| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/14 |
| 2009/4/2-10 [Reference/BayArea] UID:52787 Activity:moderate |
4/2 http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/03/23/91-san-francisco \_ this guy started out boring and got more dull from there. \_ Yes it's true. LA is a great place to visit, but not so great to live in. I've been living here all my life (minus the best 5 years of my life in Northern Cal). I don't have a choice to leave LA thanks to my lame family that I need to watch over and take care of. Drivers are rude and traffic sucks. Weather east of 405 really blows, and traffic west of 405 blows even more. No me gusta Los An-Hay-Less. \_ How about Riverside to Long Beach? I know a few people who live in Riverside but commute to Long Beach for work. \_ I feel the opposite. I love to visit SF, but not live there. LA would suck to visit, but I love to live here. As a tourist I'd far prefer scenic SF, but there's a lot more to do and a lot more variety in LA. \_ What are these things you like to do that there is more of? Besides the beach, I guess. \_ Go to museums, concerts, art galleries, theater, sporting events, botanical gardens, and such. \_ variety, yes. Better food, yes. More to do, yes. But to do all that, you need to drive... far distances, and a lot of time in the car. YUCK YUCK YUCK. LA is a wonderful place to live if you don't have to drive. I can go from the tip of SF to the bottom of San Jose in one hour. How long does it take to drive from Pasadena to Irvine? San Fernando to Diamond Bar? I guess you have a great tolerance and and lot of spare time. I don't. a lot of time in the car. LA is a wonderful place to live if you don't have to drive. How ironic! Look, I can go from the \_ Very true. tip of SF to the bottom of San Jose in one hour plus 30min max. How long does it take to drive from Pasadena to Irvine? San Fernando to Diamond Bar? Just look at Google Maps + Traffic on a typical day, and look at all the red indicators in LA. N Cal rarely has red spots, and at worst yellow spots. People in LA seem to have a lot of traffic tolerances and lot of spare time. I don't. \_ I think driving is a lot faster than public transit most of the time (exception: rush hour and sometimes not even then). However, public transit exists if you wish to take it. Lots of people who commute long distance commute successfully by MetroRail. It's not any faster, but they can do other things while they ride. For the most part, the only time you need to worry about traffic is during your work commute and hopefully it's not from San Fernando to Irvine. You are right that traffic on Westside always sucks and that's why I hate the Westside. The only time I \_ I find the Westside the only tolerable part of LA. Santa Monica is sort of like a rich man's Berkeley. If you live in Santa Monica and can work at a startup there (or Yahoo/Google or someplace like Universal), life is pretty good. Mexican Food in LA >> Mission. \_ Westside has some advantages, but like I said the traffic is ALWAYS bad, petty theft is bad, and the crowd that hangs out on the Westside is the sort of gross plastic shallow rat race set that people condemn LA as being full of. Santa Monica is like Berkeley in that it's dirty and full of homeless people. Those are not the best things about Berkeley, which has its own "rich man's" areas just like SM does. Overall, I like to visit the Westside to get what I need and then get out. I wouldn't live there. My gf lived in Westwood and worked in Venice and I spent a lot of time there. People who live in that area think life doesn't exist east of the 405 and are guilty of the same yuppie-flavored provincialism that SF residents are but with the added twist that looks are everything because everyone hopes to be a model or actress and sleep around to achieve that goal. Yuck. be a model or actress and sleeps around to achieve that goal before returning to Peoria after getting dumped by their married producer boyfriend when they turn 30. Yuck. \_ Stop stomping my changes idiot. Figure out what \_ I'd agree with 70% of what you're saying. I lived in Culver City, which is "gentrified" as opposed to mostly white people and didn't have crazy traffic problems. About a year ago LA douchebags started invading. But CC was great... good food, close to the 10 and 405, close to the beach, affordable, lots of young, poor people (this is generally a good thing), with rich people starting to move in. But Palms/CC is pretty ugly bc of all the monolithic apartment buildings. Very walkable, even when compared to SF/Berkeley. \_ Stop stomping my changes dude. Figure out what you want to say then post it once, instead of stomping the motd every minute or two. \_ Sorry. \_ Santa Monica also has great food, awesome beaches, interesting shopping and is reasonably walkable, which when combined with the great weather, makes it a good vacation spot. All the fabulous looking people don't hurt either. Where else in LA would you want to stay as a vacationer? Even 10 miles inland, the weather gets much worse, at least in the summertime. \_ I used to live in San Fernando. Please take pity on me. Now I live in Pasadena. It's actually way nicer than "the valley" pity on me. Now I live in Pasadena. It's actually way nicer than "the valley" \_ I think you have confused the meaning of the word "elitism" with "provincialism." Don't feel bad, it is a common mistake. \_ provincialism: a partiality for some particular place elitism: the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group I don't have them confused, but you could say SF residents are both. \_ That is not the correct definition of the word "provincialism." The correct definition is: 3 a: a person of local or restricted interests or outlook b: a person lacking urban polish or refinement You have to be more than just partial to a particular place to be provincial, you have to be ignorant about other places. \_ That's nice. I got my definition from WordNet whereas you are an anonymous MOTD poser. Dictionaries are not MOTD poster. Dictionaries are not infallible, but it's a little much for you to say it's "not the correct definition". \_ I got mine from Merriam-Webster. I notice you only included defn. #2 while ignoring defn #1. \_ Because I used it according to definition #2 when I used it. \_ When words have more than one meaning, usage of it implies a certain overlap. Especially when you are using the #2 defn. These rules aren't hard and fast though, so hard to pin down exactly. But "provincialism" definitely implies an ignorance about regions other than ones own. drive to far flung places is on the weekend and the traffic isn't bad then. The key is to live near where you work. You will be a lot happier then, whether you live in LA, NYC, Tokyo, or SF. Commuting to work sucks no matter where you do it. \_ Not as bad when you have a Google/Genentech shuttle. |
| 7/14 |
|
| stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/03/23/91-san-francisco -> stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/03/23/91-san-francisco/ jpg San Francisco is one of the top US destinations for white people in terms of both travel and living. It is universally agreeable and is a safe discussion topic for any situation. The city is considered one of the world's premiere locations for white person research. Since many white people either live in, plan to move to, or closely identify with San Francisco it is imperative that you know how best to deal with them. The City of San Francisco has a very multicultural population that ranges from white to gay to Asian. Within white culture this known as "ideal diversity" for its provision of exotic restaurants while simultaneously preserving property values. Asians is imperative as it two provides two of the key resources most necessary for white success and happiness. However, it is important to be aware of the fact that regions outside of San Francisco feature many people who are not white, gay or Asian. They are greatly appreciated during the census, but white people are generally very happy that they stay in places like Oakland and Richmond. This enables white people to feel good about living near people of diverse backgrounds without having to directly deal with troublesome issues like income gaps or schooling. Still, the presence of other minorities are welcomed by white people for so many more reasons than just statistics! Much in the way that white people in Brooklyn feel a strong and unfounded connection with The Notorious BIG, white people in San Francisco feel the need to identify with rappers from the East Bay. Interestingly enough, the further they venture from San Francisco, the stronger their need to represent their region. When you are presented with statements like this, the best response is to say "Berkeley is close to Oakland," and the white person will likely nod and throw up some sort of west side hand sign. jpg Though it is exceptionally easy to put someone from San Francisco in a good mood, there are some caveats. When talking to a white person who lives in San Francisco, it is best not to bring up New York City. Though they live in a world class city, San Franciscans have a crippling inferiority complex about New York and even hinting at that will make them very sad or very defensive. Fortunately, there is a fool-proof method for quickly returning the conversation to a positive, trust-building tone. No matter how much you have offended someone from San Francisco, you can always make them feel better by asking them how they feel about Southern California. They will instantly talk of how it is filled with crime, pollution, hegemonic culture, and the wrong kind of white people: "I swear California is like two separate countries, and I am so thankful that I live in the cultural center of the West Coast." This will allow them to reassert their superiority and leave the conversation with a positive feeling about themselves and about you. April 2, 2009 at 11:56 pm "You obviously haven't LIVED in LA. There is a big difference between living here and visiting. However, I also lived in the Bay Area and worked in (though never lived in) San Francisco proper for 5 years. San Francisco is a very small city with a lot of quaint neighborhoods, great architecture and beautiful scenery. However, a lot of times the weather is bad (cold and windy) and you'd be surprised how much of the city shuts down after hours. It's nice for tourists because they can feel like they are in a city without really being overwhelmed, although SF is a lot more dangerous than people realize (higher homicide rate than LA, for instance). I liked living in the Bay Area, too, and would consider moving back. The weather is warmer (my preference), the people are less pretentious (unless you get caught up in the model-actress-whatever scene), and the mountains and hills are so close by. You can't really claim Monterey, Napa, Tahoe, or Yosemite as belonging to SF anymore than I can claim Santa Barbara, San Diego, or Las Vegas for LA, but if you want to do so notice that Southern California has its own Napa just 90 minutes from LA in Santa Barbara and Paso Robles, except it's much more like Napa *used* to be (which is a good thing). When you live in (or near) SF you realize that the city empties out after work and that there's not much to do. I went to a lot of good shows at the Warfield, SF has a ballet company, and the SF MOMA is becoming less of a joke, but there's not really all that much happening. Whereas in LA there is not only a thriving music scene but arts and entertainment in general is much more vibrant. In the last week or so we had the World Baseball Classic, the World Figure Skating Championships, the Kid's Choice Awards, Alvin Ailey, and more. I often find myself having to make hard choices about how to spend my entertainment dollars or which events I want to attend. In the last year I saw the Terra Cotta Warriors from China, medieval art from the Cleveland Museum, one of the most important biggest gem collections in the world, a Georgia O'Keefe exhibit, one of the world's four known large red diamonds, the Kirov Ballet, an exhibit highlighting Vanity Fair portraits, a Vermeer on loan to Norton Simon, an NBA playoff game, an MLB playoff game, a modern art exhibition highlighting Cold War Germany, an exhibit of Old World mosaics, a showing of "The Jerk" introduced by Steve Martin himself, and Wicked (which finally opened up in SF and a person in SF - not realizing I was from LA - went out of her way to tell me was coming in a prideful manner). That was in one year and I missed a lot of things I wanted to see and do like Coachella, Oakenfold on New Year's Eve, and more I just can't remember right now. SF just cannot compete and a tourist would not realize that. You really have to live here to be able to experience all of the positives of living here. There's not a lot of benefit to being a tourist here compared to more scenic places and unless you spend time here you will not be able to soak in what is going on around you. The LA Phil and Opera are world class, lots of trend-setting fashion is moving from NYC to LA, the music scene has *always* been strong here, the art community here is thriving, and add to that world class shopping, good food (not just pretentious gourmet fare), and lots of nature (if you look for it). To be fair, LA has a lot of big city problems SF does not have and its sprawl means it lacks a civic center. The large numbers of immigrants pose problems and traffic is horrendous. I am not sure I see myself living here for the rest of my life. I will hopefully retire somewhere more quiet like Santa Barbara (but not so quiet as Carmel) and get into the city when I want to see something. However, for a younger person who still has energy to get out and do things and who also doesn't much care for rain (or any weather except sunny and mild) I can't imagine being anyplace else. SF is upset because it was once the preeminent city in California and it lost that title some time ago. I wouldn't say it is fading into irrelevance, but I find it interesting that SF's biggest claim to fame lately is the Silicon Valley while SF has all but disowned the South Bay (for some good reasons). So the biggest contribution came from an area SF would prefer didn't exist. The person who mentioned that San Franciscans do not venture to the South Bay or East Bay was dead on. In spite of perceptions as being smart and worldly many of them are just ignorant and smug. After all, how could anyone of equal intellect, taste, and sophistication possibly live anywhere else? March 30, 2009 at 12:02 am i live in SF and i lovee it here. the people are the most friendliest, nicest and happiest people on earth! if you make eye contact to people in the streets, most of them smiles at you or says hi or complement you on something. when i go to LA, im like used to make eye contact to other people and smile to them. It use to be when I'd be in SF, people would remark about the beat poets being from there, which I found funny but sadly incorrect. This stopped a while ago, no one cares about them anymore. People in San Francisco are smart, but they always seemed to b... |