Which is more IRREVERENT (not in the religious sense) - San Francisco or Los Angeles? (Long Beach: live, metro area)

[robertpolyglot]

The country, and the world, looks at California for its relatively "free wheeling" mind-set and lifestyle. (This has nothing to do with religion, since there are less churched states than CA). I think George Bush (I) made a comment about "Marin (County) hot tubbers," which was more funny than offensive, IMO.

So, then, which of its two anchor metro areas, San Francisco or Los Angeles, is more irreverent? That is, which one is more likely to poke fun at itself, be more "live and let live," be less into conformity and more into individualism?

[allenk893]

I voted for LA because I've heard so much over the years about LA's live-and-let-live mentality. I have several friends from there and they definitely fit the bill. I have heard more than a fair share of stories about San Francisco and how they have a false stance as the liberal mecca when they are nothing like it from many many people over the years. And I believe it because most of the leftist people I have ever encountered have been the same.

[robertpolyglot]

If anything captures the essence, and my vote, it's this:


Randy Newman- I Iove L.A. - YouTube

[rimmerama]

Originally Posted by robertpolyglot

The country, and the world, looks at California for its relatively "free wheeling" mind-set and lifestyle. (This has nothing to do with religion, since there are less churched states than CA). I think George Bush (I) made a comment about "Marin (County) hot tubbers," which was more funny than offensive, IMO.

So, then, which of its two anchor metro areas, San Francisco or Los Angeles, is more irreverent? That is, which one is more likely to poke fun at itself, be more "live and let live," be less into conformity and more into individualism?

I would say Los Angeles. I have only lived near both, but I have family in both.

I don't quite know how to say it, but people in L.A seem to be a bit more "honest" about themselves, and less pretentious.

[Gentoo]

I selected other but I'm not going to say which because some may get their panties in a bunch.

For me it's really hard to diminish either of these cities. Both are the places that put California on the map. The Golden Gate Bridge and the Hollywood sign are two of the most recognized landmarks in the world. Most of California's popular history is focused around these two cities.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I selected other but I'm not going to say which because some may get their panties in a bunch.

That's never stopped Mr. Fontucky.

[Johnny Cash]

if you exclude the East Bay, LA wins easily. If you include the 510, its more debatable

[robertpolyglot]

Originally Posted by Johnny Cash

if you exclude the East Bay, LA wins easily. If you include the 510, its more debatable

You have to include the East Bay. SF, on a stand-alone basis, has only 800,000 people...it's not even twice the size of Long Beach.

There is nothing IRREVERENT about the East Bay, especially Berkeley and its list of "shoulds."

[BayAreaHillbilly]

LA by a small margin.

SF folks take themselves too seriously at times.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by rimmerama

I would say Los Angeles. I have only lived near both, but I have family in both.

I don't quite know how to say it, but people in L.A seem to be a bit more "honest" about themselves, and less pretentious.

LA has more of that good old Western self effacing cowboy wit.

That's a bit ironic considering that SF was "established" (in the Anglo sense) earlier than LA and was of more consequence vis a vis the initial mineral extraction, railroad, cattle and logging based economy.