this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
1050 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3320 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 month 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.