Berkeley ‘instructor’: ‘Rural Americans’ are ‘bad people’

A man who identifies himself as an instructor at the University of California-Berkeley publicly proclaimed Wednesday that Americans who live in rural areas are “bad people” who deserve “uncomfortable” lives.

Jackson Kernion, who describes himself as a Graduate Student Instructor at Berkeley, having taught at least 11 philosophy courses at the university since 2013, took to Twitter Wednesday to explain the academic reasoning behind his distaste for people from rural America, calling those who live in rural areas “bad people who have made bad life decisions.”

Kernion began the thread by advocating against affordable healthcare solutions in rural America, saying that “Rural Healthcare Should be expensive! And that expense should be borne by those who choose rural America!”

He argued that promoting a need for “affordable rural healthcare” is equivalent to arguing for rural Americans “to be subsidized by those who choose a more efficient way of life.”

“Same goes for rural broadband. And gas taxes,” Kernion added.

“It should be uncomfortable to live in rural America. It should be uncomfortable to not move,” he wrote.

Kernion tried to justify his statements with economic arguments about not making rural life “*artificially* cheaper,” but quickly devolved into personal attacks against rural and not “pro-city” Americans.


https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13975

Gd. to know that good 'ol Berzerkeley still has some of that Piss & Vinegar it once had.

Go Bears!

phildidge wrote:A man who identifies himself as an instructor at the University of California-Berkeley publicly proclaimed Wednesday that Americans who live in rural areas are “bad people” who deserve “uncomfortable” lives.

Jackson Kernion, who describes himself as a Graduate Student Instructor at Berkeley, having taught at least 11 philosophy courses at the university since 2013, took to Twitter Wednesday to explain the academic reasoning behind his distaste for people from rural America, calling those who live in rural areas “bad people who have made bad life decisions.”

Kernion began the thread by advocating against affordable healthcare solutions in rural America, saying that “Rural Healthcare Should be expensive! And that expense should be borne by those who choose rural America!”

He argued that promoting a need for “affordable rural healthcare” is equivalent to arguing for rural Americans “to be subsidized by those who choose a more efficient way of life.”

“Same goes for rural broadband. And gas taxes,” Kernion added.

“It should be uncomfortable to live in rural America. It should be uncomfortable to not move,” he wrote.

Kernion tried to justify his statements with economic arguments about not making rural life “*artificially* cheaper,” but quickly devolved into personal attacks against rural and not “pro-city” Americans.


https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13975

While I live in a very urban area, I often prefer to be around folks from the rural areas. They tend not to be dicks like the typical Berkley professor.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:A man who identifies himself as an instructor at the University of California-Berkeley publicly proclaimed Wednesday that Americans who live in rural areas are “bad people” who deserve “uncomfortable” lives.

Jackson Kernion, who describes himself as a Graduate Student Instructor at Berkeley, having taught at least 11 philosophy courses at the university since 2013, took to Twitter Wednesday to explain the academic reasoning behind his distaste for people from rural America, calling those who live in rural areas “bad people who have made bad life decisions.”

Kernion began the thread by advocating against affordable healthcare solutions in rural America, saying that “Rural Healthcare Should be expensive! And that expense should be borne by those who choose rural America!”

He argued that promoting a need for “affordable rural healthcare” is equivalent to arguing for rural Americans “to be subsidized by those who choose a more efficient way of life.”

“Same goes for rural broadband. And gas taxes,” Kernion added.

“It should be uncomfortable to live in rural America. It should be uncomfortable to not move,” he wrote.

Kernion tried to justify his statements with economic arguments about not making rural life “*artificially* cheaper,” but quickly devolved into personal attacks against rural and not “pro-city” Americans.


https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13975

While I live in a very urban area, I often prefer to be around folks from the rural areas. They tend not to be dicks like the typical Berkley professor.

+1

"Random Asshole Says Something Not Nice, Right-wingers Freak Out"

Ben Reilly wrote:"Random Asshole Says Something Not Nice, Right-wingers Freak Out"

Random asshole gets called an asshole.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:"Random Asshole Says Something Not Nice, Right-wingers Freak Out"

Random asshole gets called an asshole.

It's just a bit pathetic how the group that loves to label its enemies as snowflakes is actually comprised mostly of snowflakes who get triggered by something else -- teasing Trump or rural Americans; kneeling during the national anthem; being non-cisgender or straight; speaking a language that isn't English; etc.

I hate hypocrisy. I doubt anybody calling this guy an asshole (rightly, in my opinion) would welcome him to come deliver a speech in the middle of their favorite alfalfa field, pig sty, sister-fucking shack, etc.

They'd probably get the overalls they wear with no shirt underneath in a right bunch, and grind their tooth about him for weeks afterwards.

Not to mention the resentment they'd feel at being expected to warsh up and put shoes on if he spoke somewhere nicer, like the Sunday go to meetin' hall.

Haha...I have to laugh at your understanding of what is meant.  I mean, right on, Ben!  Brilliant take on the reaction.

I think Red stepped in because he was thinking the same thing I was thinking: Kernion side-stepped the issue when he focused on the designation "rural"; what he really meant was southerners, and Red knows it.

Brilliant minds think alike, and they come from Berkeley.  The guy thinks like, sooo-Berkeley.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Random asshole gets called an asshole.

It's just a bit pathetic how the group that loves to label its enemies as snowflakes is actually comprised mostly of snowflakes who get triggered by something else -- teasing Trump or rural Americans; kneeling during the national anthem; being non-cisgender or straight; speaking a language that isn't English; etc.

I hate hypocrisy. I doubt anybody calling this guy an asshole (rightly, in my opinion) would welcome him to come deliver a speech in the middle of their favorite alfalfa field, pig sty, sister-fucking shack, etc.

They'd probably get the overalls they wear with no shirt underneath in a right bunch, and grind their tooth about him for weeks afterwards.

Not to mention the resentment they'd feel at being expected to warsh up and put shoes on if he spoke somewhere nicer, like the Sunday go to meetin' hall.

You might need to get out in the country a little more.

S'ok thats exactly how I feel about townies..............

OK Didge, I have given you a green  for raising an interesting topic, tho it's very likely that I might disagree with your opinion on this article, when you get round to posting an opinion.

The reason why I find this an interesting thread is cos I've never before considered the points that this instructor has raised, ie never thought of rural folks as people who cost the country more money per capita, compared with city dwellers.

Ben Reilly wrote:"Random Asshole Says Something Not Nice, Right-wingers Freak Out"

Hi Ben! Rightwingers are eagerly supportive of the statements RW academics make, and by the same token, they are scornful & sneering of the statements LW academics make, it's only natural.


Unlike many people on forums, I have the ability to see both sides of an argument, and my next post will show this.

But I'll say this much right now - the very people who are always resentfully hostile to the concept of caring&sharing and being willing to help the less fortunate ……... are the very same ones who SUDDENLY become very tolerant when it's likeminded folks who need more money than average spent on them.


This is one of the reasons why judgements made about humans should always involve humanity & kindness, it should never just be all about money. The people who cost the govt/community extra money are not just in the demographic groups that RW people dislike, they are also in the groups that they like!!

Look, it's simply not feasible for everyone to go live in cities. As obviously it would only be a matter of time before the city's infrastructure collapses totally, with demand for resources rapidly outstripping supply.
Also,  a world in which all 'rural' areas are deserted would be weird - vast expanses of the earth's surface would be devoid of human presence.  So the professor is wrong to resent the concept of living in remote areas.


Yes I imagine that it costs huge sums to install 10000s of metres of underground cables & pipes, and overhead electric wires, to provide these remote communities with electricity, gas, broadband, telephone signals - all the usual modern home comforts. Plus, it costs more to provide services like health and public transport to them too. So in that sense the professor is correct - but why does he resent this? Some demographic groups cost the community more money, it cannot be helped - and that's that, professor!

Jules wrote:OK Didge, I have given you a green  for raising an interesting topic, tho it's very likely that I might disagree with your opinion on this article, when you get round to posting an opinion.

The reason why I find this an interesting thread is cos I've never before considered the points that this instructor has raised, ie never thought of rural folks as people who cost the country more money per capita, compared with city dwellers.

The cheapest way to "serve" people is to stack them on top of each other in areas with very high density.

That's the problem when citizens become an expense.

Maddog wrote:

Jules wrote:OK Didge, I have given you a green  for raising an interesting topic, tho it's very likely that I might disagree with your opinion on this article, when you get round to posting an opinion.

The reason why I find this an interesting thread is cos I've never before considered the points that this instructor has raised, ie never thought of rural folks as people who cost the country more money per capita, compared with city dwellers.

The cheapest way to "serve" people is to stack them on top of each other in areas with very high density.  

That's the problem when citizens become an expense.  

+1  That's the efficiency argument, and it's right on-point.  It's not so much that it is cheaper in the urban centers, but you get more utility out of the same investment.

But I think there is a bit of code going on here.  We've discussed this before.  America is largely two nations: 1) a mercantile and manufacturing north; and 2) a cash-cropping, agricultural south, originally dependent on slaver labor.  As events have unfolded for the nation, this has slowly evolved into an urban north, and a rural, still agricultural south.  So, it's the same north v. south debate, dressed up in modern clothing.

It's absolutely no surprise that someone from Berkeley comes up with this argument.  This is the same thesis that Professors John Schaar and Norman Jacobson were promoting back in the 60's.  They called it the dual founding of America. The idea was, that it was not just two different lifestyles--slavery v. industry--but two different economies.

Maddog wrote:

Jules wrote:OK Didge, I have given you a green  for raising an interesting topic, tho it's very likely that I might disagree with your opinion on this article, when you get round to posting an opinion.

The reason why I find this an interesting thread is cos I've never before considered the points that this instructor has raised, ie never thought of rural folks as people who cost the country more money per capita, compared with city dwellers.

The cheapest way to "serve" people is to stack them on top of each other in areas with very high density.  

That's the problem when citizens become an expense.  

Yup.
Aka ''more bangs for your bucks''!