one or both cohorts … be my guest … but I think it may have more utility if it arises organically.

Sez me.

141

I think it’s helpful to keep in mind the skill sets that suit a person for a rural or urban lifestyle. Rural people ARE self sufficient, because they have to be. If your house catches fire, it might be physically impossible to get a fire truck there in time because you are far away from the fire station–but they will try. Likewise an ambulance, and out in the boondocks pretty much everything is trying to kill you. Weather is much more important because a gully washer might flood a nearby stream and therefore YOU, snow means a long hard slog to get out to anywhere rather than a morning spent shovelling out the driveway. When the nearest town is a half hour or more away, you damned well plan your trips and if you forget something there’s no popping in to the corner 7-11 to pick it up. Get trampled by a pissed off cow in a far pasture and you could die out there with nobody ever knowing something’s wrong. Rural people NEED to be self sufficient, and kinda risk averse and need to have a group to belong to because that might be the difference between survival and death. They don’t need to be super tolerant of other viewpoints because they very well might go a long time never talking to anyone but family and immediate neighbors. Live a while out in the boonies and the sights and sounds of a city can become intolerable, too much input at once. Your entertainment options are very limited and you learn to amuse yourself. If something needs fixed you learn how to fix things or you do without because getting someone in requires time and negotiation and money–you don’t have a landlord to take care of that stuff for you and a well stocked toolbox and a pile of odds and ends that “might come in handy someday” can mean all the difference in the world. If you work your land you get tired at the end of day and don’t have a lot of time to pursue intellectual interests that cut into sleep time. Rural living self selects for people who can reconcile to these facts and those who can’t hack it move away.

Urban people have to get used to other people around all the time. You hear their music, you listen to them fighting and fucking, you know their habits and routines because they’re RIGHT THERE. You get better at negotiating when you have to explain to your neighbor why maintaining that trash pile is sending rats to your property and if they won’t do something about it, you need a city ordinance and enforcement to keep your property livable, and urban dwellers rely on their being a “law about that” for almost every circumstance and don’t fret under those restrictions. Urban people are used to utilities that seldom go out, reliable internet, entertainment right at their fingertips and my gods don’t I just see what happens when people can’t immediately fulfill their desires for restaurant meals and drinks at a bar and a sixteen screen movie theater. They’re kinda losing their shit. Anyway, people who thrive on that kind of high sensory input do well in urban settings but might very well lose their minds living at the slower pace of rural life. Go out on a hike and count the people blaring Bluetooth speakers in the wilderness and I bet you cash money they all come from a city. Urban people out in the boonies often get into trouble and sometimes die because they don’t know HOW to be prepared for shit going adrift because in their lives they don’t have to be. Suspenders AND belt are not necessary in a city–the resources are right there and you’re never really alone. Urban life self selects for those who can manage its constraints and those who can’t hack it move away.

After a while of self selection, you’re going to get groups that are firmly fine with the way things are where they live and who don’t appreciate others outside that group from stereotyping them and attributing attitudes to them based on an ignorance of their daily lives. Legislation and politics is the place where those groups crash firmly into each other. We need better dialogue.