[ecshafer]

As you specify people from Seattle, and these people went out of their way to point out that the people are religious, republicans who like guns, I have a feeling they aren't particularly open minded or tolerant people. Religious or secular, blue team or red team, basic politics shouldn't color your ability to get along with people. Fundamentally people are pretty similar, and American culture is quite homogeneous.

[foerbert]

Well, particularly in the current situation where masks somehow became a political hill to die on, I think you are underselling the matter some.

It's a bit difficult to feel all that neighborly or friendly with people adamant that they won't even wear a mask to help protect your own health.

And all the topics listed - religion, political affiliation, guns - are all infamous for causing strife. Even the most tolerant person can easily wish to simply minimize the chances of a conflict. Tensions over these matters also only seem to be intensifying, which further exacerbates the matter.

[jjeaff]

While anti-maskers are definitely more likely to be politically right, due to weird behavior of the last administration, the reality is, the majority of Americans are fine wearing masks in public. Polling i have seen showed 75%+ were fine with masks.

[foerbert]

I think that likely shows the problem, rather than anything else.

(I'm going to assume you mean that number nationwide)

75%, or roughly so, nationwide would be one thing if it was evenly distributed. But as you noted, the issue is tied to politics (I think more than you imply, but doesn't matter). We also know political affiliation is not evenly distributed.

So, a number like 75% mask compliance makes it possible, and frankly very likely, that there are areas with substantially lower rates.

[zorpner]

I would encourage you to listen to, and believe, the very real experiences of people of color, same-sex couples, and transgender or nonbinary people who have spent time in locations like Eastern Idaho.

[freedomben]

I don't disagree, but I would caution heavily about stereotyping an entire geographic area based on anecdotal experiences. Different neighborhoods around here can be radically different. One street up is "the Mormon street" where everyone is LDS, but a few streets past that is the polar opposite.

I think when we blanket stereotype people based on geographic location, the error rate is quite high. In my opinion, unacceptably, but then I've always value tolerance, acceptance, and open mindedness (although for people that don't offer that to others I admit little patience, and I don't want to be around them).

[totalZero]

> Different neighborhoods around here can be radically different.

Having lived in places with similar ideological demographics, I caution that living in a place means you're going to visit all sorts of neighborhoods there, and it would be (not saying you're recommending this) untenable to recommend that certain people would do just fine if they keep to the neighborhoods where they are welcome.

If a particular neighborhood in an area is hostile to certain people for no good reason, it makes the entire area hostile because all of the people involved can and do operate outside of the geofence.