What are the negative stereotypes associated with San Francisco?|129054

I_m wondering what the worst things about SF are and what I should notice. I_ve heard a number of things...here_s the list:
1. Full of limousine liberals...meaning people who enjoy talking about social justice but also have to go get there facials and massages every week as well. Basically, I_ve heard the place is packed with lots of self-righteous, indulgent _liberals_ who have the luxury of ruminating on the horrors of poverty bc they have enough money to live in an expensive place like SF.
2. The place is jam-packed with stereotypical, militant gays who enjoy going on AIDS walks to raise awareness about HIV yet go to circuit parties every weekend and engage in promiscuous sex.
3. The people generally frown on organized religion, consider themselves _free thinkers_ and superior to anything remotely traditional or mainstream.
4. Lots of smelly, granola crunchy vegans running around.
These are just some of the negative sterotypes associated with SF...are they wrong?

Stereotypes do exist for a reason but they are also just stereotypes and a broad generalization based on the most extreme examples. So yes some of those points are true to a certain extent, but the majority of people tend not to be that bad or like that at all. Just as not everyone in NYC is rude and in a rush or not everyone in LA is some plastic wannabe celebrity, not everyone or even the majority of people in SF fall into those stereotypical categories.

The one stereotype that annoys me the most though is the limousine liberal mentality there. For a city that claims to be so socially progressive and aware it has just as many and more problems than many other cities. Crime is bad there, the homeless problem is ridiculous, poverty is just as bad, affordable housing options are horrible, the infrastructure is not that great, the schools aren_t any better there, ect...basically it has the same city/urban problems as anywhere else even though they claim to be _so socially progressive and aware_. Eventhough many liberals claim to care about social causes, studies have shown conservatives, at least the compassionate conservative types, donate more money and more time to charitable causes than liberals (that_s a generalization of course). Which makes sense b/c liberals tend to want the govt to take care of social problems as opposed to private charities, which conservatives support more so. Either way it doesn_t make a difference how socially progressive the city or the politicians that run it claim to be b/c the quality of life there is the same as many other major cities.

But any city is only as good or bad as you make of it, so you can easily enjoy that great city, just ignore the small minority that display some of those stereotpyical SF qualities. As LeAnne said, do what makes YOU happy. There are so many other GREAT qualities about that city and you shouldn_t let a few negatives ruin it for you, no place is perfect and SF is an amazing and unique city overall.

Rather than worry about what you have heard, why don_t you visit our beautiful city and decide for yourself

peace...Tigger

You need to give Sav the best answer because he nailed it.

There are good and bad people all over the world. Stereotyping and discrimination go hand in hand. You have to choose what is best for yourself. DO what makes you happy. Live your life for _you_!

100% NON-SENSE ! Sounds like something only a wanna-be Nazi neo-con would say. The people of San Francisco are pretty much the same as in any large American city.

The gay . . . est city. But on the other hand my favorite band Metallica has lived there (or still does) and like the city.

Ask yourself this:

If you said the same thing about Manhattan, Seattle, or Boston... could anyone tell the difference?

You_ve basically rattled off the talking points memo on _scary, liberal cities._ It_s the same list of compliants and charges used against all of them. There are too many gays. The politicians are corrupt. They aren_t religious enough. They_re tree huggers and PETA boosters. They_re hypocritical rich people who pretend to care about the poor.

These stereotypes work on all left-leaning big cities. It_s designed to rile up the heartland against the perceived _arrogance and immorality_ of Blue America. It_s the same fear-mongering the other side uses to stereotype red-states as full of _stupid, inbreed hicks._ Neither provides a true picture of life in America.

As today is the 6th anniversary of 9-11, I think we need to reflect on why we_ve fallen into old habits of attacking each other rather than the real threat. It_s divisive stuff like this that damages us far more than any bomb can.

The so-called limousine liberals don_t just _ruminate_ on the horrors of poverty; they put their money where their mouths are, and support myriad social causes.

There are many gay activists in town. Nobody _enjoys_ going on an AIDS walk, as it_s a reminder of how many people have died or who are infected, and of the lack of awareness and funding for research. Having sex in no way negates the commitment to AIDS awareness.

People do not frown on organized religion per se. There are over 1000 churches and synagogues in the city. You can be religious and still be a _free thinker._

We do have some crunchy people. They do not smell.

uh, you pretty much covered all the ones i have heard!! lol it sucks though...i can_t say they are true cause i haven_t been there, so that_s what they are to me; rumors...

I live in New York City. I went to San Francisco this past April.

I can tell you that the people look/act/dress the same way as people in Manhattan. Not much of a difference. Except in SF, they look happeir because they don_t have to deal with hot, humid summers or cold winters.

What I consider negative? Or what I think YOU would consider negative?
What, you don_t like the idea of smelly, liberal, non bible thumpin_, limo riding, promiscuous gays?