October 9, 2008
Small-Town Values Same as Big-City Values (Craig Newmark)
By Craig Newmark
Founder and customer service representative
craigslist
San Francisco
My day job is online customer service, part of a team that supports tens of millions of people across America. I've worked directly with thousands of people over the years from small towns to big cities, and everyone in between.
From my personal experience, I can tell you that pretty much all Americans have a common set of values, mostly derived from the same shared value. It's the notion that you should treat other people like you want to be treated. If you feel that, you feel that people should treat others fairly. We should all compete on a level playing field, and play by the same rule; that's how to get ahead.
Beyond that, people generally feel that once they've provided for themselves, they should give someone else a break. That's the basis for all philanthropy.
Sure, people make other decisions about values for lots of other reasons. However, our shared values unite us; we have more in common than that which separates us.
I've found this to be true of people across America, whether they live in rural areas, small towns or the biggest cities. It's been my everyday experience for over 13 years on the job.
There are exceptions to this, like people who feel that it's OK to prey on other people. The predators are a very small portion of any population. I'm guessing it's less than 1 percent. We sometimes feel that there're a lot more of them than there are. My guess is that humans are hard-wired to perceive dangers at a higher level than everything else around us. Exaggeration of danger is a good way to get attention.
People who play by the rules know that there are predators around, and often they watch out for each other. However, there are lots of smart predators that specialize in gaining the confidence of good people, and the predators are REALLY good at deception.
Con-men hardly ever work alone — they usually enlist a whole contingent of other people who help them perpetuate a scam. Their goal is to help the con-men scare people into reacting out of emotions rather than responding out of reason.
One technique favored by con-men is to emphasize the apparent differences in values between people. Their M.O. is to find some issue that people disagree on, then exaggerate it to create a sense of "us versus them" and then get people angry.
Con-men often insist that they’re on the side of “safety,” and that anyone who doesn’t participate in their scam is reckless, dangerous, or doesn’t value security. It’s easy for people to get caught up in a scam when they feel threatened.
The con-men create wedge issues to get attention, perhaps to sell books, enhance TV ratings, or to steal elections. What normally tips you off about those kinds of con-men is the attempt to divide Americans, talking about "small-town values" versus big-city or even Hollywood values. And again, from my experience, we have more in common that unites us than that separates us.
I feel that we should all hang together, and not fall, once again, for that scam!
14 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
First off, let me congratulate you on founding Craigslist. It exists without government support and is quite successful. It fills a need. Don't take this as a slam, but it's well known that predators exist on Craigslist although you've done a good job of warning about them. Thanks for starting Craigslist.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 9, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
Craig, you're a clever man and this was a clever column. Your guess about the heightened perception of dangers is indeed correct. The human brain is wired to react instantly to a hint of danger before the "thinking part" processes the danger for correctness. In the world of the jungle and savannah from which we come from a false positive costs you a little bit of energy but a false negative costs you your life.
It's clear what you meant by your main observation about con-men (con-people?). Let me ask you a few questions though just to make this interesting:
-What do you call someone who creates a campaign tactic that is essentially just repeating, at every opportunity, with machine-like precision, that your political opponent is exactly the same as a much-disliked public figure, even though they are quite dissimilar?
-What do you call someone for his entire political career supported certain quasi-government lending institutions, supported their loose lending practices, claimed that they had no problems, received the highest contributions of anyone from them other than the chairman of the committee regulating them, and then when it all collapsed claimed that he had warned about the coming collapse and claimed to had written a letter to the chairman of the Federal Reserve warning about this collapse two years ago, when that Chairman wasn't even in office?
-What do you call someone who when he thinks the cameras are not rolling and while talking to an audience of liberal millionaires in the most liberal city in the country derides the perhaps non-existing values of small-town Americans and accuses them of clinging to those values, yet never says anything of this nature when speaking to the small-town Americans?
What do you call someone who launches his career in the home of an unrepentant terrorist, chairs the foundation started by the terrorist, writes a review of the book written by the terrorist, most likely knows the terrorist while in college (although this cannot be ascertain as he refuses to provide any records about two of those years), but claims to only be pretty much nothing more than a friendly neighbor to him?
What do you call someone who writes a "psychological autobiography" that cleverly mentions and obfuscates at the same time basic facts about his upbringing and family roots, like being mentored through his formative years by a notorious Communist, assumed to be a Soviet agent, and also many, many others?
What do you call someone who sits in a church with a very charismatic preacher holding extreme views and not being particularly shy about expressing them, someone who names his second book after a sermon of this preacher, someone who is married by the preacher and has his children baptized by the preacher, someone who call the preacher his spiritual adviser, and names his second book after a sermon by the preacher, then claims to be not aware of the preachers extreme views, then claims he can't dissociate himself from the preacher, only to dissociate himself a month later when no new views come to light but the preacher is starting to become damaging to him?
Craig, what you call someone like that is a con-man extraordinaire. When that someone is also smooth and unflappable and is able to spew out one distortion after another without looking the least bit perturbed, when that someone uses clever slogans like "hope and change" and then just "change", when he claims that he can introduce a trillion dollars in new spending while cutting taxes on 95% of working Americans while 40% of them don't even pay taxes, when he claims that a time-line for withdrawal from a war zone now is the same as it was two years ago while the war zone was very different than today and that finally his policies are being adopted, what do you call him?
You call him the best con-man that ever lived. You call him a liar that can win the White House under false pretenses.
Comment by Igor R. — October 9, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Craig. I don't know what planet you're from but it is not the one I live on. Being from San Francisco probably accounts for much of your blindness.
It is estimated that by 2025 (17 years +/-) over half of the U.S. population will reside in the 10 largest metropolitan ares. If you think what goes on in Boston, New York, the D.C. area, Miami, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Denver, L.A., The Bay Area or Seattle has anything to do with what goes on in the other 95% of our land mass, you are sorely delusional. Yes we all drive cars, own homes, go to school, check in with Craigslist, try to provide for ourselves and our loved ones, but it all ends their. Middle America is not interested in being taxed to provide intercity tranquility where 90%+ of the crime, waste, diversity (political correctness), fancy cars and homes (at exceeding high prices they can't afford), failing school systems, racial segregation (where asians, hispanics, blacks live in large numbers with associated gangs and associated land values) not to mention where they would not like their sons and daughters to be frequenting draws a distinct difference in their core values. They live entirely different lives because of entirely different values. The sheep flock together (big city). The deer and antelope are quite content to live separately. Don't forget we are all animals with animal instincts. What we are fighting now in case it is lost on you. It will end up Balkanizing this country. Check back 100 years down the line. It won't be one country with 50 states. Much more like Europe, both east and west still fighting but in more control of small areas. I one doesn't like it, move or climb the fence.
Comment by JEdgarSwoop — October 9, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
'Do unto others' is exactly what we should all live by. One thing my husband and I have noticed [especially on television media] is that the better the marketing, the worse the product or service. Sad, but true. Thanks for your post.
Comment by Joyce — October 9, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
#4.
One thing my husband and I have noticed [especially on television media] is that the better the marketing, the worse the product or service.
Yes. And extending your logic it clearly depicts Obama, your hero. Listen to your mind. Let sanity prevail.
Comment by JEdgarSwoop — October 9, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
JEdgarSwoop, she will not listen to anything. She has fallen for Obama hook, line, and sinker and is proud of her irrationality. Her rare attempts to justify her preference are pathetic and lacking in detail. Like most Obama supporters, she feels and not thinks about their choice in this election.
Comment by Igor R. — October 9, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
This is a very thoughtful column, Craig, and so true. Fear is a weapon of choice for those who wish to control, whether that be in politics, religion, or any other position of authority. It promotes instinct rather than critical thought.
This is no time to be creating "us vs. them" ghosts when we already have enough legitimate worries that deserve no less than our full, undivided attention.
P.S. Thank you for craigslist, too.
Comment by Melissa — October 9, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
I agree with 4). Obama seems to represent my family's values. Mr. McCain is much too old for the job as President, and his attacks on his opponent are just to get around the important issues we are facing because he does not seem to have any answers.
Comment by Nellie — October 10, 2008 @ 1:51 am
Fear is McShames only weapon…But more to the point, this taking advantage of rural/small town Americans is a form of Domestic Terrorism.. These people are on the whole less informed, less supported, fear driven, and economically inpoverished and McShame is playing on those fears…Despararte…despicable and pitiful.
SHAME SHAME SHAME ON little mccain!
Comment by Docb — October 10, 2008 @ 10:01 am
McCain has no conscience about the civilians he blindly killed from his fancy Jet.
The Viet Namese people did nothing to us. They did attack us and they were not a threat to our country or our freedom.
It was pure bully slaughter. Now McCain wants to demonize someone Ayers for being violently opposed to that slaughter.
I guess McCain thinks blowing people up and burning them alive from the sky in an expensive jet somehow makes his murdering more honorable.
He should be ashamed of his cowardly actions. Nonetheless he was treated well by the Viet Namese, and even released, because they are decent people (and were afraid of Daddy), not because McCain deserved to live. They should have given him the same thing he gave to the woman and children he bombed on the ground.
Comment by Fred from Oregon — October 10, 2008 @ 10:31 am
correction
The Viet Namese people did NOT attack us.
Comment by Fred from Oregon — October 10, 2008 @ 10:32 am
We started a war in Viet Nam and now another one in Iraq. McCain did bomb innocents in Viet Nam; another dispicable war started by the U.S. Who's the real aggressor in the world. The USA.
Comment by Joyce — October 10, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
We are the most violent people who have ever lived.
Interesting
Comment by pghremodeler — October 11, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
pgh, and yet Germany, Russia, China, and Japan caused far more people to die untimely deaths. Interesting, ha?
Comment by Igor R. — October 12, 2008 @ 1:05 pm