To those living in small towns....

[ygolo]

Do you really believe your values are better than those who live in cities or suburbs?

[Eldanen]

Values? What values? My exposure to ideology online has led me to believe that a great variety of values exists. So, my values aren't really better or worse than the values of those who live in cities or suburbs. Why'd you phrase your question with a *really*? What prompted the question? My contact with Discordianism has probably led me to a great break with those in my locality >:>. Strangely enough, the society in this area seems to be built on a phenomenon where people just go to work and go home everyday.

There's not really much activity out there. It's boring. You can go to the bookstore or a coffee shop and try to find someone who might be walking in an aisle near you reading a book on a subject you might also be interested in, and not find anyone. Mostly, they're all reading boring home & garden magazines. And the coffee shops which might be a good place to trade ideas and have good discussions are pretty much deserted. I remember going to one recently and there was a sign on each of the tables saying that if you didn't buy something you had to get out, lol. That doesn't really promote socialization.

And as far as people my age go, maybe late teens early twenties crowd.... Seems quite small. I'm not sure what the heck they're doing, but they sure haven't been in any of the areas I've been going to.

[ygolo]

The reason I use the word "really" is because I am testing to see if people hold the belief in question.

If one were to listen to the political rhetoric of our current political campaign, one Sarah Palin's major points is that she has "small-town values." The implication is that this is somehow appealing. So, if this campaign strategy is to be effective, there must be some who believe small-toen values are better than city or suburban values,

I wanted to check to see if people living in small towns were people who believed this. Certainly, people lieving in cities or the subarbs may also be among those who believe "small-town values" are better. But it seemed more plausible that it would be people in small towns who believed this.

[Eldanen]

The biggest thing about small-town values supposedly is that it is more tight-knit in relational associations and slower-paced, so it might be more healthy for people. Me, I find tight-knit social groups extremely limiting. I'm not sure what in particular they would mean besides that. Unless they think that by "small-town values," they mean, "Christian values." Euphemism, heh.

[ygolo]

I was most "close knit" in high-school, and college, in which the culture was much closer to "city" in that there were a lot of people in close quarters.

I also generally see more close-knittedness in cities than in small towns, and I've been in both. In cities, there are certainly more strangers, but there are also more people in close-quarters who can be friends.

Slower-pace in small-town, I can see. Less traffic, less "other people" to worry about. You porbably could in some small towns leave your door unlocked (but certainly not all of them).

I presume there are Christians in cities and suburbs too. But of course, you will also have more of other religions too.

I still don't know what "small-town values" are nor do I see how they can be appreciably different from urban or suburbsn values. Desiring a slower-pace is the only thing I can see. Slower-pace appeals to me in general.

But, how does valuing a slower-pace of life make one a more appealing candidate for vice-president?

[Eldanen]

I dunno. There's been a lot of mention about how western civilization is supposedly too hurried, hectic, frenetic for a person's health. Also, there's a hint of reactionary ideas in the idea of small-town values. Let's return to something back then. Because society has certainly grown and become more global recently. The advent of the Internet has made access to a lot of stuff much easier, and cultural borders are wearing down.

[ygolo]

Slower pace life appeals to me also.

I don't think the fast pace of life itself is necesarily unhealthy. However, impatience can be.

Still, just becaue I like a slower pace, does that mean it is better?

If someone likes a faster pace, I see nothing inherently worse in that.

I do think "small town values" is a euphamism for something else. I don't really find that something else appealing.

[Eldanen]

Like I said, "small town values" probably is a euphemism for fundamentalist christianity values.

[ygolo]

Like I said, "small town values" probably is a euphemism for fundamentalist christianity values.

What's the difference between fundamentalist Christian values, and plain-old Christian values?

I know there is a difference but I don't know what it is.

[Eldanen]

What's the difference between fundamentalist Christian values, and plain-old Christian values?

I know there is a difference but I don't know what it is.

What we call fundamentalist today is probably equal to "plain-old Christian values." That is, the values of the 1800s, early 1900s, etc. There are spiritual christians who are less literal, don't take everything as it's said and are loose in their interpretations. But that's somewhat of a modern day phenomenon.

[ygolo]

What we call fundamentalist today is probably equal to "plain-old Christian values." That is, the values of the 1800s, early 1900s, etc. There are spiritual christians who are less literal, don't take everything as it's said and are loose in their interpretations. But that's somewhat of a modern day phenomenon.

So even in the 19th century, people read the Bible literally? I was under the impression that the return to literalism was a recent phenomenon.

[Eldanen]

So even in the 19th century, people read the Bible literally? I was under the impression that the return to literalism was a recent phenomenon.

You might have had some enlightened people who followed a higher path in those days. But religion and morality was still pretty strict around those times for the lower end majority who weren't as well educated or artistic in their ideas. The 18th-19th century poets from the northeastern area were probably ideal as for being biblical non-literalists in their personalities.

Edit: I don't think that you're necessarily seeing a "return to" literalist interpretations of the Bible. It's just that the advent of televangelism and megachurches makes it seem so.

[Oberon]

Everyone believes his values to be best. That's why they're values.

[Eldanen]

Everyone believes his values to be best. That's why they're values.

But notice how when they mean "values voters" on television, they mean, "christian values voters." Hehe. Yeah. If they didn't value their values, they wouldn't be values.

[Oberon]

So even in the 19th century, people read the Bible literally? I was under the impression that the return to literalism was a recent phenomenon.

Literalism was re-ignited with the first vernacular translations of the Bible generated by the Protestant Reformation. The King James translation of the Bible was commissioned to calm down the Puritans, who were getting fired up over John Knox's margin notes in the Geneva Bible. This dates literalism back as early as 1560, and hardcore Protestant exegesis has been going strong ever since.

[Eldanen]

Literalism was re-ignited with the first vernacular translations of the Bible generated by the Protestant Reformation. The King James translation of the Bible was commissioned to calm down the Puritans, who were getting fired up over John Knox's margin notes in the Geneva Bible. This dates literalism back as early as 1560, and hardcore Protestant exegesis has been going strong ever since.

So when did it die out exactly before it was re-ignited?

[Oberon]

But notice how when they mean "values voters" on television, they mean, "christian values voters." Hehe. Yeah. If they didn't value their values, they wouldn't be values.

While you are right about the common usage of the term, there are also Jewish and Muslim and Hindu values voters. More properly these all should be referred to as "religious values voters," to differentiate them from "freedom values voters" or "economic values voters."

[Oberon]

So when did it die out exactly before it was re-ignited?

Hard to say exactly; but the first- and second-century churches who were passing around Paul's letters (before they and other writings were assembled into the Bible) were reading them literally, just as they were reading the Torah. Literalism faded in places and times when people were unable to do the reading for themselves. So when people couldn't get access to the writings, or couldn't read Greek or Hebrew (or, later, Latin), literalism was simply impossible.

[ygolo]

So why not just say "Christian values" instead of "small town values?"

I don't like the ambiguity of what is being alluded to.

[Eldanen]

It's politics. Do you ever expect them to be straight with you? If they openly said christian values, liberals would get even more angry with them :D.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Like I said, "small town values" probably is a euphemism for fundamentalist christianity values.

I've concluded the term "fundamentalist christian" is mostly used by people on the left to distance themselves from people on the right. Similarly people on the right use terms like "soy-latte drinking elitist" to distance themselves from people on the left.

Back to the thread topic: I find it ironic that John Mellancamp in a Democrat.

Small Town

[ygolo]

It's politics. Do you ever expect them to be straight with you? If they openly said christian values, liberals would get even more angry with them :D.


So what? They aren't going to get the liberal vote. Instead they have urban ans suburban indpendents like me hearing a phrase that doesn't sound too good. Huckabee actually warned against this.

I am not a Christian, but I can understand why it would be appealing for someone to have Christian values.

[ygolo]

Everyone believes his values to be best. That's why they're values.

I don't think this is true. Sometimes people can see values as preferences. There are somethings appropriate for me, and there are other things appropriate for others.

Our values are our preferences--what we value. I don't believe it follows that we think they are "better" in an objective sense.

[ygolo]

Similarly people on the right use terms like "soy-latte drinking elitist" to distance themselves from people on the left.

As someone who holds many conservative views, phases like this don't really help attract me to the Rpublican party.

I like soy-lattes once in a while. I went to one of those "elite" schools.

What the hell does this crap have to do with political views, or what would be the best course for a nation?

[Oberon]

I don't think this is true. Sometimes people can see values as preferences. There are somethings appropriate for me, and there are other things appropriate for others.

Our values are our preferences--what we value. I don't believe it follows that we think they are "better" in an objective sense.

...but you believe this because you value personal liberty. Your egalitarianism and tolerance are values.

You believe that this perception informs a better way to live, yes? Shouldn't everyone share your tolerance for other points of view?

[cafe]

I think city people are perceived to be less community minded, less family oriented, less traditional in the way they live, less hardworking, and of course, less religious.

I do think being family oriented and hardworking are good values. Being traditional can have some value depending. I consider myself religious, so I value that to some degree but there is a lot of nasty baggage that can go along with that, too.

My own experience with small towns, very small towns like a few thousand people, is that they are, in addition to the good things, insular, prejudice, and judgmental. I do not value those things. Now I've never lived as an adult in a very large city, but in my mid-sized town, it seems to me that it's not as hard to get by if you are in an out group as it is in a small town.

[ygolo]

...but you believe this because you value personal liberty. Your egalitarianism and tolerance are values.


This is true, but it still does not remove the very plausible possibility that it is not objectively "best," but simply appropriate for me.


You believe that this perception informs a better way to live, yes? Shouldn't everyone share your tolerance for other points of view?

Not necessarily. Tolerance is a luxury for some. For those who have to fight everyday to hold onto the values they want, a a belief in theirs being "best" may aid them in their process.

It took me a long time to come to the realization that some people don't value the truth above everything else, and that sometimes that is OK. But i still hold seeking the truth to be my highest value.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

As someone who holds many conservative views, phases like this don't really help attract me to the Rpublican party.

I like soy-lattes once in a while. I went to one of those "elite" schools.

What the hell does this crap have to do with political views, or what would be the best course for a nation?

Heh, as an NT I sympathize. I don't appreciate the rhetoric or the polarizing effect that it has. On the other hand it must be useful in persuading some, otherwise why would they do this? It would be nice if language is occasionally used to appeal to us NT's (i.e. reason), but that is rarely the case.

[ygolo]

I think city people are perceived to be less community minded, less family oriented, less traditional in the way they live, less hardworking, and of course, less religious.


I think there are more single people living alone in cities, so this perception may be accurate in aggregate. But plenty of community minded, family oriented, religious people live in cities too.

Also, those single people living alone have parents that are often in small-towns or suburbs.

Really, I think suburbs are more "prototypical America" than small towns. I have to find the stats. but I think suburbs have more people total than rural areas.

I have nothing against rural America per say. I just don't like the implication that living in rural areas somehow makes one more human, more "real," or more American.

[ygolo]

Heh, as an NT I sympathize. I don't appreciate the rhetoric or the polarizing effect that it has. On the other hand it must be useful in persuading some, otherwise why would they do this? It would be nice if language is occasionally used to appeal to us NT's (i.e. reason), but that is rarely the case.

I didn't really want to bring temperament into this, I don't think is all that relevant.

I think the "culture war" crap is back-firing in many ways. Does it actually still work? If I were a more emotional suburban voter, I would have already decided to vote Democratic by now. Because, I definitely react badly to the Republican party rhetoric regarding the "culture war."

As a reaction to the Rhodes scholar Clinton, it may have been effective. But remember we've had "average Joe," George W. Bush, and look how that turned out.

As John Stewart put way back when he was doing stand-up. "Be better than us."

I want a candidate who is more intelligent, more articulate, more persevering, better in crisis, and a better leader than I ever could be.

When we fill any other position important to us, do we look for, "this person is like us," or "this person will do a good job?"

[cafe]

I think there are more single people living alone in cities, so this perception may be accurate in aggregate. But plenty of community minded, family oriented, religious people live in cities too.

Also, those single people living alone have parents that are often in small-towns or suburbs.

Really, I think suburbs are more "prototypical America" than small towns. I have to find the stats. but I think suburbs have more people total than rural areas.

I have nothing against rural America per say. I just don't like the implication that living in rural areas somehow makes one more human, more "real," or more American.
Of course you don't. It's insulting. Just like the idea that people that live in 'flyover country' are backwards, stupid, and their attitudes and ideals are not representative of 'real Americans' that live in cities.

There is a cultural divide in this country. I'm not sure what the geographical, political, etc lines are, but it's there and I suspect a your typical rural working class Democrat has a lot more in common with his rural working class Republican brother than he does with an upper class urban Democrat when it comes to attitudes and world views.

Who is more American? Whose values are better? Who knows? I think both candidates are trying to pull the rural working class voters into the fold and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Personally, I don't see either candidate as being 'like me' . . . well, I suppose Palin is more 'like me' and those I know irl but . . . I guess the way in which I perceive her to reflect small town values is the insular, prejudice, judgmental way and paired with a running mate that is a jerk (witness the dumping of crippled wife) and richer than God (witness the top end of middle class being $5M), meh, not 'like me' so much.

[pure_mercury]

Once again, I must link a great Reason article. This one is about "the myth of rural virtue."

Palin's Small-Town Snobbery: Why it's time to bury the myth of rural virtue - Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/news/show/129184.html)

[ygolo]

Of course you don't. It's insulting. Just like the idea that people that live in 'flyover country' are backwards, stupid, and their attitudes and ideals are not representative of 'real Americans' that live in cities.

There is a cultural divide in this country. I'm not sure what the geographical, political, etc lines are, but it's there and I suspect a your typical rural working class Democrat has a lot more in common with his rural working class Republican brother than he does with an upper class urban Democrat when it comes to attitudes and world views.

Who is more American? Whose values are better? Who knows? I think both candidates are trying to pull the rural working class voters into the fold and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Personally, I don't see either candidate as being 'like me' . . . well, I suppose Palin is more 'like me' and those I know irl but . . . I guess the way in which I perceive her to reflect small town values is the insular, prejudice, judgmental way and paired with a running mate that is a jerk (witness the dumping of crippled wife) and richer than God (witness the top end of middle class being $5M), meh, not 'like me' so much.

I am questioning the "cultural divide" in itself. There are working class people in urban areas, just as there are wealthy people in rural ones.

We make categories, only when they are useful in describing a difference.

What difference is this cultural divide trying to define?

If it is just class, then they are missing a huge chunk of the working class in urban America when drawing the line between rural working class and others.

If it really is just rural vs. urban, it seems like the grievances are misplaced since it is likely the wealthy ruralites who take advantage of the poor and working-class rural individuals.

Family farms are getting competition from factory farms. The mom-and-pop stores are loosing to Wall-Mart, not the little Chinese groceries in the cities.

It seems to me that the lines of "culture" are drawn in turns of rural vs. urban, but that they ought to be drawn in terms of class.

[cafe]

I am questioning the "cultural divide" in itself. There are working class people in urban areas, just as there are wealthy people in rural ones.

We make categories, only when they are useful in describing a difference.

What difference is this cultural divide trying to define?

If it is just class, then they are missing a huge chunk of the working class in urban America when drawing the line between rural working class and others.

If it really is just rural vs. urban, it seems like the grievances are misplaced since it is likely the wealthy ruralites who take advantage of the poor and working-class rural individuals.

Family farms are getting competition from factory farms. The mom-and-pop stores are loosing to Wall-Mart, not the little Chinese groceries in the cities.

It seems to me that the lines of "culture" are drawn in turns of rural vs. urban, but that they ought to be drawn in terms of class.
Very probably so.

[pure_mercury]

I am questioning the "cultural divide" in itself. There are working class people in urban areas, just as there are wealthy people in rural ones.

We make categories, only when they are useful in describing a difference.

What difference is this cultural divide trying to define?

If it is just class, then they are missing a huge chunk of the working class in urban America when drawing the line between rural working class and others.

If it really is just rural vs. urban, it seems like the grievances are misplaced since it is likely the wealthy ruralites who take advantage of the poor and working-class rural individuals.

Family farms are getting competition from factory farms. The mom-and-pop stores are loosing to Wall-Mart, not the little Chinese groceries in the cities.

It seems to me that the lines of "culture" are drawn in turns of rural vs. urban, but that they ought to be drawn in terms of class.


It is definitely NOT class. Both parties have weird cross-class and cross-cultural supporters. Republicans have Wall Street millionaires, small business owners, Cuban-Americans, Zionist Jewish-Americans, and working-class Southerners and Midwesterners. The Democrats have wealthy urban professionals, poor blacks, middle-class female suburbanites, Rust Belt union workers, and college students. Neither class nor location tell the whole story.

I also don't have a problem with Wal-Mart, the Chinese, or factory farms. All of those entities work, and work well. They help make us very, very rich as compared to most of the world.

[ygolo]

It is definitely NOT class. Both parties have weird cross-class and cross-cultural supporters. Republicans have Wall Street millionaires, small business owners, Cuban-Americans, Zionist Jewish-Americans, and working-class Southerners and Midwesterners. The Democrats have wealthy urban professionals, poor blacks, middle-class female suburbanites, Rust Belt union workers, and college students. Neither class nor location tell the whole story.

I also don't have a problem with Wal-Mart, the Chinese, or factory farms. All of those entities work, and work well. They help make us very, very rich as compared to most of the world.

I wasn't implying that there should be class warfare or anything.

I am at a complete loss on the sense of this "divide."

It's almost like being placed on Red Team or Blue Team arbitrarily.

Don't working class Southerners and Midwesterners, Rust Belt union workers, and poor blacks have a lot in common day-to-day issues in this present economic situation?

Why are some on the opposite side of the "divide?"

Don't small business owners, middle-class suburbanites, and urban professionals also share a many of the same concerns. These people don't have to struggle from pay-check to pay check, but there is still an eye towards secure their future and their children's future. Still some are on opposite sides of the "divide." Why?

[pure_mercury]

I wasn't implying that there should be class warfare or anything.

I am at a complete loss on the sense of this "divide."

It's almost like being placed on Red Team or Blue Team arbitrarily.

Don't working class Southerners and Midwesterners, Rust Belt union workers, and poor blacks have a lot in common day-to-day issues in this present economic situation?

Why are some on the opposite side of the "divide?"

Don't small business owners, middle-class suburbanites, and urban professionals also share a many of the same concerns. These people don't have to struggle from pay-check to pay check, but there is still an eye towards secure their future and their children's future. Still some are on opposite sides of the "divide." Why?


They have differing religions, schools, social values, personal interests. . . This is something it took the Left WAY longer to figure out. People don't vote based out of class loyalty, or even out of economic self-interest. They want to elect politicians with whom they identify, and people who believe the things they do. It's displaying your social markers. "Peacock voters," as I call them.

[ygolo]

They have differing religions, schools, social values, personal interests. . . This is something it took the Left WAY longer to figure out. People don't vote based out of class loyalty, or even out of economic self-interest. They want to elect politicians with whom they identify, and people who believe the things they do. It's displaying your social markers. "Peacock voters," as I call them.

Damn peacock voters. Look at the mess they got us into with G.W. Bush.

Quite frankly, whoever the next president is going to be will have one of the toughest job in history.

This election is too important for "peacock voting."

I am approaching this election like a series of job-interviews. I want neither an ideologue nor a demagogue.

I want someone who will genuinely and steadfastly do what he believes will be best for this country. I want that person to be competent and lucid enough to believe what is true about what is best for this country. Someone willing to change his mind in light of new information, and willing to make unpopular decisions.

I don't know enough to have my personal beliefs be what is right for the nation, and I am certainly not going to vote based on someone agreeing with me. That seems petty and foolish in this time of crisis.

[booyalab]

http://www.anniemayhem.com/blog%20pics/1arug.jpg

[pure_mercury]

I prefer the Obama "NOPE" poster/T-shirt.


http://www.roflshirts.com/images/obama-NOPE.gif

[ygolo]

I usually take sarcasm as a sign that I touched a nerve. That could be a good thing, or a bad one.

So far, I am not sure what to make of the reaction.