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.
I see ... If a historic example just happens to refute your argument, that history is no longer relevant.
More like if a historic exmaple is given that falls outside what my argument actually IS, then it is therefore not relevant in REFUTING my argument. It becomes just interesting information, but nothing having to do with my argument. If it is presented AS interesting information, fine, so be it. But when it is presented as refuting my argument but it really does not, then I indicate that it does not.
I didn't say that history wasn't relevant to ANY discussion about demographic and geographic trends. I said it's irrelevant to the argument that I WAS making. I'm hoping you can understand the difference. Earlier you took me saying "I'm not really sure why" as saying "I totally know about that," so clearly I can't just assume you can understand the difference.
I've got no problem with people making their points, I just have a problem with people going out of their way to act as if something refutes MY argument when it really is outside the scope of MY argument. Direct that sort of information to the general audience, I'm ok with that. Direct it as a direct rebuttal to a point I'm making when it falls outside the scope of the point I'm making, I get compelled to draw the distinction between the two. Especially when it's from somebody who takes me saying "seems" and understands it as me saying "I absolutely completely know this to be so." THAT kind of person is clearly quick to associate things improperly.
And especially when it's a person who jumps out of the blue with that type of stuff and wants to make it personal by calling my point a "crock of compost." THAT kind of person clearly intended to be personally inflammatory. To be wrong about my point is one thing. To be arrogant and rude in addressing me about my point ups the ante. All the more motivation for me to point out where they are lacking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
You also brought up women's rights, which clearly had its start in rural and small-town New York and New England, and in the Western states.
But that's not relevant, right?
Like I said, it might be relevant to a general discussion about the matter, but it's NOT relevant to the point I was making. And it seemed to me, correct me if I'm wrong about this, but that your post was intended to REFUTE/REBUT the point you thought I was making. So no, where the right for women to vote originated in the civil war/America nationally divided time frame is not relevant to my point about the modern trend of city vs. rural national political trends across the breadth of the unified USA.
Heck, go back far enough in history and even Democrats were the anti-social rights and Republicans the pro-social rights party. Going far back into history changes the context of American politics. And while I'm not the "this thread" context police and am not trying to be either, I AM the "my point is/my point isn't" police, therefore, no, it's not relevant to my point. I've also talked about Democratic voting, but Democratic voting in the past 4 decades is distinctly a totally different thing than Democratic voting in the late 1800s and early 1900s. So if somebody tried to rebut what I said about the Democratic/Republican vote with anecdotes about the 1890s, I would tell them as well that it's not relevant to my point, even though I brought up the Democratic/Republican voting.
Wisconsin is the most extreme example, but that whole region has less of a contrast in voting between suburban and rural. If you look at only white voting patterns for reasons I mentioned earlier, the contrast gets even smaller. Upstate NY has a similar pattern, and you're forgetting New England .
No, not really forgetting New England. New England states are somewhat smaller states relatively speaking, so when New England has a big city, the reach of its more liberal lean makes it further out into the state than a state with a lot more miles of rural. NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, are all generally quick drives from the population center to the rural.
So sure, the EXTENT of the political gradient from urban to rural can vary from region to region, but the EXISTENCE of the gradient remains. New England does not counter that existence. Nor does the midwest for that matter.
In my experience, where there is a strong hard core religious base there tends to be significant conservatism in the social policies and voting profile. I wonder if Iowa has a more moderate voter base due to a difference in that aspect of the population.
That's a good point. I hadn't really thought about that. I'd be curious to know too. I'd be interested to know the North Dakota/South Dakota type of states' demographics in that context too, because they are solidly conservative Republican in voting but I've never particularly thought of them as hard core religious, though they might very well be.
No, not really forgetting New England. New England states are somewhat smaller states relatively speaking, so when New England has a big city, the reach of its more liberal lean makes it further out into the state than a state with a lot more miles of rural. NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, are all generally quick drives from the population center to the rural.
So sure, the EXTENT of the political gradient from urban to rural can vary from region to region, but the EXISTENCE of the gradient remains. New England does not counter that existence. Nor does the midwest for that matter.
If that were true, there would be obvious trend, once outside say the Boston metro, of republican voting % increasing. I guess it also depends on your definition of quick drive.
If that were true, there would be obvious trend, once outside say the Boston metro, of republican voting % increasing. I guess it also depends on your definition of quick drive.
Massachusetts was in 2011 the 3rd most densely populated state in the US at 840/square mile, behind only New Jersey and Rhode Island. The top 14 states on that list went Obama in this year's election. There is a distinct relation nationally between population and density to the tendency to vote Democrat or Republican.
You seem to be taking the most extreme cases (Massachusetts political gradient, Wisconsin suburban more Republican than rural) and trying to use it to counter the existence of the national trend. I've said before and will say again, there are always exceptions to trends, but pointing out the exceptions does not negate the larger trend.
There IS the obvious trend of the rural being more Republican than the urban and suburban across the nation, and Wisconsin is an exception to that trend specifically on the suburban/rural relationship, NOT on the urban/rural relationship. There IS the obvious trend of there being a repeated gradient of more Democrat to more Republican as you go from urban to suburban to rural, and Massachusetts is an exception to that trend. Just as more rural states tend to be solidly red, with Iowa being an exception that I noted earlier. So yes, I find the exceptions interesting, but they don't defeat the trend. I understand the Massachusetts' exception because of the state's size and density, but I don't understand the Wisconsin exception (and why it's different from Minnesota and Michigan for example) and the Iowa exception (and why it's different from Nebraska and South Dakota for example). None of that negates the larger trend, and that trend rings true whether we're talking about the South or the Northeast or the Midwest or the West or the Southwest, but still I'm interested in why the exceptions are exceptions.
Liberals are attracted to cities, no questions. However even if you are not a liberal, if you live in a city for more than a few years, it starts to rub off onto you. I grew up rural and now live in an urban area. Tolerance for gays is the best example that I have seen. In places where there are fewer gays, or they are not out of the closet, people tend to be much more homophobic. But live in a city where there are plenty of gays being very open about their sexuality and it will open your mind.
Secondly though, age is a factor. Cities tend to have more 20-30 somethings, and this demographic is generally more liberal.
Don't you think this also has to do with a larger city affording one the opportunity to actually get to know gays (or blacks or Muslims or whatevers) on a personal, individual basis? It is easier to maintain the hate and prejudice when the target is just a nameless and faceless one of "them" rather than a human being.
Don't you think this also has to do with a larger city affording one the opportunity to actually get to know gays (or blacks or Muslims or whatevers) on a personal, individual basis? It is easier to maintain the hate and prejudice when the target is just a nameless and faceless one of "them" rather than a human being.
Exactly. I think that is a root cause of why rural Americans have and continue to drag up the rear when it comes to sociopolitical change and progress. No real exposure to diversity.
I tend to believe both are true .
People seek to go where they are accepted ,and if the acceptance seems lacking they move on .
Not all of california is liberal ,there are a few conservitive towns here and there ,but it isn't that they don't like the minorities ,it is those that damand a better than equal rights that get the cold shoulder.
Often times there are minorities in small towns (that are typiclly democrat liberals being ignorant of the difference) .
With out any concerted effort ,simply the work a day world ,many of these eventually learn that they don't like free loaders dipping into their wallet forcibly removing their hard earned cash, to live hi in the hog, at every one's else expense .
And often it is these new bees,( converts on their own) that give the cold shoulder to the newer newbees that intend on mooching and not working, that move away disgruntled .
I have witnessed it a few times close up and personal. (living in a small town at the time)
Many of the employers I know will give almost any one a fair chance , but being a small town ,if you lie or steal or cheat , no one else wants to hire you . Small town people communicate, especially business men .
In the city there is not the same degree of communication, and a lot of folk depend on the prospective company not doing research , however now days that is changing as well, even HR demanding access to ones face book account it is not and option.
Few liberals I know are honest ,and most tend to encourage,, and abuse the system .
With business demanding the greater access to Face book and other on line accounts I believe that we are going to see a lot more liberals on welfare .
It's just the way I see it .
There is no kind fix for the system ,too few people workig too many people driven to depend on entitlements .
And a government driving the business and the rich whom own the business out of the country .
The only ajenda I can see this lading to is the reduction of america to a third word country ,foolishly thinking other countries will not take advantage of a weakened nation.
Russa and china are practiclly drooling .
Like I said, it might be relevant to a general discussion about the matter, but it's NOT relevant to the point I was making.
You were the one to bring up women's rights:
Quote:
Maybe it WAS elitist for America at large to tell rural America to get with the program and let women vote.
Your original mention of women's rights. Except that it didn't happen as you seem to think it did. Well-educated, rural (yes, you can be both!) women began the movement; men in the Western territories were the first to grant women the right to vote, long before "America at large" insisted upon it.
Quote:
where the right for women to vote originated in the civil war/America nationally divided time frame is not relevant to my point about the modern trend of city vs. rural national political trends across the breadth of the unified USA.
Again, you're the one that mentioned women's rights. If you want to limit your arguments to modern times, you'd best define the parameters at the outset, instead of moving the goalposts whenever you're proven wrong.
Again, since apparently you missed my explanation to Katiana, I brought it up in the context of MODERN trends. I also gave a parallel to illustrate the point- I brought up the Democratic vote TOO, but it was in the context of MODERN trends, as Democrats stood for completely different things if you go far back into history, they stood against social rights while Republicans stood for social rights. Of course that has changed in modern American politics as we all know, and that's the point. So regardless my having brought up THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE, my point pertaining to modern trends means that what the Democratic vote was like in 1890 is irrelevant to my point. And it isn't relevant just because you might say that I was the one to bring up the Democratic vote. Likewise my having brought up women's rights in the context of modern political trends makes bringing up what it was like in 1890 irrelevant to my point.
So if I say the well established trend for many years is that so-and-so votes Democrat, you coming back with who voted Democrat in 1890 is interesting information, but not relevant to the point I was making. Likewise my having used women's rights to make a point about current trends for many years makes who initiated the women's rights movement in the 1890s irrelevant to the point I was making.
Now, you've brought up info about the origins of women's rights for the thread audience. Fine. Just leave me out of it, as it has nothing to do with the point I'm making. If you want to talk about women's place is in the home, or barefoot and pregnant, or just say NO to equal pay for equal work, GREAT, that DOES have to do with the point I'm making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Your original mention of women's rights. Except that it didn't happen as you seem to think it did. Well-educated, rural (yes, you can be both!) women began the movement; men in the Western territories were the first to grant women the right to vote, long before "America at large" insisted upon it.
Again, interesting information but not relevant to the point I was making. I'm talking about trends that can be applied to states in the United States in a national context. You are bringing up information about BEFORE many states even existed, BEFORE there was that common national fabric, and is just as irrelevant to my point as what kinds of people voted Democratic at that time is irrelevant to my point about who votes Democratic now and has for the past several decades.
So then when I make comments about America at large and attitudes supporting or dissenting against America at large, it kinda follows that before there WAS an America at large, ie. while there were still territories galore, etc. that falls outside the perview of "America at large" comments. America wasn't even completely formed at that time, and what states it did have were not one political fabric, but rather fractured and disjointed. So political trends regarding "America at large" would necessarily refer to a context of AFTER the time frame you are speaking of, when there was a complete America at large to even HAVE a realistic influence on national politics from sea to shining sea.
So I've made it clear what my point is. Hopefully I won't have to keep explaining the same thing over and over again to people. And hopefully me talking about how the West votes for president in terms of red or blue areas, etc. or how the suburbs vote or what the perspectives are from urban to suburban to rural (and of how the urban experience allows experience with diversity) will clue folks in to the fact that I'm not talking about the 1890s. US large cities didn't have a diversity of races all getting along with a shared experience during the 1890s. So when I use diversity and shared experience and close social interaction between people of various ethnic, racial, religious, sexual orientation, etc. backgrounds and philosophies to EXPLAIN why I think the urban/rural trends are as they are, maybe that might clue people in that I'm not talking about 1890, even when I get into social rights as a category.
All of this nitpicking is distracting from the bottom line that it has been cities which have led the effort for social diversity/inclusiveness and which house the greater experiences with social diversity/inclusiveness and that is in large part why rural America has stood more against social inclusiveness than urban America, and why the blue/red voting patterns reflect that. THAT is the bottom line, and various categories of examples exist which demonstrate it. Attitudes towards women's equality and towards minorities' equality included. Where is the trend for support for equal pay for equal work for women? In URBAN areas. That's where you find support at its strongest, amongst progressive Democrats, and at its weakest in rural areas, amongst conservative Republicans. And nitpicking about women's rights in 1890 doesn't erase that trend. Rural America drags up the rear when it comes to social rights and progressiveness.
Now watch somebody come in and give an exception where some rural community somewhere strongly supported Obama or how the rural Ahmish community way back in slavery times supported social fairness for blacks and try to act as if that disproves my point.
Last edited by MantaRay; 12-14-2012 at 01:22 PM..
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.
.
