4 ms·

It's a nasty sentiment that's inculcated into virtually all Americans since birth; any problem beyond our property line we don't give a fuck about. Hilariously

It's a nasty sentiment that's inculcated into virtually all Americans since birth; any problem beyond our property line we don't give a fuck about. Hilariously ironic of course for people that choose to buy property in a building owned by someone else.

giantg2 5y ago
Not really. Maybe it's more pronounced in specific areas of the US. I know plenty of people who care about their local communities and neighbors.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Everything is fine and dandy when everyone is experiencing growth. But there is a point where when sacrifices need to be made, things start getting tribal real fast. I think there is an underlying trend of that due to certain populations’ socioeconomic status slipping, and I think with the slowdown in population growth, we will be seeing more if it as society decides how to allocate fewer resources.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Maybe the area I grew up I was different. Economical depressed areas like much of Appalachia tend to have a good community atmosphere. I wouldn't be surprised if that's just small towns in general though. You look out for yourself, but you help your neighbors. You want something new, like equiptment in the park? Raise the money with fundraisers, find volunteers to build/install/maintain it, etc. These are the people who dont expect things to be handled to them, only for the opportunity for themselves to improve their community.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      That’s exactly the mechanic I’m talking about. Tribal - we’ll raise money for our neighborhood park, but of course they have money since their ancestors got there first (or maybe worked harder?) and passed down their land or whatever other structural advantages. In your example, the neighbors are the tribe. The other people on the other side of town who are poorer, for various reasons, simply will not get a park. However, if the economy is growing and everyone is moving up the ladder, then it will be easier to spread the fruits around to everyone. You are likelier to support taxes and condo fees to assist others, since you yourself are not stagnating or moving down the ladder.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "You are likelier to support taxes and condo fees to assist others, since you yourself are not stagnating or moving down the ladder." It depends, but I generally agree. I would say the mentality should be that it benefits the community and not necessarily any one person. "The other people on the other side of town who are poorer, for various reasons, simply will not get a park." I don't think you understand just how small most small towns are. Many times there's only one park. If it is tribal at all, there tends to be only one tribe (or there are personal issues). "we’ll raise money for our neighborhood park, but of course they have money since their ancestors got there first (or maybe worked harder?) and passed down their land or whatever other structural advantages." The current generation (and previous one or two) are worse off than before. The mines and mills have shut down. The vast majority of the factories have been offshored. The industries that have replaced them, like tech, have mostly consolidated in just a handful of large cities. Most have little to no money. The land you talk about is really a negative point. The family farms generally get divided when handed down. Or they simply are too small by today's standards. They get consolidated by corporations. The land in these areas isn't worth very much either ($500-1000 per acre). So what assets they get handed down are diluted, and aren't worth much in the market (even depreciated). The structure has been going against them for decades (jobs move out, people move out, demand drops, prices drop). The region is severely economically depressed. These are people working and organizing to make their community better. This is what government should be. Not some distant vague entity that wants to solve everything through taxes. Here's an example, in the area I'm in now I am part of an organization. They wanted a few trees cut down that weren't near anything. It would be easy to do. The people cutting them down could even use or sell the wood. It would be no risk and no cost to the organization. Instead they chose to hire someone at a cost of a few thousand dollars...
readflaggedcomm 5y ago
Taking action beyond my property line might open me up for devastating liability, even if fixing a shared wall works fine. The sentiment at fault isn't keeping to oneself, it's the opposite.

giantg2 5y ago

Not really. Maybe it's more pronounced in specific areas of the US. I know plenty of people who care about their local communities and neighbors.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Everything is fine and dandy when everyone is experiencing growth. But there is a point where when sacrifices need to be made, things start getting tribal real fast. I think there is an underlying trend of that due to certain populations’ socioeconomic status slipping, and I think with the slowdown in population growth, we will be seeing more if it as society decides how to allocate fewer resources.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Maybe the area I grew up I was different. Economical depressed areas like much of Appalachia tend to have a good community atmosphere. I wouldn't be surprised if that's just small towns in general though. You look out for yourself, but you help your neighbors. You want something new, like equiptment in the park? Raise the money with fundraisers, find volunteers to build/install/maintain it, etc. These are the people who dont expect things to be handled to them, only for the opportunity for themselves to improve their community.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    That’s exactly the mechanic I’m talking about. Tribal - we’ll raise money for our neighborhood park, but of course they have money since their ancestors got there first (or maybe worked harder?) and passed down their land or whatever other structural advantages. In your example, the neighbors are the tribe. The other people on the other side of town who are poorer, for various reasons, simply will not get a park. However, if the economy is growing and everyone is moving up the ladder, then it will be easier to spread the fruits around to everyone. You are likelier to support taxes and condo fees to assist others, since you yourself are not stagnating or moving down the ladder.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "You are likelier to support taxes and condo fees to assist others, since you yourself are not stagnating or moving down the ladder." It depends, but I generally agree. I would say the mentality should be that it benefits the community and not necessarily any one person. "The other people on the other side of town who are poorer, for various reasons, simply will not get a park." I don't think you understand just how small most small towns are. Many times there's only one park. If it is tribal at all, there tends to be only one tribe (or there are personal issues). "we’ll raise money for our neighborhood park, but of course they have money since their ancestors got there first (or maybe worked harder?) and passed down their land or whatever other structural advantages." The current generation (and previous one or two) are worse off than before. The mines and mills have shut down. The vast majority of the factories have been offshored. The industries that have replaced them, like tech, have mostly consolidated in just a handful of large cities. Most have little to no money. The land you talk about is really a negative point. The family farms generally get divided when handed down. Or they simply are too small by today's standards. They get consolidated by corporations. The land in these areas isn't worth very much either ($500-1000 per acre). So what assets they get handed down are diluted, and aren't worth much in the market (even depreciated). The structure has been going against them for decades (jobs move out, people move out, demand drops, prices drop). The region is severely economically depressed. These are people working and organizing to make their community better. This is what government should be. Not some distant vague entity that wants to solve everything through taxes. Here's an example, in the area I'm in now I am part of an organization. They wanted a few trees cut down that weren't near anything. It would be easy to do. The people cutting them down could even use or sell the wood. It would be no risk and no cost to the organization. Instead they chose to hire someone at a cost of a few thousand dollars...

readflaggedcomm 5y ago

Taking action beyond my property line might open me up for devastating liability, even if fixing a shared wall works fine. The sentiment at fault isn't keeping to oneself, it's the opposite.