The point is not NYC > Topeka for everyone -- that is a subjective judgment and you have to pick what's best for you. The point is, for
many more people, larger cities have more to offer than small towns. Additionally, on many objective scales that matter to many people -- mainly measures having to do with economic mobility and opportunity -- NYC and other large cities outperform Topeka and the rest of the midwest.
It's not as if I want to live in the Bay Area and spend 1.5X+ on living merely because the population is larger. It's because I have a chance to work for 5-10 years, collect options at some up and coming companies, network with many very successful people, build a career and then retire at age 40 with a 7+ digit net worth. And if I fail to achieve that, I can still land somewhere on a spectrum of outcomes bookended by that goal. The opportunity to do this is very small in Topeka and elsewhere.
So when you say "... no reason to disparage other's interests and life choices because you choose to live in a big city and have found a community of like-minded people, it just makes you sound like a pompous jerk," you're missing the point. I'm not "disparaging" Topeka because there is a community of like-minded people. I'm disparaging the idea that a town like Topeka could just become like SF, only cheaper.
Such a notion embodies no understanding of the reasons why SF is objectively better than Topeka. You are confusing my comparison of the cities on objective criteria with a claim about certain subjective qualities of the places. Yes, some people don't want to put up with the cost, noise, filth etc. involved with big city life and they don't highly value the opportunities we have here -- in my personal opinion, those people have poorly chosen their life's priorities, but objectively stated, they will not enjoy living in SF.