Rhetorical question: how can someone 'hate' or dislike an entire state? (transfer, neighborhoods)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Never underestimate the power of labels & stereotypes.
It makes the uninformed feel knowledgeable.
Most people do not wish to explore the dynamic world we live in. Instead, they create surface definitions for places, things & people they do not understand as a way to organize a world they are not prepared to deal with.
So you wanted the nation to "force" some to "fix" issues in the midwest and northeast, then you turn around and say you're tired of "fixing" or "paying" for things in what you consider the worthless, undesirable areas. Ironic and a double-standard, don't you think?
No, it isn't a double standard.
Just you wait and see. Do you think the sunbelt will grow forever? Do you believe it to be the last frontier? It too will know abandonment and decay. It is a monumet to the belief that the problems of a nation are limited geographically; the ideal that escape can be found by disowning and moving.
Halcyon days always come to an end. Soon enough, populations growth will level off and local consciousness will set in. Suddenly a lot of people will have to learn how to get along in the land of air conditioning, natural disasters and desert climes. I promise you, it's going to happen. And when it does, how will the spirit of an area built on all things new and disposable stand up to the challenge?
Sometimes less inteligent individuals hate whole states becasue they buy into stereotypes. Without traveling much, they just think "well, if someone I know heard from someone else that this state is like this, then it must be like this"
Just you wait and see. Do you think the sunbelt will grow forever? Do you believe it to be the last frontier? It too will know abandonment and decay. It is a monumet to the belief that the problems of a nation are limited geographically; the ideal that escape can be found by disowning and moving.
Halcyon days always come to an end. Soon enough, populations growth will level off and local consciousness will set in. Suddenly a lot of people will have to learn how to get along in the land of air conditioning, natural disasters and desert climes. I promise you, it's going to happen. And when it does, how will the spirit of an area built on all things new and disposable stand up to the challenge?
So where is this land of no weather and no natural disasters?
I agree with you. For the most part I hate Colorado with a purple passion. However, there are a few areas that aren't *that* bad, which I could stand to visit (although never live there). So I cannot say, with all honesty that I hate the entire state.
Actually yes it is a huge double standard on your part.
You talk about other regions having natural disasters yet completely ignore the ones that occur in your own backyard. Tornadoes, deadly blizzards, and FLOODS. Need I remind you how the nation looked to help midwest flood victims during their TWO CATASTROPHIC floods over the past two decades?
Then you go one about sustainability and screwing up ecosystems. Is the Great Lakes region some model for sustainability where the eco system has not been altered? Do you not remember how polluted those lakes were and still are to an extent? Did Chicago not have to make a river flow backwards to keep all the crap you midwesterners flush down the toilet out of Lake Michigan. Did a river in Cleveland not catch fire due to pollution? Look at Chesapeake Bay, Lake Erie, etc.. and all the pollution there, the air quality of places like Pittsburgh and other NE cities, all the toxic waste sites in NJ, etc... Give me a damn break, Midwestern and Northeastern cities have done plenty to damage their eco systems as well and are hardly sustainable.
Just look at the primary power sources in your beloved "sustainable land". COAL! How the hell is that more sustainable than places like Ca that get a lot more of their energy needs from sources like hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.. ? The fact that you think areas of the country that have some of the most polluting power sources are "sustainable land" is ridiculous.
And who exactly are you subsidizing and how? Do you have any sort of proof of this? B/c as far as I know, CA only gets back around $.78 cents for every $1 of federal tax revenue it sends to DC, so this state contributes more than its fair share. You don't subdize other parts of the country, you don't pay for other people's freeways any more than people in the sunbelt pay for yours. Show me some proof that you are subsidizing the sunbelt like you claim.
Get real and get over yourself, you just come off as some bitter Midwesterner that can't stand the Sunbelt doing well or taking away population from other areas. No it can't sustain rapid rates of growth forever and it won't. Eventually it will slow down and these places have their issues as well but so do the Midwest and northeast. You obviously have some big chip on your shoulder with bias that clouds what objectivity you might actually have.
You're referring to the midwest? If so let's see, we can always wake-up New Madrid fault. Then there was the dust bowl. You know, history does tend to repeat itself. The levees along the Mississippi River System can break at anytime, ask Iowa.
If you're referring to the Northeast then you need professional help...
New Jersey really bothers me. I used to think it was 'the north,' like Chicago to Maine, but somewhere along the line I began to understand clearly that it was "Jersey/Florida diaspora". I could come up with a very wide variety of reasons for this, but ultimately it is the people that travel or relocate down here, and their attitudes and worldviews, that are the problem for me. I think this all started when I was 10 or 12, in Myrtle Beach, I began to notice what was going on. So I've been looking for really game-changing evidence about Jersey to change my mind, for about 15 years.
I do realize that New Jersey is not a monolith. It is always rated highly in education and income. I also realize that the people who show up in my area, may just be the flotsam of New Jersey society. I don't know. I have coworkers from New Jersey that are nice people. I have relatives held captive in New Jersey. But the bottom line is that New Jersey never fails to deliver high volumes of crude, obnoxious "in-your-face" behavior. So yes I hate the state, but I have hope for the future. I try to ignore my past experience when I meet someone, though.
I am friends with a lot of people from Philadelphia and New York, so frankly it is just encouraged around here anyway.
The good news is, with the advent of "Jersey shore", my Jersey-hate has now become more socially acceptable and widely understood.
I think a rhetorical question is the kind you're not supposed to answer. However you seem to want an answer so I'm a bit perplexed on that. Although possibly you're just making a pun.
Anyway I think sometimes when people say they hate a certain state they aren't being literal. They don't mean they literally hate the entire state. They mean that from what they know they have a generalized bad impression of it. Or that they don't like what they've experienced there.
Still I think it might be possible to hate an entire state, or at least make that statement in fairness, if the state is small and you are well-traveled in it. For example hating Delaware or Vermont I think could be possible. They aren't that large in area or population. It might not be possible to experience everything or everyone in them, but one might be able to experience a representative enough sample to make an overall verdict. Now with a state that's small in population but large in area, like Wyoming or Alaska, I think it might be harder to do this. There's too great a chance for variation in land and people so that might make getting a representative sample harder. (Particularly Alaska because, stereotypes aside, it's actually pretty diverse. A great deal of different religions and ethnic groups live there, including the highest percent of Native Americans in the nation. And I used "Native Americans" because they have Yup'ik Eskimos and Aleuts as well as American Indians) A state that's large in area and population, like Texas or California, is one a person should probably not be able to make such a verdict.
This post comes very close to what I was going to write, particularly as it pertains to Delaware/Vermont vs Wyoming/Alaska. There are some exceptions, due to a combination of low population, small area, and similar culture. Delaware was going to be my case example, but even in that state, the vibe in New Castle County is completely different from Sussex County (lower Delaware).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
