[diveandfight]

So the author points out that some reasons constraining mobility are outside of a person's control:

> When we talk about limited mobility, we have to talk about states that are actively and legislatively hostile to marginalized people.

And then proceeds to frame the choice of "where to live?" as solely within a person's control, "What’s holding you back, and what conversations do you have with yourself about when and whether that will change?"

> And so, a prompt for discussion: What would have to change, for you to move closer to the people who nourish you, who support you, who make your life better and easier in so many ways?

I'm getting fatigued with seeing/hearing this meaningless virtue signaling. It usually takes the form of, "We see you," "We acknowledge particular challenges for certain people," and then proceeding to make a point that either completely disregards or directly contradicts (in this case) the speaker's/writer's acknowledgement of racism/hostility/lack of safety/etc.

This article is some privileged person nonsense.

[quinn3604]

The article briefly speaks on why people might not have control over where they live - and then the author then continues to discuss the matter as if an individual does have control, as you said. However, this is far from meaningless, because many do have a say in where they live, and still neglect to factor in living near to close friends. I agree that it doesn't apply to everyone, but this doesn't make it nonsense in my opinion.

[emodendroket]

The author's contention is the "unprivileged" person probably doesn't have this problem by virtue of not having left their hometown in the first place.