A few comments on social media do not in any way allow one to draw conclusions about the alleged bigotry (or not) of any particular community.

The author would have gotten the same sort of responses had he used Bloomington (his imagined enlightened town to the east) or any other town in the state or country.

There are ideologues everywhere, they tend to dwell on social media, and like to troll. I include the author among them.

Putting aside the merits of allowing or disallowing refugees, this comes across as incredibly smug and juvenile. It's this kind of disingenuous "anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot" logic hiding behind the stated intent of "opening a dialogue" that divides people. That, and social media comment areas will usually attract the most extreme views. I assume that the comments posted aren't the views of the entire town and so it's not fair to call the entire town racist.

Not entirely sure what he would have expected to happen. One of the first things you learn about racism when you start to study it is that, when you live in a racist world, you have to be taught not to be racist or you'll pick it up by osmosis. Should it really come as a surprise that rural areas are dominated by people who choose bigotry first and understanding never? Maybe he had the belief, not my home town!, but this is an awful way to have your bubble burst.

I guess he thinks he's doing his part to make the world a less racist place, but honestly I don't think these kinds of tactics are effective. Even if they were, you make changes in the world by scaling your efforts. Things that are scalable: Discussion groups, awareness campaigns, get-out-the-vote movements. Things that are not scalable: pranks, violence, other kinds of childishness.

He got his fifteen minutes, and stuck to his guns, sure. But a year from now nobody's going to remember him except for the enemies he made.

It's the response by the councilman that concerns me.