As a SoCal transplant to the bay area, my biggest observation is that it's basically mandatory to "have a cause" in the bay area. It doesn't really matter what it is. It could be cycling over driving. It could be how you eat. It could be political activism. But it has to be something, or people look at you funny.
Aside from the Venice Beach / Santa Monica scene (which is absolutely superficial), I find SoCal to be much more laid back. Live and let live, if you will.
Somewhat ironically you must have an _approved_ cause, or you may be judged as much as not having one. To be fair I've found this is far more prevalent in SF than the South Bay, so I think that's where it comes from.
I'd say it matters a great deal what it is -- for instance if your cause is the pro-life movement or the expulsion of illegal aliens then you might have difficulties getting social approval in San Francisco.
I find it a hilarious instance of California insularity that the grandparent post thinks it "doesn't matter what it is" -- I'm guessing that he'd failed to consider the fact that non-left causes even exist.
> I'm guessing that he'd failed to consider the fact that non-left causes even exist.
In this case, you would be guessing wrong. My omission is not evidence of insularity but of walking on eggshells. I've made this point to many up here and found they are more willing to discuss and agree if I omit the narrow scope of "any cause".
There are two very valid points here: activism and alignment. I intentionally chose not to bring up alignment because it's tiring in circles like HN and/or SF. Additionally, bubbles like this aren't unique to the bay area. The focus on causes and activism is much more unique.
Aside from the Venice Beach / Santa Monica scene (which is absolutely superficial), I find SoCal to be much more laid back. Live and let live, if you will.