Has this SF forum always been so negative!? (Los Angeles, San Diego: crime rate, neighborhoods)

[lmk1707]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I don't think it's too difficult for real people to dislike or look askance of San Francisco when stuff like this happens with predictable and senseless regularity.

zombietime

It's possible to find a point of view on the internet to back any assertion, reasonable or ludicrous, good or bad, one you agree with, or one you don't agree with. Disagreeing with a general opinion, and stating your subjective reasons for doing so, are an interesting part of any discourse. An opposing opinion is disruptive when it is a) presented as fact (which is not to say that facts can't be presented in support of your opinion, but they should be not be presented in a vacuum and exclude the possibility of contradictory evidence), or b) presented for the sake of causing others distress.

I like seeing interesting topics presented here where people can present their points of view, however it shouldn't distract from helping people who come here for information, and it should follow the rules of civilized argument. Inflammatory, belligerent, self-aggrandizing, and close-minded arguments can only cause frustration and annoyance, which is ultimately what people object to, and what they mean when they say someone is "trolling."

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by lmk1707

It's possible to find a point of view on the internet to back any assertion, reasonable or ludicrous, good or bad, one you agree with, or one you don't agree with. Disagreeing with a general opinion, and stating your subjective reasons for doing so, are an interesting part of any discourse. An opposing opinion is disruptive when it is a) presented as fact (which is not to say that facts can't be presented in support of your opinion, but they should be not be presented in a vacuum and exclude the possibility of contradictory evidence), or b) presented for the sake of causing others distress.

I like seeing interesting topics presented here where people can present their points of view, however it shouldn't distract from helping people who come here for information, and it should follow the rules of civilized argument. Inflammatory, belligerent, self-aggrandizing, and close-minded arguments can only cause frustration and annoyance, which is ultimately what people object to, and what they mean when they say someone is "trolling."

It is that. You're quite correct. San Francisco is a vibrant city of many charms and had much to recommend it. Unfortunately, what I posted is the type of thing that causes those less familiar or with a different take on it to brush it off as too strange and irrelevant. This is not helped, on the national stage, by it's sanctuary city stance; especially now with the immigration issue making such headlines.

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that what's in those scenes is not a point of view that many hold about the city, especially those who have not been there and seen its more substantive sides which I, for one, know exist -- wonderful restaurants, great art venues, museums, the performing arts, beautiful vistas and architecture, et al. Unfortunately, those attributes can be all too easily overshadowed by the many counter-cultures found there although no doubt, many of their adherents come from elsewhere when these events occur.

But please don't get me started on traffic and parking. Prior to GPS I could count on getting lost at least once anytime I drove in.

[lmk1707]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

It is that. You're quite correct. San Francisco is a vibrant city of many charms and had much to recommend it. Unfortunately, what I posted is the type of thing that causes those less familiar or with a different take on it to brush it off as too strange and irrelevant. This is not helped, on the national stage, by it's sanctuary city stance; especially now with the immigration issue making such headlines.

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that what's in those scenes is not a point of view that many hold about the city, especially those who have not been there and seen its more substantive sides which I, for one, know exist -- wonderful restaurants, great art venues, museums, the performing arts, beautiful vistas and architecture, et al. Unfortunately, those attributes can be all too easily overshadowed by the many counter-cultures found there although no doubt, many of their adherents come from elsewhere when these events occur.

But please don't get me started on traffic and parking. Prior to GPS I could count on getting lost at least once anytime I drove in.

I found the website you cited a bit difficult to navigate in terms of an overarching message, but I did click around and see some pretty extreme examples of what seemed to me to be uneducated radicalism. Bear with me here, I'm going to get a little esoteric and possibly nonsensical. I think what happens is this: at one point in history, people are driven to extremes by extremely oppressive or otherwise dramatic circumstances, usually for righteous and necessary reasons (i.e., "we cannot allow this injustice to continue"). They create social change, usually for the better, and are lauded for their bravery and efforts. This great injustice solved, humanity as a whole is content for a time, until the next generation comes along and feels like they need to live up to their forebears, or are afraid an unbearably oppressive situation will again rear its head unless they cast a preemptive strike with extremism, to cow injustice into submission before it can turn into something greater - which does not work when an issue is not black and white, which, thanks to our previous efforts, it seldom is.

If you're still reading after all that meandering, I guess my point is this: people cling to an ideal, and strive to make themselves like their heroes, even though they are not in the same types of situations their heroes faced. As a result, instead of mobilizing the larger population into action with an undeniably righteous message, they come across as, well, uneducated extremists who are extremely confused, and possibly deluded. They also probably gather in places where, because of history, they think they will find like-minded people (e.g. cities known for extreme liberalism or extreme conservatism), and SF is definitely one of those places. It's a desperate quest for identity, and I think happens to people who lack a solid personal identity, and have to find one outside of themselves.

[DeusEx]

FYI, Andyadhi01 is one of the more trollish weather ones who hates on SF climate like crazy.

[nmguy]

I left the Bay Area for New Mexico because of the locals' incessant attitude.

Life's too short for the attitudinal shuffle.

[jman650]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

The SF forum attracts a bunch of outta town trolls.

Obviously many outtowners who frequent this subforum are cordial and well meaning.

But I think that the UberRight folks who have an axe to grind with some policy or action by SFs city govt use this subforum to vent their frustrations and they do that by inciting arguments here-usually in the form of insulting posts.

Then there are the jealous ones who can't stand that SF is so popular and is seen in such a great light around the world.

Then there are those who genuinely have a gripe-but that is very rare. We can tell the haters from those who really have a concern.

This is all part of being high profile. SF is very high profile for various reasons and is going to deal with praise and scorn at the same time.

Life in the Big Time I guess.

This.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by matt345

Here's my take on why the SF Forum (and similar places like the SFGate comments section...) is so negative. Maybe I'm just grasping at straws here, but many of the things people love to complain about in SF (the inability to find a single family detached home, the crowdedness, the lack of parking) are normal characteristics of city life on the East Coast and Chicago. The problem with San Francisco is that it's sort of an "East Coast city" on the West Coast.

NYC is surrounded by cities which look and functional in similar manners - Boston, Philadelphia, and DC - they're all dense, rowhome-abundant, old, gritty urban centers which were built around the pedestrian rather than the car. San Francisco is the same way, but it's surrounded by places like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and the rest of California - places that by and large, are much more suburban/auto-oriented in nature.

Out here, it seems like everyone expects parking to be free and cheap, even in the city center and are outraged that it's not in SF; you think parking is cheap/free in Manhattan or Boston? People back east understand that the closer you get to the city center, the more expensive parking is going to be, so why not just take public transit instead? A lot of people out here seem to have a really hard time comprehending that concept. They also expect everyone to be living in detached homes with a front yard, and are turned off by SF's densely packed rowhomes; densely packed housing is what defines "the city" back east.

IMO, if SF were located on the East Coast, you wouldn't see nearly as much negativity.

Dammit it won't let me give you another rep so I'll agree publicly

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

It is that. This is not helped, on the national stage, by it's sanctuary city stance; especially now with the immigration issue making such headlines.

Why would being a santuary city be a part of the problem for San Francisco. There are 31 cities in the US that are also Santuary cities:

Washington DC
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
San Francisco
Santa Ana
San Diego
Salt Lake City
Dallas
Houston
Austin
Detroit
Jersey City
Minneapolis
Miami
Denver
Baltimore
Seattle
Portland, (Oregon and Maine)
New Haven Conneticut


What makes SF's santuary status different from these other cities?

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Why would being a santuary city be a part of the problem for San Francisco. There are 31 cities in the US that are also Santuary cities:

Washington DC
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
San Francisco
Santa Ana
San Diego
Salt Lake City
Dallas
Houston
Austin
Detroit
Jersey City
Minneapolis
Miami
Denver
Baltimore
Seattle
Portland, (Oregon and Maine)
New Haven Conneticut


What makes SF's santuary status different from these other cities?

What makes SF different is that most of the other cities on that list actually has a large hispanic population! In SF this is more like a theoretical idea because there aren't really much of a hispanic population here.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

What makes SF different is that most of the other cities on that list actually has a large hispanic population! In SF this is more like a theoretical idea because there aren't really much of a hispanic population here.

Ok, I can see where you're going I think. I still don't understand why this is a problem and what about the other cities with low Hispanic populations like Seattle and the two Portland's? I don't think it's terribly high in Salt Lake City either.