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.
San Francisco and Seattle are horrible places because they're filled with ambitious liberals who are stressed out and insecure over finances. I would choose Sacramento over San Francisco any day, even if the cost of living were exactly the same.
I have a theory that cities with a conservative culture and a large number of transplants are probably the best place to be, from a social standpoint. If the city is liberal, the people are jerks. If the city doesn't have a lot of turnover, it becomes insular. So my theory would predict that cities like Dallas, San Diego, and Atlanta are probably the best place to be, from a purely social standpoint.
Sacramentans for the most part are good-natured, humble, and friendly.
A lot of Bay Areans for the most part are smug, conceited, rude, passive-aggressive, and provincial. But that's ok we still like them, and we spend a lot of our money there.
People in Sacramento are surly and aggressive (drivers in particular). Friendly is not a word I would use to describe the local culture. I agree with your view of people in the bay. The people there are what makes that area suck. But I am not sure what that has to do with the thread.
People in Sacramento are surly and aggressive (drivers in particular). Friendly is not a word I would use to describe the local culture. I agree with your view of people in the bay. The people there are what makes that area suck. But I am not sure what that has to do with the thread.
I brought-up the Bay Area for comparative purposes with Sacramento considering we all are on the West Coast.
Sacramento at it's core has always been good-natured and friendly. I suspect any aggressiveness one might detect comes from transplants from SoCal and the Bay Area, and the fact that Sacramento Metro is nearing 2.5 million population, people tend to get a bit more aggressive in larger-populated areas. And if taken as a whole, Sacramento combined with the Bay Area, is 10 million+ which usually means patience runs low the more crowded a place/region becomes.
San Francisco and Seattle are horrible places because they're filled with ambitious liberals who are stressed out and insecure over finances. I would choose Sacramento over San Francisco any day, even if the cost of living were exactly the same.
I have a theory that cities with a conservative culture and a large number of transplants are probably the best place to be, from a social standpoint. If the city is liberal, the people are jerks. If the city doesn't have a lot of turnover, it becomes insular. So my theory would predict that cities like Dallas, San Diego, and Atlanta are probably the best place to be, from a purely social standpoint.
Interesting point, but using Dallas and Atlanta as a yardstick puts Sacramento, at least 1/2 of the metro in the "liberal" category. The City of Sacramento, and a good 1/2 of the rest of the Metro is certainly more "West Coast" liberal than either Dallas or Atlanta.
Sacramento only appears moderate/conservative from an ultra liberal Bay Area point of view. To the rest of the nation we are more liberal than conservative. We vote mostly democrat.
Sacramento is pretty liberal in terms of its politics--almost twice as many Democratic voters as Republican. There are other reasons why InTransit2's theory doesn't make a whole lot of sense (conservatives aren't ambitious, don't get stressed out or insecure over finances? The ones so concerned with deficit spending and balanced budgets? San Francisco and Seattle are horrible places?) but its basic assumption doesn't apply to Sacramento.
It may vote for Democrats, but Sacramento is very conservative compared to the bay. They have a small number of freaks but in the bay the freaks are the mainstream. Sacramento is "live and let live" whereas San Francisco is aggressively "kill all white cis male patriarchy racism inequality social fat acceptance blah blah blah".
In hyperliberal areas there is very low trust because you never know what kind of weird cult / sexual deviance / drugs / political interest group someone you meet is involved in, and you have to be very careful not to offend anyone.
Quote:
here are other reasons why InTransit2's theory doesn't make a whole lot of sense (conservatives aren't ambitious, don't get stressed out or insecure over finances? The ones so concerned with deficit spending and balanced budgets? San Francisco and Seattle are horrible places?) but its basic assumption doesn't apply to Sacramento.
The special interest groups looking for a handout in America flock to money. Therefore, large corporations tend to attract a certain amount of "groupies" that are putting their claws in and extracting wealth, like the SJW crowd. People who work for major corporations pretty much have to be liberal, or pretend to be, just to get by. They live in large cities that tend to be poorly designed for growth, so the competition for housing drives prices up, resulting in an existence with worse living conditions and more stress than what a blue-collar worker in suburbia experiences. Basically, the upper management wants a nice waterfront house and they don't care what kind of hell they put their employees through.
Conservative cities tend to not have as many large corporations, or if they do they are relegated to a few regional industries, like energy. This makes them a little more accepting and tolerant of diverging opinions, and they don't have as much constant sensitivity training, brainwashing in the media, protests, and other items that promote distrust and disunity. A liberal in a conservative area will do just fine as long as they aren't pushy, but a conservative in a liberal area will be ostracized and persecuted. I've been both at different times of my life, and I can tell you liberals are more intolerant than the most right-wing fundamentalist Christians. I know gay people who flee liberal areas due to their intolerance of anything that isn't 100% "correct".
There have been studies that show that ethnic diversity is directly proportional to withdrawal and low trust. I don't doubt this, but I think the political / cultural mood is a more relevant factor. After all, Seattle is nearly 100% white and has extremely low trust, while many conservative cities are very diverse, yet have a more trusting environment. I don't really know because I've never spent a lot of time there, but when people talk about some of the southern cities it sounds like a different world. So I am curious to explore that and learn more.
So how this works out in practice is you have two factors:
1. Culture / politics
2. Turnover rate
My idea is that you want a city with conservative-learning politics, because liberals areas are hostile and depersonalizing (San Francisco). But you also want something with a pretty high turnover rate, because otherwise things become socially stagnant (Sacramento). The only city I can think of that meets this definition in California would be San Diego.
Last edited by InTransit2; 07-23-2015 at 11:59 AM..
It may vote for Democrats, but Sacramento is very conservative compared to the bay. They have a small number of freaks but in the bay the freaks are the mainstream. Sacramento is "live and let live" whereas San Francisco is aggressively "kill all white cis male patriarchy racism inequality social fat acceptance blah blah blah".
In hyperliberal areas there is very low trust because you never know what kind of weird cult / sexual deviance / drugs / political interest group someone you meet is involved in, and you have to be very careful not to offend anyone.
The special interest groups looking for a handout in America flock to money. Therefore, large corporations tend to attract a certain amount of "groupies" that are putting their claws in and extracting wealth, like the SJW crowd. People who work for major corporations pretty much have to be liberal, or pretend to be, just to get by. They live in large cities that tend to be poorly designed for growth, so the competition for housing drives prices up, resulting in an existence with worse living conditions and more stress than what a blue-collar worker in suburbia experiences. Basically, the upper management wants a nice waterfront house and they don't care what kind of hell they put their employees through.
Conservative cities tend to not have as many large corporations, or if they do they are relegated to a few regional industries, like energy. This makes them a little more accepting and tolerant of diverging opinions, and they don't have as much constant sensitivity training, brainwashing in the media, protests, and other items that promote distrust and disunity. A liberal in a conservative area will do just fine as long as they aren't pushy, but a conservative in a liberal area will be ostracized and persecuted. I've been both at different times of my life, and I can tell you liberals are more intolerant than the most right-wing fundamentalist Christians. I know gay people who flee liberal areas due to their intolerance of anything that isn't 100% "correct".
There have been studies that show that ethnic diversity is directly proportional to withdrawal and low trust. I don't doubt this, but I think the political / cultural mood is a more relevant factor. After all, Seattle is nearly 100% white and has extremely low trust, while many conservative cities are very diverse, yet have a more trusting environment. I don't really know because I've never spent a lot of time there, but when people talk about some of the southern cities it sounds like a different world. So I am curious to explore that and learn more.
So how this works out in practice is you have two factors:
1. Culture / politics
2. Turnover rate
My idea is that you want a city with conservative-learning politics, because liberals areas are hostile and depersonalizing (San Francisco). But you also want something with a pretty high turnover rate, because otherwise things become socially stagnant (Sacramento). The only city I can think of that meets this definition in California would be San Diego.
Hahaha. I've never once had that thought in the probably 500+ times I've been to San Francisco. I think you are overthinking things a bit, probably too hypersensitive to believing that everyone is against you as a conservative. Trust me, the people in the groups you referenced most likely want no part of you - at all. If anything, they are going to ignore you dude.
People of either political affiliation are going to get ostracized if they go into a city and push beliefs not held by the general population. But are you seriously claiming conservatives are sought out and socially ostracized without saying nary a word? That's ridiculous. For a member of a party that continually criticizes other's sexuality (notice you made a point of doing that in your very post), right to life and every other decision that should be a private, individual choice, you sure seem sensitive about other's opinions of you.
But you're probably right. If you go to a conservative city such as, say Omaha, you're probably completely fine as long as you hide everything about how you really are, or "don't become pushy" with your lifestyle LOL. Especially if you're a member of an evil liberal cult.
Yeah, sounds like someone's just a wee bit hypersensitive about the presence of liberals here. I'm assuming over-exposure to Fox News and other "culture war" propaganda. You have to be liberal to work for major corporations? Yeah, "uber-liberal" isn't really what I think of when imagining working Wal-Mart, Exxon, General Motors or General Electric.
Everywhere is very conservative compared to San Francisco. But even in the Bay Area there are enclaves of conservative folks who'd make you think you're in Texas.
I'd love to see those studies, but if that was the case, Sacramento would be the most withdrawn and distrustful city in the country, as we're the most diverse and integrated city in the United States (tied with Oakland for the title.) But in the next line he claims Seattle has "extremely low trust," not sure where he's getting that either--some kind of article or maybe he just got ripped off once in Seattle? The only number provided is his statement that Seattle is nearly 100% white, which isn't true--Seattle is less than 70% white.
They have a hard time acknowledging the impact of their "politically correct" (sic) Politboro Diktats upon simply getting along with others.
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.
