[flagged]
I mean no contempt; I am happy to live in a flyover state. Also, the state did not "allow me" to live here, the Federal Government did; as anyone with an elementary knowledge of American government principles should be able to discern.
Your response though, seems to show some anti-immigrant anger. I am sorry you feel that way, and hope you find happiness!
----------------------------------------
> The origins of the phrases and the attitudes of their supposed users are a source of debate in American culture; the terms are often regarded as pejoratives, but are sometimes "reclaimed" and used defensively.[1]
So no, it is not "obviously derogatory", and the link does not say that.
- unaware of the phrase's derogatory meaning - aware, but relishing it, as they resent the state and don't like living there - aware, but they think the word has a useful non-derogatory use - aware, and has no strong opinion either way
All things which in reality would be legitimate in various circumstances. Speculating in the first place seems silly to me, and only started because one commenter apparently didn't like the idea of a non-US native having a negative opinion about the US so much that they are (pardon my bluntness) a bit overly sensitive on the issue.
Flyover practically means “does not have a football team” and is just as derogatory as “college town” or “Bible belt”.
It might be appropriate to update your picture of the place to reflect the reality. Your views here seem to be predicated on some notion of the US as a place the entire "third world" wants to move to - perhaps you should consider the fact that it's not really top of everyone's list anymore?
With some notable exceptions where it may well be top of the list - the obvious example being some third-level institutions there who have prestige and networking opportunities which are hard to beat, if you can afford it.
Are you aware of how shit of a metric that is? It's literally the %age of GDP spent on sustainable energy, so the US could still be spending more than all those countries combined and still have a lower %age.
Let's also not forget who gives out the loans for sustainable development, and who sets up the economic incentives.
This is also the equivalent of saying "You're much less likely to get robbed in Africa, they have a faster declining crime rate than Europe." As a baseline Europe is safer and it's therefore harder to decrease the crime rate further[0]. Going from 100 murders a day to 89 is not better than going from 10 to 9.
[0] I made up this example - no clue if it's true