• jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Cities matter more. Sorry, but that’s the reality.

    Cities are where people live. People matter.

    Cities are where culture happens. Culture matters. You’re not going to have a big art/music/anything scene in bumbleweed, NE because there aren’t enough people there to constitute a scene.

    Cities are where economy happens. Money moving around matters. There are more transactions per day in the corner shop by me than a whole week in some country town with 700 residents.

    Rural people still have the Senate and local government. Their rep in the house (which should be expanded) also should speak up for their region.

    Everyone deserves some minimum respect, but the idea that nowhere-utah is just as important as Queens is insane. A minority holding the majority garbage is not good. Especially when that minority seems fixated on terrible ideas like climate change denial and xenophobia.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I say it all the time - places like California and New York are strategically more important, too. Most of the game development, the movie/tv industry, software, even a lot of our food, happens in CA. And then a great deal of finance happens in NYC. Lots of defense industry stuff is clustered around DC as well.

      It’s called “flyover country” for a reason. If you want to partake in what is happening, then move to those locations. Unfortunately, our backwards slave-era system gives wayyyy too much power to regions that just don’t matter as much.

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      With respect sir (or madam), you are personifying the ‘ivory tower elite’ attitude that so many conservatives make fun of. 'I matter, others don’t.

      You think there’s no culture in rural areas? That you need a giant festival to have culture?
      That corner shop that has 100 transactions an hour… where do you think the bread they sell comes from? The flour? The avocadoes on the avocado toast? (sorry, I had to :P ) Sure as fuck doesn’t come from the city. You can write the rest of the nation off as unimportant and then see how unimportant they are when your fridge is empty. They matter.

      the idea that nowhere-utah is just as important as Queens is insane.

      And the idea that Queens should be able to dictate policy that applies nationally including Nowhere, UT is just as insane.

      Especially when that minority seems fixated on terrible ideas like climate change denial and xenophobia.

      I’ll give you that- most of the conservative platform these days is a bit on the batshit side.

      But there’s other parts that make sense. Take guns for example. A liberal in NYC has the 11th largest army in the world 3 digits away. Police response time is seconds or minutes. So ‘nobody needs a gun’ is a common urban liberal position.
      Go out in rural areas, there might be two deputies for an entire county with police response time in the range of 30-120 minutes if at all. And that county may have 4-legged predators like bears, wolves, etc that can threaten humans. So that guy wants a GOOD gun to defend himself and his family, because if there is a problem nobody else is gonna arrive until it’s too late.
      The urban liberal doesn’t consider the rural conservative POV, and they want to apply their position nationally. Should the rural conservative have no useful defense against that?

      Guns are just an example, but that overall is why I think the electoral college has a place. House is based on population, Senate based on statehood, Presidency is in the middle with influences both from statehood and population. That’s a good way to go.

      And FWIW, I also support INCREASING the population representative in the House. The current cap of 437 has not served us well with the expanding US population, and there’s now over 700k citizens per representative. That’s far too many to get voices heard, and one rep covers far too many disparate people. And it also in the House increases influence of smaller states (to a minimum of 1/437th).
      I believe the cap should be raised to a very large number, perhaps several thousand. It may no longer be possible to have the entire House convene in one building, but technology has solved that problem. If you have one representative for every say 10,000-25,000 citizens, it becomes much easier for a representative to truly represent their citizens in detail and gives a citizen much greater access to his or her representatives.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        You think there’s no culture in rural areas?

        There is less cultural output because there are fewer people. There’s probably a thousand new bands that started in Brooklyn this month. You just can’t have those numbers out in the sticks because you don’t have the people. There literally aren’t enough singers.

        Culture matters. People interacting and inspiring each other matters. It’s not that there’s nothing happening out in Wisconsin or wherever, but there’s less. There are fewer people to be doing stuff!

        I almost wrote a preemptive response about “where does your food come from”. I don’t think most of the people living outside of cities are farmers.

        A quick search says

        The Midwest rounds out the top five states with the most farmers:
        
            Missouri (162,345, or 5% of the labor force)
            Iowa (145,432 or 9% of the labor force)
            Ohio (130,439 or 2% of the labor force)
            Oklahoma (130,434 or 7% of the labor force)
        

        I don’t know if https://usafacts.org/articles/farmer-demographics/ is a real site but it would be awkward for someone to make up these numbers.

        That’s a lot of people in the sense of like “I couldn’t have that many people at my birthday party” but not a lot of people compared to like, who lives in major cities. Bushwick, Brooklyn is one neighborhood and has like 130k people.

        Food is important but probably not a justification for holding everyone else hostage. Especially when most people living in those areas aren’t even growing food. (Some are second order involved, like the guy who works the Laundromat helps the farmer or whatever). Also especially when the efforts being stymied would help people, like student loan forgiveness or federally funded school meals.

        The urban liberal doesn’t consider the rural conservative POV, and they want to apply their position nationally. Should the rural conservative have no useful defense against that?

        The rural conservative POV is utterly poisoned by decades of racial violence and regressive policies. There’s like a mass shooting every day. Climate change is going to fuck us. Conservatism is not an okay world view.

        That said, the answer is probably local government for things that are actually local. Environmental issues cannot be local. You can’t have this town dumping mercury into the water and pretending that’s just fine. But for something like “we want a bike lane here” or “we want a library that’s open weekends” that’s doesn’t need to be federal. But if “local” means “no queers allowed to get married here” then the locals can fuck themselves.

        Guns are a whole separate wedge issue. I think they should at least be treated the same as cars- license, registration, insurance, mechanisms to remove the license like DUI. I don’t know how close to reality that is.

        I wrote this on my phone so it’s not my best work.

        • nieminen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          For guns, I’ve recently run into a point of view that I think is valid: the above structure (insurance/license) disproportionately favors the wealthy. Ultimately it just adds a barrier for the poor.

          I fully understand that the stats show that gun control laws DO indeed decrease GUN violence. However violent crime in general doesn’t really change. The ONLY statistically effective way that guarantees a reduction of violence on the whole is lifting people out of poverty. The less poor we have, the less violent crime. Social programs can lift us out of so many issues.

          • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            This is true. The same problem applies to transportation, health care, food security, etc. Poverty is terrible. Unfortunately, the right wing also seems to hate any effective programs to deal with it. No school lunches, no basic income, no nationalized insurance, etc etc.

            • nieminen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Right, it’s especially rich because that the demographic that’s overwhelmingly “Christian” despite consistently voting against policies that align with “Christ’s” teachings.

              • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                The Southern Baptist Convention schismed from the Triennial Convention (the National Baptist group) because the national Baptists weren’t pro-slavery enough.

                The SBC is based fundamentally around racism, it was founded on racism, one of the beliefs I was exposed to in the south was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

                They taught themselves that their brand of Christianity was their only defense against brown people and their Northern masters who want to destroy the “Southern Way of Life”, and now it’s just a siege mentality with whichever conman comes around.