4 ms·

Some people can't afford to live in cities...and their life is better in rural areas. Some people prefer to own rather than rent, even if it's a 100K house on a

Some people can't afford to live in cities...and their life is better in rural areas. Some people prefer to own rather than rent, even if it's a 100K house on a small plot passed down generations. You're essentially saying poor people don't deserve internet access. It's hilarious to me that people with your position proclaim to be progressive (not saying you are,) when there is an explicit hatred of the poor when you start talking to them. I imagine -that- is why people in rural areas feel a disconnect with people in cities.

themitigating 4y ago
Life is better when they have access to electricity, internet, roads, and other public services that are subsidized by the government. More importantly these are the people who are more likely to complain about government handouts and socialism.
- partiallypro 4y ago
  Except utilities and roads aren't socialism; and maybe treating these people as (essentially) garbage that doesn't deserve these things because they complain about government is actually a very polarizing thing that pushes them farther away...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
HWR_14 4y ago
The point being made is that they cannot afford to live in rural areas. Their subsidized lives are affordable. I don't hate poor people, but subsidizing people in urban areas is just a better way to help them - the money goes a lot further.
- partiallypro 4y ago
  People have lived in rural areas for cheaper than in cities for far far longer than government subsidies have existed. It sure just sounds like a very classist take that people that don't live in cities don't deserve what people in cities do. Which is sort of ironic because I see people with tons of money stepping over homeless in wealthy cities all the time. I don't think there are massive homeless problems in US cities because of a redneck getting a 4G tower installed 15 miles from his property. I have had the opportunity of growing up in a poorer rural area, and have lived in a major city. I find this mindset pretty grotesque and extremely polarizing, to the degree that it actually undercuts public policy.

themitigating 4y ago

Life is better when they have access to electricity, internet, roads, and other public services that are subsidized by the government. More importantly these are the people who are more likely to complain about government handouts and socialism.

partiallypro 4y ago
Except utilities and roads aren't socialism; and maybe treating these people as (essentially) garbage that doesn't deserve these things because they complain about government is actually a very polarizing thing that pushes them farther away...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

HWR_14 4y ago

The point being made is that they cannot afford to live in rural areas. Their subsidized lives are affordable. I don't hate poor people, but subsidizing people in urban areas is just a better way to help them - the money goes a lot further.

partiallypro 4y ago
People have lived in rural areas for cheaper than in cities for far far longer than government subsidies have existed. It sure just sounds like a very classist take that people that don't live in cities don't deserve what people in cities do. Which is sort of ironic because I see people with tons of money stepping over homeless in wealthy cities all the time. I don't think there are massive homeless problems in US cities because of a redneck getting a 4G tower installed 15 miles from his property. I have had the opportunity of growing up in a poorer rural area, and have lived in a major city. I find this mindset pretty grotesque and extremely polarizing, to the degree that it actually undercuts public policy.