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.
The caricatures are merely jokes and satire, the actual insults and "jabs" toward rural America and their values is clearly meant to belittle a group who is already struggling. This is what pushed the election. It is puzzling why they won't stop.
Jokes and satire tend to insult and jab all too often as well, don't kid yourself (or have another look at your South Park cartoon that you INITIATED, with the intro of "smug alert."). I made no insult about rural America until I sensed the insults about urban America. Let's be fair, shall we?
Lots of issues that divide America "pushed the election," but a majority of Americans for Trump was not what happened. Let's think a little further about all that as well.
You throw a stone and then continue to be "puzzled" why "they" won't stop?
Might want to give that one a bit more thought too. Possible?
Whether rural or urban it would be nice if every one would realize as Americans we are all on the same team with minor differences of opinion as to how to get to the goal line.
This of course is the ideal attitude. But paeans to “Can’t we all just get along” are not newsworthy. They’re not inflammatory, and therefore do little to sell advertising, or to cement intra-tribal cohesion. They’re too insipid to be worn proudly.
The overarching idea of – wait for it! – Liberalism – is that people are fundamentally alike. Rural or urban, formally-educated or not, singles or large families… it is asserted that people have largely the same aspirations, ambitions, fears, concerns. If this idea is held to be false, well then, that’s license to marginalize the other guy. If he’s comprehensively unlike us, why bother with him? Why tolerate his even using our highways, let alone our social benefits? He’s fundamentally different, and different means inferior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane
The caricatures are merely jokes and satire, the actual insults and "jabs" toward rural America and their values is clearly meant to belittle a group who is already struggling. This is what pushed the election. It is puzzling why they won't stop.
Fair enough, but if this group is “struggling”, does this not imply that something is amiss, that something has declined? That doesn’t make this (or any other) group necessarily inferior, but it does imply that something needs to be rectified – and in particular, that if this group is merely “left alone” – then the subject problems won’t automatically resolve themselves.
Why did this thread go down the road of each side disparaging the other. This country became prosperous because we have a high quality in BOTH city and rural/ag/manufacturing industries. And their residents reflect that. We have a lot of bad apples on both sides, from your stereotypical hillbilly to your Bernie Madoff type. Most other people are fine - normal - and certainly don't deserve to be caricatured. Geez.
Thank you..a breath of fresh air--so tell me, how can we stop the tail from wagging the dog?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
For anyone who has been following this thread from the beginning (I feel sorry for them), I think my comments have been devoted toward the effort to better balance some of these perspectives about urban areas, and in so doing I might have "disparaged" some of the more rural way of thinking. Not my intent, really, but as I also noted somewhere along the line, sometimes when you can't "beat 'em, you might as well join 'em."
I try not to take the low road when others seem so inclined, but again it seems exchange at the same level may work better than to "talk a different language."
Either way, I agree with the sentiments expressed in your comment! I just posted a comment in another thread expressing the same exact sentiment. However, unfortunately, much as you describe our country was built, it appears most of this forum/exchange related to "Politics and other Controversies" was built on one side disparaging the other.
That's what we do! Regardless what either side deserves...
But it's not what we have to do..as mature men and women...all of us with the power of choice.
As the OP of this one...I think this thread perfectly illustrates the divide...the gulf of perceived values, if you will. Most of us don't conform to the stereotypes, yet we are forced to live with the fall-out, in the form of policy that's reactive to the extremes and leaves the rest of us out in the cold.
As for C-d...I think we forget to mention that this is fun for us--being a little mean...trying to one-up each other..is very human...and a guilty pleasure to many. It does not paint a true picture of our culture really...in fact, it is its own culture...with little eddies of sanity.
Thank you..a breath of fresh air--so tell me, how can we stop the tail from wagging the dog?
But it's not what we have to do..as mature men and women...all of us with the power of choice.
As the OP of this one...I think this thread perfectly illustrates the divide...the gulf of perceived values, if you will. Most of us don't conform to the stereotypes, yet we are forced to live with the fall-out, in the form of policy that's reactive to the extremes and leaves the rest of us out in the cold.
As for C-d...I think we forget to mention that this is fun for us--being a little mean...trying to one-up each other..is very human...and a guilty pleasure to many. It does not paint a true picture of our culture really...in fact, it is its own culture...with little eddies of sanity.
All worthwhile to consider, and/or/but...
I have often pointed out in the past that politics is not for the thin-skinned, and although I appreciate the more balanced and intelligent exchange of opinion and ideas, along with the facts and reason that support them, I also must admit that I enjoy the collateral "fun" that might include a bit of ribbing in the process.
That said, here too there is that "fine line," and balance is key. Ideally, if you ask me, we can and should exchange opinion, perhaps with a little entertainment and humor as well, while avoiding what might be considered more mean spirited jabs and insults that only derail any good exchange of perspective.
True, OP, this thread also illustrates at least one source of divide in America, perhaps perfectly but not altogether any different from any other thread related to politics. In part this too is what breeds the frustration that also leads to less than fair and intelligent exchange. No matter how hard some of us try, there is always someone wanting to torpedo that sort of effort.
City mouse vs country mouse.......pretty stupid argument if you ask me. I think we are all Americans here.
The Democrats failed miserably, they have no one to blame but themselves. They need to get back to basics and where they used to be all during training 20th century, which was championing the small middle class worker and for strong unions. It's always about jobs and the economy.
I wish this were true about the Dems. Sadly, most people on the left seem to be "Bernie" type supporters. I very much miss middle of the road politics. Don't think people of either party are middle of the road any more.
I wish this were true about the Dems. Sadly, most people on the left seem to be "Bernie" type supporters. I very much miss middle of the road politics. Don't think people of either party are middle of the road any more.
Where's "the middle of the road?"
Less poor people but not too many less? More people who can afford college but not too many more? More people who can access and afford health care but not too many more? The woman's right to choose but not if it's an abortion? Equal rights for all but not too equal? Not for everyone? Who is in "the middle" between Sanders and Trump...?
Less poor people but not too many less? More people who can afford college but not too many more? More people who can access and afford health care but not too many more? The woman's right to choose but not if it's an abortion? Equal rights for all but not too equal? Not for everyone? Who is in "the middle" between Sanders and Trump...?
One principle of "middle of the road" is that complicated problems generally don't admit simple solutions. Whether the topic is health-care reform, tax brackets, the environment, energy-policy, response to terrorism, immigration or whatever else - the solution, or even attempts at solution - is likely to be protracted, nuanced, and likely only partial. The opposing view - that all that's required is a modicum of "common sense", that complicated problems can be reduced to a brief manifesto - are the hallmarks of extremism, whether left or right.
Similarly, "middle of the road" acknowledges that everything involves tradeoffs. Cutting spending might help with the deficit, but it probably reduces economic activity, at least temporarily. Retaining benefits for the poor/sick/disabled probably means cutting benefits for somebody else - or raising taxes. Preserving American factory jobs in one industry likely means raising costs for consumers, or perhaps harming jobs in another industry. Doing nothing, might mean looking weak and inept; while doing anything in particular, might be counterproductive and erroneous. Extremists on either side would aver that most problems are so glaring, that solving them is a win/win, that tradeoffs are arcane and nugatory.
Responding directly one aspect of the above: if everyone went to college (suspending the idea of tradeoffs, lets suppose hypothetically that college was free, and that free college had no adverse effect on the economy), we would have a serious problem. Let's suppose that somehow everyone actually managed to graduate. Would college graduates deign to pick cabbage, drive taxis, steam-clean rugs, repair roofs, scrub toilets, gather garbage, deliver newspapers and so forth? OK, suppose that robots could do all of that. Great. But would such a society be stable? Can a village of philosophers and mathematicians manage to cohere? I would argue that it is absolutely essential for a stable society, that there be a hierarchy of level of education, resembling a pyramid. Most people wouldn't be all that well educated, quite a few would be in the middle, and a few would be at the pinnacle.
As for who is "in the middle between Sanders and Trump"... I'd argue that both Sanders and Trump are populists, peddling facile solutions. Rather than being two points at diametrically opposite extremes, they're actually quite alike. "Middle of the road", by my reckoning, would be someone like G.H.W. Bush (that is, the elder President Bush) or Bill Clinton. It might be the Republican "Never Trump" movement (what ever happened to them???).
Last edited by ohio_peasant; 07-05-2017 at 09:37 AM..
Less poor people but not too many less? More people who can afford college but not too many more? More people who can access and afford health care but not too many more? The woman's right to choose but not if it's an abortion? Equal rights for all but not too equal? Not for everyone? Who is in "the middle" between Sanders and Trump...?
Rural Americans gave us Trump. They're the poorest, least educated, most drug addicted, least employed, cohort in America.
You are describing the inner cities where pockets of Democratic voters live in an otherwise Republican majority state.
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.
