Sure. And there are a ■■■■ load of rural areas with meth issues. I guess they’re pretty too if you stay out of trailer parks.
1 Like
theres a trailer park right in freehold township, called silver mead,…
been there for 50 years
How long have you lived there?
My apologies. I wasn’t paying enough attention.
Interesting. And the meth epidemic as well?
It must be very comforting to believe that.
My place is. So are my neighbors.
Would you rather live in Baltimore or Monmouth county, New Jersey?
You know that photo that conservative websites love to show of San Francisco, with the Metro tunnel filled with junkies?
That’s Downtown. Go upstairs from that station, and you’re in a high-end mall, 2 blocks from Union Square, surrounded by high-end hotels.
All of the other stories on SF on conservative media - the “poop maps”, etc - are all limited to that immedite area as well.
Thanks. That’s not good.
The rest of San Francisco is a lot better.
I’ll take your word for it.
At the end of the day, if one chooses to live in a city, that is one’s choice.
Same with country.
I’ve done both and prefer country.
All I ask is that if you choose the other way, don’t attempt to impose your values and culture on me. I won’t on you.
You made your choice and I made mine, let’s respect that.
You are not better because you made a different choice.
1 Like
I have not seen any city-dwelling posters in this thread insinuate that they are “better” than rural posters.
On the other hand, I have seen quite a few posts going the other way.
3 Likes
Not from me. Although I can and often do.
I can see it. Meth, trailer parks, etc. It is more subtle in this thread than usual, I’ll admit.
It is also part of the liberal narrative, so it is always present. I don’t expect it to change, it’s always been this way. My comments are just a reminder.
Besides, we weight things differently depending on our values, so “better” can be difficult.
Could it be that you see it because you’re looking for it - because you want to see it?
As far as I’m concerned, “othering” urban populations is part of the conservative narrative. They’re not “real” Americans, etc.
1 Like
It’s possible, but I find it so…
Culture conflict. Imposition. Ochlocracy. Tyranny by the majority. Insults and disrespect. Not hard to find rationalization for the derision.
The collectivism of the urban class is incompatible with the individualism of the rural class. Always has been.
We are quite simply incompatible. We are not united, we are not indivisible and technology is making the incompatibility more and more evident. We can’t avoid each other any more.
In my opinion, we are as incompatible as Sunni and Shia.
I lived in both.
Cities: DC(mostly here), Philly(short stints with family), Brooklyn (short stints with family)
Country: NC, rural eastern shore of Maryland, of course considerable amount of time in MS(where my inlaws are from), and Manchester, Jamaica(yeah I know another another nation, but down there it’s considered country)
There are benefits to both along with cons, there are good people in the city and the country, there are ass holes in the city and the country. I don’t think one is better than the other. My preference is to live close enough to get to both under 45 minutes.
1 Like
How about the people?
What do you call an area 45 minutes out of a city?
35 minutes north of Houston puts you in Tomball.
Yep… same here… grew up in suburbia VA… moved around for a while living both on the beaches and the mountains for a time until I landed in Brooklyn.
Now I split my time between Brooklyn and Rural Maine with an eye on early retirement in Rural Maine.
There are pros and cons to both. I have also seen just as much collectivism and as much individualism in both places.
It is not weakness or a strength of either… it just is.
