Most active commenters
  • nodesocket(3)
  • ryanwaggoner(3)

←back to thread

370 points sillypuddy | 17 comments | | HN request time: 0.002s | source | bottom
Show context
nodesocket ◴[] No.16407550[source]
I recently moved (fled) from downtown San Francisco to Nashville TN and couldn't be happier. I lived in SF for over 5 years, and there is absolutely a mass exodus of people and engineers leaving the bay area because of extreme ideology, hypocrisy, constant outrage, and the echo chamber that engulfs everything. Downtown San Francisco is a great place to visit for a few days but no place to start and raise a family.
replies(6): >>16407589 #>>16407644 #>>16407706 #>>16407808 #>>16409141 #>>16409688 #
ryanwaggoner ◴[] No.16407706[source]
See, and I left NYC for Nashville in 2015, and I’m moving back to NYC next week. Nashville itself is pretty purple, but the ideology of the south is just as homogeneous as SF, and I find it much, much more offensive (Roy Moore).

There is not a (net) mass exodus from the Bay Area, hence the ridiculous prices. I moved to SF in 2006 and there were always people claiming it was on the verge of collapse because everyone was fed up with the high prices and crowding and was fleeing. Funny to see that nothing has changed.

“No one goes to that bar anymore, it’s too crowded!”

replies(2): >>16407745 #>>16407798 #
1. nodesocket ◴[] No.16407798{3}[source]
Nashville as you know is actually pretty liberal, but the biggest difference is that people here live their lives, are friendly to others, and that southern charm is a real thing. People in San Francisco are always so outraged and angry (mainly since Trump took office) and the media constantly feeds them things to be outraged about that they are perpetually angry. People in Nashville for the most part don't let politics engulf and polarize them (I'd even say radicalize some) like the bay area.
replies(3): >>16407854 #>>16407951 #>>16408209 #
2. chillwaves ◴[] No.16407854[source]
The media "feeds" us stuff to be outraged about?

You mean factually reporting the news? There is real and severe damage that is happening to our country and our standing in the world. The regressive politics will have consequences.

Even if you are a fan of Trump's policies, the White House is chaos, we essentially do not have a president. Imagine a real crisis hitting, and what this White House would do.

It's incredible how insulting portions are at the population that they think the very real harm (this is not normal) is just some kind of media sensation. I think you are confusing the real current administration with a season of the apprentice that Trump hosted.

replies(5): >>16407908 #>>16407924 #>>16407935 #>>16408322 #>>16408486 #
3. nodesocket ◴[] No.16407908[source]
The fact that you can't see that it's in the media's best interest (manily to stay in business) to push outrage and sensational headlines and enable constant outrage is surprising. Facebook also further reinforces the outrage (on both sides) again for huge profits. Outrage sells, and business is a booming.
replies(2): >>16408055 #>>16408392 #
4. tzahola ◴[] No.16407924[source]
Ironically, your post perfectly illustrates his/her point.
5. saget ◴[] No.16407935[source]
You just proved his point. You replied as an outraged person that is angry about the Trump presidency. It's perfectly ok to go about your life without mentioning Trump in half of your conversations. For the average person, there's nothing that can really be done until the next election. You can be angry about Trump but don't go around thinking the only correct way to life is being outraged about it.
replies(1): >>16408040 #
6. ryanwaggoner ◴[] No.16407951[source]
We do not live in the same Nashville.

Not only is it not “pretty liberal” by any definition, people here aren’t any less political than people on the coasts, and they don’t “live their lives” any more, whatever that even means.

However, people here are less angry about Trump and the Republicans because they’re much more likely to have voted for him and support what he’s doing. They were plenty angry when Obama was in office.

Also, “southern charm” is real and nice at first, but in my experience it’s actually pretty shallow, cheap, and discriminatory. It’s mainly surface-level and primarily extended to non-poor white Christian conservatives. Minorities, immigrants, gays, liberals, non-Christians, and poor people are treated differently.

replies(3): >>16408685 #>>16408869 #>>16410633 #
7. ryanwaggoner ◴[] No.16408040{3}[source]
Give me a break. They didn’t bring up Trump, the person they’re responding to did. And it’s intellectually dishonest to claim that you can’t be outraged no matter what level of harm or danger or betrayal of your values is occurring, or that means you’re a media puppet.

The better question is: why aren’t you outraged like so many others?

And if the answer is that you don’t care or you agree with the policies in question, then perhaps the outraged people should justifiably ignore your condemnation of their outrage.

It’s ridiculous for me to claim that all conservatives were only anti-Obama’s policies because the right-leaning media whipped them into a frenzy, and it’s just as unfair and intellectually dishonest to do that to the left today.

replies(1): >>16409483 #
8. evgen ◴[] No.16408055{3}[source]
Maybe they are just not oblivious to the fact that there is a lot to be outraged about? Sometimes the outrage is not manufactured but simply a response to lies and criminal behavior in the halls of power.
9. ◴[] No.16408209[source]
10. dang ◴[] No.16408322[source]
Please don't go into political battle mode on HN. If you do that, so will others, and then we'll have a big war, the people who don't want this will leave, and the site will go down the drain. If we're to keep HN as a place for relatively (emphasis on relatively) thoughtful discussion, we're all responsible not to let this happen.

The political issues are important, of course. Arguably more important than other topics. That's one reason why the above is the case.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

11. ordinaryradical ◴[] No.16408392{3}[source]
You're making it zero sum but it's not. It's possible to have a media that profits off outrage but to simultaneously have outrageous things happening to our the most important institutions.

The media did not create deported children, paid off porn stars, and collusion with foreign governments. So let's not pretend this is on them entirely.

replies(1): >>16409547 #
12. rainbowmverse ◴[] No.16408486[source]
>> Imagine a real crisis hitting, and what this White House would do.

Like, for example, the flu season becoming a crisis because key medical manufacturers were devastated by a hurricane and found limited support from a government that barely realizes Puerto Rico is part of the US, much less that its industries are so essential.

13. kodablah ◴[] No.16408685[source]
> Not only is it not “pretty liberal” by any definition

Any definition? I'm not from there, but if you use votes for liberal candidates as a basis, they are pretty liberal [0]. That's at least one definition, whether or not it's yours. I could understand arguing nuance, but to say it isn't pretty liberal by any definition appears incorrect.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashville,_Tennessee#Politics

14. jnbiche ◴[] No.16408869[source]
Davidson County voted for Clinton in 2016 by an almost 2-to-1 margin. Almost all heavily urban areas are pretty to very liberal, regardless of whether they're in the South or elsewhere.
15. sciencesage ◴[] No.16409483{4}[source]
The person you're replying to never said you can't be outraged. They just said being outraged isn't the only valid course of action. They never even said they weren't outrage, he/she never gave an opinion on the president.

Can we please stop it with these political comments made to provoke instead of discuss? If you want to vent your anger go post on reddit.

16. dictum ◴[] No.16409547{4}[source]
The media did not create the situations you listed, but it did create a lot of "get a load of this guy" pieces about him exactly when he wanted them most: when he was the kooky loudmouth unlikely to be nominated.
17. astura ◴[] No.16410633[source]
>“southern charm” is real and nice at first, but in my experience it’s actually pretty shallow, cheap, and discriminatory.

Ohhhhh yeah.

I have to admit I have a limited amount of personal experience with the South, but this is both the impression I have from my limited experience and what people who grew up in the South but live in the Northeast now tell me from their experiences.

Or as someone who grew up in Louisiana told me "'Southern Hospitality' and hospitality anywhere else is the same except that outside the South they don't feel the need to brag about it and also offer it to people that aren't white."

It's just sooooooo so so so shallow, some of the stuff I hear Southerners brag about I'm thinking, in my head, "well literally anyone I know would do that but that so I'm not impressed and, nobody would feel the need to brag about it later."

I just hate how shallow and insincere it is dressed up in in the thin veil of sincerity