This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Millburn, NJ is clearly suburban, despite a live theatre being right there. Density 900/km^2.
My own adjoining town is just barely over 1500/km^2, but it, too, is clearly suburban. There's also a live theatre in our downtown, such as it is.
The car thing doesn't work for the opposite reason. Philadelphia is full of cars. So is Chicago. So is New York, for that matter. No American city has a transit share of commutes above 50%, though NYC has been above that. Next closest city outside the NY metro is D.C at 26.6%.
[Deleted] (Edit: Sorry, misunderstood, I thought you were talking about area.)
For me, the question is whether having a car is a practical necessity. In most areas in New Jersey, it is. In much of NYC, it is not.
Maybe there are parts of New Jersey where a car is not a practical necessity, perhaps parts of Hoboken. Conversely, there are parts of NYC where arguably you do need a car, e.g. eastern Queens near the Nassau border. But I would call those parts of Queens "suburbs" and those parts of Hoboken "urban."
You missed the slash.
Thanks for pointing that out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They're full of cars but what do the majority of people actually do for transport day to day?
I'm reliably told that Majority of NYC residents do not own a car.
Almost my point, though. Looking at photos of Millburn, to me it reads just barely towards the 'urban' side of the divide, and then I look at its proximity to NYC, and I am reinforced in this. I can also see, however, that it has close proximity to large swathes of nature which pulls it back towards 'rural'. Finally, Google tells me that the majority of the residents live in unincorporated "Short Hills", which appears pretty sparsely populated for its area.
So really its a ruralish area attached to an urbanized one? So my guess is the majority of residents can't walk to the theater.
Yes, its a suburb compared to New York, but if my suburban ass were to visit I think I'd feel like I was in 'the city' to some degree.
(my mental model of New Jersey, incidentally, is a lot of urban sprawl attached to a lot of deciduous forests. I have never been to New Jersey.)
Hmm,there is an impact of Zoning on all this.
For reference, I live in a single-family house that is in an area that is zoned agricultural, and is situated just outside the local town's limits in unincorporated territory. If you squint and fudge you could say I'm living rural, but I can drive to several theaters easily, clearly I'm living suburban. There's some rural territory if I drive about 20 minutes east/Inland. Lehigh Acres, Florida is just wall to wall single-family homes, but there ain't nothing to do out there in terms of amenities, so I consider that a 'developing' rural area, myself. Lehigh Acres does not (yet) have a Live Theater.
NYC, however, is the only major city in the country where this is true.
Nothing rural about it; the "swathes of nature" are a large park and a few (closed to the public) reservoirs. Certainly a majority of residents can't walk to the theatre, but the same is true in Manhattan. It's suburban.
You're just making me push it more towards urban.
"Access to forms of nature resembling 'wilderness'" is a strong 'rural' indicator but some suburbs butt up right against extensive national or state preservation parks, so if you're telling me this spot just has regular parks then it reads as even more 'city-like' than I thought.
More options
Context Copy link
Look, I may be a simple Suburban Lawyer, but when I type "Live Theater" into Google Maps over Manhattan, and I get OVER 100 RESULTS I question your assertion. Obviously mostly centered on Broadway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The US Forest Service agrees with you. (However, don't forget about the famous evergreen forest.)
lol.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Say you live in a very rural part of your country. The rural area has a small administrative center with a few stores, a clerk’s office, and a court. You live in a house within walking distance from all of them. The county has no suburbs per se, at least not of the classic kind. Is your living situation rural or urban?
Now say you live in a big freestanding house surrounded largely by parkland and fields at the outer edge of a major city. But, less than ten minutes’ walk (along a narrow country lane) from your house is a commuter railroad station with very regular service that can take you to the center of one of the world’s great cities in twenty five minutes. Is your living situation rural, suburban or urban?
This is hitting on my point. "accessibility of true amenities" plays into my perception of the area's qualities.
"Rural living" implies you have to do things to keep yourself amused because there isn't some major entertainment venue available within easy distance.
If you can hop a train after work and manage to hit up a Major Sports team's game with a bunch of other fans, you're at least Suburban.
If your only and preferred option for sports spectating is the local high school football teams... most likely rural to ruralish suburban.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link