Quote:
Originally Posted by MattDen
I have been on this forum looking at the posts for a few months and I notice a big trend.
In the economically and socially vibrant states when some one makes a critical comment it is defended with a long, relevelant and detailed rebuttle that makes lots of sense.
I know that in the lesser vibrant states and states that have larger problems then most and arent considered good places to live by a vast majority of people that the people tend to dimiss any comments critical of their state.
Its almost like they have no material to dispute the negative comments so they just ignore them or blame the person for not finding the right places to go or calling them naive.
It has been interesting to see the differences in how people respond to comments that arent exactly positive from state to state.
|
A lot of those states that you are calling vibrant or desirable are in a sort of denial at many levels. It is normal for them to reject anything they don't want to hear. It may be because it hits home personally to an area they know has some truth and threatens them in their daily lives at some level.
Not only on a forum like this but they react the same way to any information such as newspapers, conversations, etc. Their reaction is it is not happening around me. Places like MA and Boston in particular come to mind. Very few people want to admit the actual conditions they endure everyday. The politicans depend on it.
The other explanation might be those type people have a lot to lose and there is a defensive reaction to anything that threatens them to what is perceived potentially damaging their economic status. Like if people quit coming to this state, house prices will far even further and I personally am in a bit of a tight spot right now. They react and take negative comments very personal.
Also in a lot of those very reactive type state forums you probably have the type states that are unbalanced at some political or economic manner within the geography of the state. One particular region or area dominates the state and there are many underlying reasons for continuous conflict and battles for the lion's share of the economic advantage. A bit like a household that is in constant uproar, everybody at each others throats until an outsider enters the scene. We like our fights about local things we all agree on.
The people in those other type states have already accepted their condition as they find it. If more people move out of the state or don't want to come there so what? Like Ohio, the people understand the state is not one big homogeneous chunk of territory but a super varied state with many possible situations. If you want to bash this spot it might even be true, a fellow can just go over to here. Not all the eggs are in one basket, people in general do not believe everybody in Ohio has exactly the same living situations or feel threatened by whatever change that is occurring on an overall state level.
Then you go places like FL or NJ.
Florida has this built in conflict where they need the tourist / snowbirds but hate the Yankees and most of their problems are all self generated but blamed on the tourist / snowbird. Then it how to screw it all around to get the tourist / snowbirds to pay to fix up the mess made by the year round locals who in general have gone to many excesses. All without causing the tourist / snowbirds to quit coming, which they already have to some degree, which causes another round of blame game none of which is my fault (depending on who is talking). The politicians divide the people up into groups and pit them against each other in a game to further increase prices, taxes and their own wealth. If I lived there year round I would probably be mad at somebody too.
NJ even the politicians can't figure that one out, nobody is happy.