Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bityard 1137 days ago
Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas. I'm a liberal-leaning moderate but many of my favorite people (friends and family) are conservative, and many of my hobbies tend to be populated mainly by the conservative demographic. You'll always find people here and there who won't give you the time of day if you're not on Team Blue or Team Red, but my take on it is, if I can't make friends with people who hold beliefs different from my own, then maybe I'm the asshole.

That said, if it really matters that much to you, you'll find plenty of swing states with mid-sized cities in the Midwest. Upsides are low cost of living, 20 minutes from the center of the city to cornfields. Downsides are you can't go too far north if you don't like cold winters.

No area is thriving right now thanks to the recession, but it sounds like you are aiming for remote work anyway, so why does that matter? If I were in your shoes, I would pick a place that has the geography, climate, and cost of living I am looking for and not worry so much about the politics and economic prospects of the area.

12 comments

The thing is that personal politics don't end up being a personal thing because they result in real policies that guide real material outcomes.

At this point saying one is uninterested in living in a red state could be about party politics, but it also could just as much about not being inclined to subject onesself to starkly higher risks of being shot and killed (the outcome of someone's personal politics).

eg. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/23/surprising...

> In reality, the region the Big Apple comprises most of is far and away the safest part of the U.S. mainland when it comes to gun violence, while the regions Florida and Texas belong to have per capita firearm death rates (homicides and suicides) three to four times higher than New York’s. On a regional basis it’s the southern swath of the country — in cities and rural areas alike — where the rate of deadly gun violence is most acute, regions where Republicans have dominated state governments for decades.

Avoiding red states to avoid being shot would be extremely dumb for many reasons.

1. Cities and neighborhoods in any state can be safe, even in the states with the most shootings

2. If you have enough money to choose to live in another state, you're probably not going to be living in an extremely poor area that is the most likely to be beset with gun violence

3. Other commonplace things are much more likely to kill you than being shot (cars, for example).

Mass shootings aren't correlated with poverty. Guns are expensive.

Most mass shooters are disaffected folks in the "middle class" who have money to acquire weapons (or access to weapons via relatives) and time to spend immersing themselves in online right-wing cesspits.

Actual poor people are too busy trying to grind and survive.

The most violent cities in America are all blue cities.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/most-viol...

Shit. Your own source disproves that if you use the most recent data

https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/most-dang...

Take off the minimum population requirement of 100k residents and the most dangerous metro areas are all small, rural conservative towns. https://www.statista.com/statistics/433603/us-metropolitan-a...

Most of those cities on the less than 100k list have Dems in government as well, but imo this isn't a Dem-GOP issue and more of a "urban" versus "rural" issue - specifically these are all cities that have been left behind due to an oversized population of minorities (eg. Anchorage+Fairbanks for Native Americans, Memphis+Pine Bluffs+Monroe+Alexandria+Little Rock for African Americans, ABQ+Lubbock for Latino Americans) and severely deindustrialized (eg. Memphis, ABQ, Lubbock, Little Rock, Danville) due to bipartisan support of globalization in the 1990s and the collapse of the energy sector in the 1990s-2000s
>muh red cities

>muh blue cities

>deflecting from the larger point and arguing about team colors

It's all so tiresome.

It's not only tiresome, it's unproductive. Why it's the case is probably for a whole host of reasons - generally poor education, media, cultural.
And most of that is done by drug dealers fighting over turf. The shootings are highly concentrated in certain geographic areas.
Most cities are blue cities
Virtually all large cities in the US are blue, even in otherwise rabidly red states.
Mass shootings are technically any that have a victim count over a certain number and the vast majority of those are committed by criminals with cheap weapons.

Guns are not expensive, they're way cheaper than a car. The Hipoint C9 retails new for $199. If you can afford a mobile phone (read: almost everyone in the USA) you can afford multiple guns.

Perhaps you should have a look at this book. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/william-kleinknec...

Some Red States are an absolute mess. Some of their stats resemble third world countries.

Their education systems are shoddy. Their drinking water systems are dangerous to health. Taxes are shameful: low taxes for the wealthy but high sales taxes which hurt the poor the most.

Just for starters.

Not a fan of the GOP and I have actively worked with the DNC, but using HDI (which is the goto metric for comparing development across regions), most US states Red and Blue are roughly comparable to other western European peers.

The states that do lag significantly (MS+WV) are comparable to Portugal/Poland/Greece on developmental metrics, but they only represent ~1% of the entire American population and are anomalies due to historical social economic factors (that said, this should not mean that we should give up on them - we should in fact double down and invest in upgrading social infrastructure in laggard states).

That said, every single American state and territory fall strictly in the "Very Highly Developed" category from a development standpoint and calling them "3rd world" is only minimizing the actual suffering that exists in less developed countries as well as orientalizing actual poverty upliftment in former "3rd world regions" like China, India, Turkey, Mexico, ASEAN, the Warsaw Bloc, the Balkans, Southern Europe, South America, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.

US State HDIs - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...

European HDIs - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_...

Fair enough. From the link, I see that the states with the lowest HDIs are Red States while the highest HDIs are mostly all Blue States.
I'd recommend comparing at the region level instead of by state government c. 2010-2023.

Different regions of the US became developed/first world at different times. The Mid-Atlantic and New England for example largely industrialized by the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Midwest by the 1930s, the Western US and Southwest by the 1950s, and the Southern States, Appalachia, and Puerto Rico by the 1980s-90s (thank you LBJ for your War against Poverty in the 60s).

A better comparison would be blue and red states within the same region in the US - for example, Blue Minnesota versus Red Wisconsin or Red Florida and Blue Virginia or Red New Hampshire and Blur Vermont.

The same issue exists within the EU as well btw - this is why Sweden can have some of the best developmental indicators in the world while Bulgaria can have developmental indicators comparable to developed regions of China and India.

> Some of their stats resemble third world countries.

Have you walked through the TL?

Comparing California and Texas can be interesting because the states are both dominated by a single party, so you see how both ideologies can go wrong. With Texas being like a developing country, I'm reminded of the winter power outage. They love free markets. It's not worth it to harden the electric grid for an event that rare that only lasts a few days. Picking on California, its K-12 education is in the bottom quartile.

I live in the SFBA and have far worse uptime and far higher prices than Texas. The smugness from Californians wrt/grid does not make any sense to me. I would trade for Texas electrical grid performance in less than a heartbeat.

There was a five hour long outage on Monday while the weather was perfectly lovely. And more than a week cumulative outage in March when the weather was merely a little wet.

I'm not being smug about CA's grid. It has rolling blackout on hot days. Its problem is it doesn't let anyone build power plants.
Is SFBA's power private? Is LA's power still publicly owned? Do they have power outages (ie Brownouts etc)?
Most of the gun deaths in red states are suicides. So maybe the states are just very depressing places to live in? Like Wyoming outside of Jackson Hole, is a tough place to l is so has the nation’s highest suicide rate.
Wyoming and Montana have the two highest gun ownership rates of US states, and the two highest suicide rates. It’s probably not a coincidence.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/...

Texas sure seems to be an outlier though.
Native Texan living in the city. There has been only one time in my life I was near gun violence and it was 1/2 mile away. That didn't make me hate guns, it just made me consider concealed carrying again. Zero people I know have been near shootings or are worried about shootings, it's a nonissue in the real world and only seems scary because of news coverage.
Don't mess with Texas. It's already a mess.
Utah as well. Arizona also has a much higher standard of living than California.
This is such a propaganda piece. NYC has a per capita murder rate of 5.5 according to its latest report. There were 40 states with a lower murder rate [1]. The highest murder rates are all in blue cities [2]

1-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...

2-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

Except we're not talking about overall murder rate, but rather about violence (both individual and systemic) specifically targeted at gender, sexual, and racial minorities.
your comment keeps confusing, or switching back and forth between, states and cities, which one is your point based on?

states were the original topic, and it looks like New York is actually the 2nd lowest by 2019 numbers

What percentage of gays and minorities were shot in Provo or Lincoln compared to cities like San Francisco and Chicago? I am assuming you have statistics to back your statements.

The highest gun violence rates are in heavily blue cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis and Baltimore.

Shooting isn't the only form of repression. It's not even the most prominent or insidious form. There's a big difference between murder and a hate crime.

Cop violence isn't counted in murder stats, by the way, because it's "lawful" and they're effectively above the law.

In 2020 California had more hate crime than Texas: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crim...

Edit: Actually I checked 2017-2020 and every year had way more hate crimes than Texas. CA has ~33% more population, but had triple the hate crimes. In 2021 CA somehow dropped from thousand+ hate crimes to like 40, so I'm guessing something is up with the data there.

> In 2020 California had more hate crime than Texas

Well there were significantly more cases of rape reported in Sweden than in most African or South Asian countries (and I mean up to 40 times more or so…). Something similar might be at play here.

I understand what you’re getting at but 94% of precincts in Texas reported these stats willingly and 97% in California, so I don’t think it’s underreporting.
> Florida and Texas belong to have per capita firearm death rates (homicides and suicides) three to four times higher

It makes no sense to put suicides in the same bucket as homicides, please stop trying to manipulate the discussion this way. There are more gun deaths from suicide than murder and accidents put together, so it massively skews the numbers.

The latest CDC Homicide Mortality by State numbers show neither Florida nor Texas even in the top 20:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality...

Although many of the highest homicide states are in the South, such as Mississippi and Alabama, many are not, such as New Mexico and Illinois.

Region-wise, the contention "the region the Big Apple comprises most of is far and away the safest part of the U.S. mainland when it comes to gun violence" is not supported by the data. Taking the latest FBA violent crimes (2016 is the latest I could find online broken down by Metropolitan Statistical Area) homicide rates per 100,000 inhabitants:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

The safest MSAs in America, tied with zero homicides in 2016, are:

Albany, OR M.S.A. Bangor, ME M.S.A. Casper, WY M.S.A. Columbus, IN M.S.A. Dalton, GA M.S.A. Danville, IL M.S.A. Iowa City, IA M.S.A. Lewiston-Auburn, ME M.S.A. Missoula, MT M.S.A. Ocean City, NJ M.S.A. Oshkosh-Neenah, WI M.S.A. Rochester, MN M.S.A. St. George, UT M.S.A.

These are all relatively small, here are some larger MSAs with lower homicide rates than New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA M.S.A.:

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH M.S.A. Gainesville, FL M.S.A. Midland, TX M.S.A. Santa Fe, NM M.S.A. Urban Honolulu, HI M.S.A. Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR M.S.A College Station-Bryan, TX M.S.A. Fargo, ND-MN M.S.A. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI M.S.A. Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH M.S.A. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA M.S.A. El Paso, TX M.S.A. Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL M.S.A. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA M.S.A. San Diego-Carlsbad, CA M.S.A. Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL M.S.A.

Thus the contention of "the Big Apple comprises most of is far and away the safest part of the U.S. mainland when it comes to gun violence" does not appear supported by the data.

(EDIT: The most violent top 20 MSAs in the USA belie the notion of homicidal violence as being associated with a particular political party, on either side; it is a pan-American issue: Guayama, Puerto Rico M.S.A. San Juan-Carolina-Caguas, Puerto Rico M.S.A. Ponce, Puerto Rico M.S.A. Fairbanks, AK M.S.A. Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, MI M.D. New Orleans-Metairie, LA M.S.A. Memphis, TN-MS-AR M.S.A. Mayaguez, Puerto Rico M.S.A. Mobile, AL M.S.A. Philadelphia, PA M.D. Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD M.S.A. Savannah, GA M.S.A. Auburn-Opelika, AL M.S.A Flint, MI M.S.A. Hammond, LA M.S.A. Salinas, CA M.S.A. Chicago-Naperville-Arlington Heights, IL M.D. Albany, GA M.S.A. Montgomery, AL M.S.A. Shreveport-Bossier City, LA M.S.A.)

If you're a person who anticipates ever needing reproductive health care, it's not a matter of Team Blue versus Team Red. It's not limited to elective abortion either.

See e.g. https://katv.com/news/nation-world/idaho-hospital-to-end-bab...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/04/21/abortion-ba...

> Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas

State laws have benefited me or the people I care about in the following ways:

-my wife had 8 more weeks of parental leave

-16 of my wife’s parental leave weeks were paid leave from the state’s family leave act

-state laws provide paid family and medical leave in case I should need it in the future

-my wife and daughter have an easy time finding access to all women’s healthcare, and will not have to worry about their body and well being being sacrificed during pregnancy

-minimum wage laws require a much higher minimum exempt salary, and overtime laws prevent having to work all day without commensurate pay

-non compete bans ensure we have a more balanced playing field against employers

-free breakfast and lunch in school for all kids

I cannot list them all, and it is not all rainbows and sunshine, but claiming that the way a state is managed has little effect on one’s life is nonsense.

There are also LGBTQ rights. What if your child ends up coming out to you? Just because you're not part of it is not a valid reason. It's like saying you don't care about racism because you don't personally experience it even though you don't belong to a minority yourself.
I think the default is not to care about anything that doesn't affect you personally. I think it's the wrong approach to think folks should care because it's so obvious to you that they should. It's far more effective to explain why someone should care from their point of you than hand-waving 'everyone should care about racism because racism bad'
>Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas. I'm a liberal-leaning moderate but many of my favorite people (friends and family) are conservative, and many of my hobbies tend to be populated mainly by the conservative demographic.

This is a comment that originates in privilege. The concern for many people is not simply that they would have to be friends with conservative people. The concern is that the government and the local community will be hostile to them. This is true for a variety of targeted groups including LGBT+ people, ethnic minorities, or even just women. For example, it is objectively riskier to be pregnant in places like Kansas City because local abortion laws rule out certain medical procedures that could save the mother's life[1]. That isn't something a woman in a blue state needs to worry about.

[1] - https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/health-care/article...

> …hostile to them. This is true for a variety of targeted groups including LGBT+ people, ethnic minorities, or even just women

I suppose that’s a personal design and a trade off that you and others need to make.

I live in a “red state” and am described by several of the groups you mention and don’t feel the government nor community is hostile to me. I think it’s hard to understand beforehand what is hostile and how much hostility is worth peace of mind, prosperity, etc. That being said, I think it’s possible that everywhere has some unpleasant aspects and I wish that it wasn’t a “pick your poison” situation of having to choose between $5k/month rent and piles of human poo and not having to travel out of state for an abortion.

>I suppose that’s a personal design and a trade off that you and others need to make.

And that was effectively my point. The comment I replied to stated their opinion that it is universally bad to make this decision on a personal level. My counter did not say it was universally bad for people who belong to any of those groups to live in a red state. I said many people in those groups would feel that the local government and community are hostile to them. That isn't disproven when some members of those groups, such as yourself, don't feel the same way.

OP was applying how they feel to everyone likely because they don't need to worry about any of these concerns. I was reminding everyone that many people don't feel like they have the choice to ignore politics. And yes, if we want to be pedantic everyone technically does have that choice. We have the personal freedom to live our lives as the "this is fine" dog if we want (not saying that is you in this instance, I'm just speaking generally).

My point is that likely GP and others are aware of these concerns and make their decision knowing the consequences, not that they are oblivious due to privilege.

I was trying to communicate that we should assume best intentions and not that someone is stupid and “privileged.” I put privileged in quotes not because it doesn’t exist, it does, but assuming someone’s privilege is not a good idea and few know others well enough to do so.

>My point is that likely GP and others are aware of these concerns

I don't think OP was aware. They did not say that letting politics influence where they live was a bad decision for them personally. They said they believed it was a bad decision. There was no qualifier. They were stating it universally.

They are also elsewhere in this thread not understanding why a trans person would have trouble making friends with conservative people. I don't think this person deserves the benefit of the doubt you are giving them.

I also didn't call OP "stupid" and "privileged" is not an insult.

"Privileged" is an insult (in popular culture) and if you claim otherwise you are being disingenuous or you are very badly out of touch. (Or you're saying "well I didn't mean it to be an insult" and yeah sure you're very smart.)
is there really no middle ground (not an American)? What about cities like Seattle or Boston (just guessing here)? For me, the thought feels a bit like just going back in time. I mean there are still issues everywhere but this is so drastic and feels like you're back to constantly fighting for really basic rights.

This comment also reads a bit like it's ok for you if you don't personally feel hostility, so this might only be true for your personal situation. I don't think it's really that much of a personal question because different groups feel different amounts of hostility. Will you just ignore them?

> is there really no middle ground (not an American)? What about cities like Seattle or Boston (just guessing here)? For me, the thought feels a bit like just going back in time. I mean there are still issues everywhere but this is so drastic and feels like you're back to constantly fighting for really basic rights.

Keeping the political and social narratives focused on fights for basic rights ensures that no one passes laws that impact the ruling class.

Kinda like the Trump era tax cut, or how minimum wage hasn't changed. Meanwhile all everyone is talking about is guns and abortion.

> places like Kansas City because local abortion laws rule out certain medical procedures that could save the mother's life

What?

The headline of the article you linked literally says:

> Missouri, Kansas hospitals that denied emergency abortion broke the law

Also from the article you linked:

> But federal law, which requires doctors to treat patients in emergency situations, trumps those state laws

> In Kansas, when Farmer visited the hospital, abortions were still legal up to 22 weeks. It’s unclear why University of Kansas Health refused to offer Farmer one.

It's clear that the hospitals in these cases were the ones breaking the law by refusing to treat these women in need of emergency care.

What federal investigators say after the fact doesn't change what happened in the moment. The hospital refused the treatment during a medical emergency. The article also quotes a hospital spokesperson who sticks by their behavior suggesting they will do this again in the future.

At the very least, doctors need to think about these issue during medical emergencies in many red states in ways that they don't have to in blue states. I personally don't want my doctor to have to consult legal counsel before giving me the treatment the doctor knows I need.

It's now difficult in many states for a doctor to know ahead of time if actions they take for the health of the mother which risk terminating a pregnancy will be determined criminal in a court of law. And in some states, literally any relative of a fetus has standing in civil court to sue a doctor if the doctor's actions result in termination of a pregnancy, with huge minimum payouts for successful litigation. Idaho for example [0].

0. https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/01/05/idaho-supreme-court-u...

When faced with competing laws, doctors without law degrees are not going to sort things out as efficiently when compared to lawyers in a 10 year court battle.
>This is a comment that originates in privilege.

This sounds like a comment about privilege that originates in privilege.

The person just expressed his or her opinion, and bandying words like "privilege" shuts down communication by route of shaming someone.

Not everyone is LGBT+, ethnic minority.

If someone was to offer someone $20 million per year to do a job in Kansas, I guess many people would turn it down to make a point, but no reason to crap over someone who wants to make that $20 million.

The fact of the matter is that in most red states, there are blue cities.

Texas - Austin (Travis County) - 72.8% voted for Joe Biden Georgia - Atlanta (Fulton County) - 72.6% voted for Joe Biden Arizona - Phoenix (Maricopa County) - 50.3% voted for Joe Biden North Carolina - Charlotte (Mecklenburg County) - 67.5% voted for Joe Biden Tennessee - Nashville (Davidson County) - 61.7% voted for Joe Biden Florida - Miami (Miami-Dade County) - 53.3% voted for Joe Biden Ohio - Cleveland (Cuyahoga County) - 68.1% voted for Joe Biden Indiana - Indianapolis (Marion County) - 60.2% voted for Joe Biden Missouri - Kansas City (Jackson County) - 60.7% voted for Joe Biden Utah - Salt Lake City (Salt Lake County) - 62.9% voted for Joe Biden

And remember, geographically, California is MAJORLY red. Look at the last election map. What happens if someone moves there. Sure, you get abortion in California, but your neighbors are going to still be hard-core MAGA Republicans.

I must say, it is extremely disheartening when people throw around words like "privilege" just as an easy way to shut down communication by shame. I know you'll most likely deny it, what else can you do, but it is what it is. So I'd appreciate it if people would argue their case without these types of coded words. Just my opinion, don't tell me I'm privileged or misogynist or transphobic or fat-shaming or the million other words designed to immediately shut down a conversation by name-calling. I mean, I know that's the game these days - continual virtue signalling, de-platforming, gotchas for showing the world how virtuous one is and tallying up one's "I'm good" checkmarks. And if you say you aren't or that isn't the purpose...right, ok, sure. If you say so. Whatever you say. I believe you. Right.

can you elaborate why you think the comment about privilege is wrong, rather than emphasizing that you don't like that the word was used?

> Not everyone is LGBT+, ethnic minority

yes, but some are, and ignoring concerns which apply to them because you're not personally affected by the concerns is, well, privileged - you literally have the privilege of not having to worry about right-wingers driving a car into you only because you're the wrong ethnicity or nationality, like one just did in Texas

if you feel shame as a result of this, look inward and ask why, because nobody here is shaming you for simply being privileged

The assumption that people from the LGBT+ community must be of certain political beliefs is in itself prejudice.

People don't have to do what anyone believes is best for them. They don't need anyone pressuring them to behave a certain way. They don't need that from society, or anybody. What they wear is their's to choose. What they spend time on is their own. They can do whatever and be whoever and nobody else is in any way an authority of what is or isn't good for anyone other than themselves.

Edit: I changed single person wording to reflect the actual purpose of the message.

> The assumption that people from the LGBT+ community must be of certain political beliefs is in itself prejudice.

this is an assumption you made, if anybody did, as I did not

> People don't have to do what you believe is best for them.

I didn't claim otherwise here, either

you seem extremely confused at what I said, so please re-read it, because I literally didn't mention political beliefs or forcing people to accept what's best for them at all

perhaps you're upset that such people are choosing for themselves to avoid right-wing hate, and you don't like their reasoning (they don't want to be restricted / harassed / threatened / murdered by right-wingers) ?

we can't be surprised there, given said right-wingers don't care about politics when they're mowing people down with a range rover on a sidewalk, or in a shopping mall with a gun, just for looking different than them

BTW, you never explained why you felt the comment about privilege was wrong.

My comment wasn't really meant for you. It wasn't a criticism of you. It was a message indicating that everyone should be free to make their own decisions and shouldn't feel pressured based on how anyone else perceives them. Perhaps it was poorly worded.

You however, tossed in a "are you mad?" I won't engage with you further.

>I didn't claim otherwise here, either

You implied it, you didn't say it.

>I literally didn't mention political beliefs or forcing people to accept what's best for them at all

To him and to me, you didn't literally say it, but you implied it. You don't have to say something explicitly to have people know what you meant. Certainly Donald Trump didn't explicitly say for people to attempt an insurrection, but every one of those cretins knew exactly what he was saying.

>perhaps you're upset that such people are choosing for themselves to avoid right-wing hate, and you don't like their reasoning (they don't want to be restricted / harassed / threatened / murdered by right-wingers) ?

On the other hand, the poster you are replying to did not say nor imply anything of the sort of thing that you are saying.

>we can't be surprised there, given said right-wingers don't care about politics when they're mowing people down with a range rover on a sidewalk, or in a shopping mall with a gun, just for looking different than them

You are using emotionally laden wording here, rather than just having a healthy dialogue where you disagree.

>BTW, you never explained why you felt the comment about privilege was wrong.

Because the person you responded to above didn't use the word privilege. I did in another comment, which I just explained in my response to you on the other thread. I just logged back on right now and answered your other statement to me.

If you are going to respond, perhaps respond to only the other one as it is difficult to have two separate conversations happening at the same time.

Because "privilege" is a code word and a slur on those who do not agree, and a way to try to shut down rational conversation. Words can have more than one meaning, they can be nuanced, and they can mean something else entirely to the "in-crowd."

>like one just did in Texas

This could have happened in any state, including New York City or San Francisco or Seatle or any other liberal city and you know it. You are arguing unfairly.

>if you feel shame as a result of this, look inward and ask why, because nobody here is shaming you for simply being privileged

I didn't say that I felt that way. This is yet again another way that you are using ad hominem attacks by saying that I feel shame.

I'm sorry that you feel that you have to try to use shame to shut down dialogue.

And you seem to indicate that I am privileged. How do you know I am not a black lesbian trans woman? You have no idea.

All I am asking of you is to have a dialogue without using loaded language.

.

As it says in wikipedia:

*Loaded Language:*

"Loaded language (also known as loaded terms, strong emotive language, high-inference language and language-persuasive techniques) is rhetoric used to influence an audience by using words and phrases with strong connotations. This type of language is very often made vague to more effectively invoke an emotional response and/or exploit stereotypes. Loaded words and phrases have significant emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning."

And read again the last sentence.

*Ad hominem attacks*

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.

Dog whistle language

In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans. Dog whistles use language that appears normal to the majority but communicates specific things to intended audiences.

Choosing broadly appealing words such as "family values", which has extra resonance for Christians, while avoiding overt Christian moralizing that might be a turn-off for non-Christian voters. Same with many words on the left.

Code words

A code word is a word or a phrase designed to convey a predetermined meaning to an audience who know the phrase, while remaining inconspicuous to the uninitiated.

.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not familiar with these terms, but now that you are, maybe you will use discussions to the fairness of both sides of the discussion.

And to repeat, I'm not really taking sides in the actual argument. I'm saying that your language usage is unfair, both to the original person you responded to, and to me in response to my last comment.

If you have more to say to me, I'd appreciate it if you didn't use the automatic words of things like "privilege," "white supremacy," "transphobic," "toxic masculinity," "patriarchy," and all those types of language.

But it is a free world, we have free speech, you can do as you wish. I'm just asking this as one rational person to hopefully another.

> "privilege" is a code word and a slur on those who do not agree, and a way to try to shut down rational conversation.

I'm not convinced this is the case, or that it is indeed "loaded language" as claimed, as the only evidence behind such claims is you, a random person on the internet, claiming them

in fact, it's beginning to seem like maybe you don't know what privilege is at all. Perhaps you could illustrate that you do, and get back on topic at the same time, by explaining the privilege shown by the post at the beginning of this thread (rather than repeatedly trying to shut down rational conversation with your tone policing)?

whatever you say, dude.
> my hobbies tend to be populated mainly by the conservative demographic

What are conservative (and liberal) hobbies?

Conservative hobbies are like hunting, fishing, NASCAR, watching football, going to church, a lot of that is regional. A conservative in Saudi Arabia is going to have different hobbies compared to one in Utah.
My assumption would be hunting perhaps? Since that involves gun ownership, and gun ownership/rights typically being associated with "conservatives".
Which is stupid. It's everyone's right. One side just understands the importance of it, the other tries their hardest to throw it in the trash.
Yours is a naiive position positioning itself as enlightened

Firearms are worthless without organization and there is no actual revolutionary force in America even at the seed stage that is approximating anything near even Taliban levels of insurgent capabilities.

Your 2A “movement” has neither the coherent holistic political philosophy nor the competent leadership needed to actually create a viable social structure

So no, you’re cosplaying as a hollow copy of the Taliban with none of the threat, risk or even dedication to a real cause.

It is so weird how you guys belittle those that appreciate 2A as though it's not useful until we have "Taliban-levels of capability and organization" but if we did, you'd immediately cry "insurgency! This is too dangerous for our democracy!"

There's no winning with you people. That's why the 2A movement is progressing finally. You're impossible to please.

Yes it's pretty plain to see which states are using the law to suppress the rights of many people.

Also most suburbs even in blue states are conservative enough, no need to go further MAGA.

Which states? I mean, if you asked me, California’s gun control laws suppress the rights of many people, but I’m guessing you don’t agree?

My point is, you have your own political views, but at the same time live in a country with a lot of differing views.

You should feel free to live wherever you want but at the same time realize you’ll never find a place that 100% agrees with all your views.

Oregon and Washington — both blue states — are examples of other states that have begun to lean more heavily into restricting gun rights (whether you agree or disagree with the motivation & justification).

So, agreed, it’s accurate to say that there are examples of different states imposing legislation that restricts some sets of freedoms depending on the state’s political leaning.

>>California’s gun control laws suppress the rights of many people

Seriously?

I have a relative who lives in CA and bought a pair of AR-15s a few years ago, just because...

I've never seen any serious gun proposal that would actually infringe on any actual right. They are all about ensuring that background checks apply to all sales, waiting periods, red flags, etc.

People seem to forget that allowing any mentally ill incompetent full and immediate access to the highest caliber and rate-of-fire weapons at any time is the exact opposite of "a well regulated militia" (citing the exact words of the Second Amendment which grants that right).

Please cite some actual legislation entered for consideration (not right wing "They're coming for our guns" rhetoric) that would actually restrict that right for any sane, stable, and responsible citizen. This is not a rhetorical question, I would like to know if there is any actual such legislation proposed.

And no, I don't consider restricting weapons above certain levels of high power, high caliber, high magazine capacity, high rate-of-fire, etc. to be illegitimate. I actually think it should be a sliding scale of qualifications according to the above criteria, e.g., kid's 22 requires a basic safety course and you're good to go, but semi-auto high-power require solid marksmanship skills, combat training, proof of mental stability from licensed psych, insurance, etc., and all qualifications mean you can be called up for militia service at any time.

So, seriously, under "as part of a well regulated militia", what actual proposed legislation in any state would actually restrict such a right?

Hand gun roster and red flag laws are two good examples.

Allowing the police to seize weapons based on suspicion is unconstitutional.

CA only recently started allowing concealed carry after the Supreme Court forced them.

There was just a vote in SCOTUS to attempt to put an end to NY and CA's last-ditch attempts to deprive people of obtaining CCW permits without ridiculous requirements and mind boggling wait times.

Also, yes, while you may be able to get ARs, you're subject to dumb arbitrary restrictions[1] on what you can put on that AR.

And finally, CA and NY are doing their best to ban body armor. That makes me laugh, because now you can't even own methods of self-defense that aren't meant to injure anyone.

I consider CA and NY foreign nations at this point[2] (among a few others). It seems they do whatever they can to keep the common man down. They're good at one thing though: making it easy to "cheat" your reproductive system, and evade the responsibility of parenting while maintaining your rabid degeneracy as much as you want. I'm not even religious, and I find the rise in abortion disturbing. Although I guess the demographic that tend to get abortions will just be unbreeding themselves out of plurality, by definition.

[1] https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in...

[2] Should not be construed as me implying that red states are great. They're simply the lesser of two evils. I at least feel comfortable in red, although there are many things I disagree with.

Again, what part of "Well Regulated Militia" do you not understand?

None of these would be restrictions under a non-absolutist interpretation ignoring the entire start of the 2A. Granted, this does prevail now after decades of relentless promotion. That does not make it right.

Red flag laws are for people who have actually demonstrated their inability to control their own violence. There are a number of incidents of mass shooters who would have been prevented or slowed by such laws. And again, these people would be drummed out of any well-regulated militia.

Similarly, regulating or registering certain types of weapons does not seem out of bounds in a well-regulated militia, especially in urban environments.

I do have some problem with allowing police to seize weapons on suspicion, depending on the definition of suspicion, and the process to get them back. There are obvious circumstances where it should be not only allowed but required, and others where it is blatant state overreach.

Concealed carry, again in the context of a regulated militia — how is that a problem? You may have to show that you are armed.

Remember, even in the military itself, while weapons are issued and frequently used, they don't have people carrying any kind of weapon everywhere at any time, e.g., [0].

Again, the stated right is NOT any person of any level of mental or skilled competence can have access to any weapon at any time and any place.

It is: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The very first words are about regulation.

And the current results are proving the idiocy of a policy of unfettered access: 51 years of war 101,813 deaths

3 years of US gun deaths 133,759

US Death count in War

Vietnam War 1955-75 58,281

Korean War 1950-53 36,516

Iraq War 2003-11 4,614

Afghanistan War 2001-21 2,402

US gun deaths 2019-21 133,759

Every other western nation has similar levels of video games, mental illness, or whatever else you want to blame it on. Yet this only happens with any frequency here.

So, again, considering the ACTUAL constitutional intent of a well-regulated militia, what restrictions ACTUALLY INFRINGE ON RIGHTS OF SANE AND RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE.

I still have not seen a single instance of any actual legislator actually introducing a law that would broadly prohibit responsible gun ownership.

Show me one.

[0] https://www.military.com/pcs/can-you-carry-gun-military-base...

>Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

>I have a relative who lives in CA and bought a pair of AR-15s a few years ago, just because...

No you don't. AR-15s are illegal (felony) in California.

Yes, I do.

He purchased them specifically before the law against purchasing them went into effect. I'm no in CA, but I'm quite sure he still has them (or at least did while I visited after the law was in effect) and that the law did not require confiscating previously-owned firearms, i.e., they were grandfathered in.

This is a very preachy church lady like response.
Maybe, but is anything I said inaccurate? Try telling a trans person that the local political environment shouldn't impact their decision on where to live. Your best case scenario is an eye roll.

Only certain people are given the freedom to ignore politics.

Trans woman here, can confirm eye roll.
Yes, tell people how they ought behave in order to meet your view of them.
It's only "preachy" if acknowledging the harsh reality faced by repressed minorities makes you feel uncomfortable.
Yeah ask a church lady how she feels about government and if her state should defend the rights of ALL religions.
Oh I can make friends. What I can't do is get an abortion or in good faith tell my lgbt child that I support them.

I deeply believe that unwanted children make society worse so expect abortion banning states to become less desirable in 15-20 years.

What's wrong with your kids being LGBT? Why wouldn't you support that?
> What's wrong with your kids being LGBT? Why wouldn't you support that?

There is nothing wrong with your kids being LGBT. I believe you are misunderstanding HDThoreaun. They are talking about why they wouldn't want to live in a red state. Read their comment again with that context in mind.

It says if they were living in a red state they couldn't tell their LGTB child that they support the child. Presumably because HDThoreaun feels if they would really support said LGBT child they would move out of the red state.

It sounds like you read their hypothetical as if HDThoreaun has some problem with their kid being LGBT. I don't believe that was the intended message, quite the contrary in fact.

You are supremely out of tough if you think red states preclude you from being vocally proud of your kids. Most conservatives got over the lgbt thing decades ago. Dont give voice to the extremeists of either party as if they are the norm.
> You are supremely out of tough if you think red states preclude you from being vocally proud of your kids.

Of course you can be vocally proud of said kid. But are you able to "in good faith tell my lgbt child that I support them". Supporting someone is not just words. But perhaps living in a place where they are not handicapped by laws.

> Dont give voice to the extremeists of either party as if they are the norm.

Sure. What about the extremists who are writing the law in those red states? Can I be concerned about those?

are proud and support synonyms now?
Some red states are beginning to enact legislation that makes it more difficult for lgbt children to come to terms with who they are. I think the abortion issue is a much bigger deal, but I would definitely feel guilty about raising a lgbt child in that environment.
I think the parent comment is suggesting you can't move to such an area and say you're supporting your LGBT child, that it would be in bad faith to tell them you support them having made the choice to move there.

Or in other words, perhaps they'd like to say they support their child, but it'd be disingenuous.

I'm sympathetic to concerns that some kids (mostly girls) are doing it because it's a trendy thing to do. I'm worried things like The Genderbread Person send the wrong message by gendering clothes and activities. It tells a boy wearing pink and playing with barbies he's a girl.

If my kid's LGB, I'm glad they found what they're looking for, and if they change their mind, that works too. The trans bit worries me because it's permanent.

I think both sides have gone too far on this issue, and find California and Florida equally scary.

The Romans managed their empire with divide and conquer tactics.

Guns, abortion, trans issues are just red meat the corporations throw to the masses to keep their eye off what's really going on.

What's really going on? The pensions and retirements of the middle class are being drained away with inflationary monetary policy to pay for wars around the world and keep the corporate class on top.

We are free to fight to the death about sex and guns, but there's no effective discussion of the murderous, planet killing US war machine and the parasites who profit from it in the public discourse. What a coincidence. Divide and conquer.

You're confusing misdirection for divide and conquer. Divide and conquer would mean the US splits up so China can be the superpower.
Yeah the parent isn't fundamentally wrong, just misusing a term.

"Wedge Issues" would the political science nerd terminology, e.g. abortion, guns, or trans rights, which serve as a lever to push political action.

It means splitting the country politically so that it is impossible to generate opposition to the leadership.

It's pretty clear that that is the modus operandi.

Absolutely anything to distract folks from class identity. I'm 50-50 on whether or not the intergenerational conflict articles[1] are part of a psyops program.

1. The sort of "Boomer hate Millennial" or vice versa or "Zoomers have no idea what a record player is"-type clickbait.

> Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas.

Policy climate can br a very good reason to avoid living in certain areas.

Failure to recognize this in time can be a very bad way to avoid living entirely.

> I'm a liberal-leaning moderate but many of my favorite people (friends and family) are conservative, and many of my hobbies tend to be populated mainly by the conservative demographic.

I have had friends all over the political spectrum, but “ability to make friends” is not the reason people avoid particular political climates. If you are privileged enough not to need to ubderstand that, congratulations.

> No area is thriving right now thanks to the recession

What recession?

> > Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas.

> Policy climate can br a very good reason to avoid living in certain areas.

While there's clearly substantial overlap, I think there can be an important difference between choosing not to live somewhere because your personal politics disagree with the norm there, and choosing not to live somewhere because of the actual impact of the policies that are or may be implemented there.

>> if I can't make friends with people who hold beliefs different from my own, then maybe I'm the asshole.

Well said...and true.

When folks say stuff like this, I feel like they're imagining two buddies arguing over tax reform or something. I'm absolutely fine being friends with someone who has conservative economic beliefs.

What I'm not fine with is being friendly with someone who supports policies designed to hurt my friends and family.

It turns out that befriending people who hold opposite and even toxic opinions is actually a great way to bring them back to more moderate and rational thinking.

There is a Jordan Harbinger podcast about a black man who single-handedly dismantled multiple KKK clans literally by befriending them. The trick is to approach the other person with curiosity and reason, not with judgement and adversity. Not everyone can be talked out of being a racist (or whateverist) of course but at the end of the day we all have more in common than we have in difference and a surprising number of people are willing to change their views on an entire demographic if they aren't being shouted at, shamed, or just silently shunned.

Why are you putting the onus on victims to befriend and "convert" their oppressors?

Seriously, what the fuck.

When someone disagree's with your point of view, you are thus a victim?

I think I see the problem here.

"Disagree with a point of view" and "don't want to be beaten up" (an example) are not in the same ballpark.

People are undoubtedly victims if they get beaten up or have to live under daily threat of it. (Again, example).

That is relevant to the KKK a few comments up. It's not that long ago the KKK wouldn't stop at beating someone up, when they could get away with torture and murder and be let off by juries who approved - in some states.

Replace "beaten up" with any other kind of serious harm to get the point. There are plenty of examples today, whether you care to recognise them or not.

>disagree

Trans people are having their civil rights stripped away, and some are being murdered.

Life is to short to put up with that. If others want to do that and make it something important in their life good for them.
> Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas.

Of course it is. Imagine your daughter getting pregnant and being unable to abort the pregnancy even if her survival would be at stake, or your son ending up gay or trans? Both of these not-unlikely events can have real, deadly impact depending if you are living in a red vs purple or blue state!

> but my take on it is, if I can't make friends with people who hold beliefs different from my own, then maybe I'm the asshole.

These people may simply beat you or your children up for not conforming to their narrow worldview. Hate crimes have exploded since 2016, and on top of that comes the everyday gun violence.

Beliefs are one thing - I'm a socialist and still enjoy debating with libertarians. But some things - like the right to self-determination about your body, reproduction and sexuality or the freedom to believe in anything else (or nothing) but Jesus - these are existential questions, and I cannot (and do not) reasonably engage in discussion with someone who 'd like to see me or my friends and family dead.

Is it not a good reason to avoid living in red states if your rights are being taken away? I'd love to keep living in my blue city in the south, but I'd also love to keep getting the health care I need.
> No area is thriving right now thanks to the recession

We're not really in a recession. Tech was probably in a recession in 2022, but Google and Meta both had good earnings reports, so maybe we're through that. Finance is having its own issues. Everyone else is a little nervous, but doing ok, except for inflation.

> Personal politics, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid living in certain areas.

> but my take on it is, if I can't make friends with people who hold beliefs different from my own, then maybe I'm the asshole.

It's not only about getting along with people on an individual level.

"Politics" is why Massachusetts has a social safety net for many, there are abortion rights, the first gay marriage in the US was a short walk away, my trans neighbor can walk down the street without being hassled, there's countless different flavors of churches and other religious meeting places (as well as many seculars), and education and science are generally valued.

And when some people traveled to Boston to promote aggressive right-wing ideas, an overwhelming number of locals showed up to tell them to take a hike, and sent the message that they had the backs of the people the clowns were threatening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Free_Speech_Rally

This Blue State is far from perfect, but I see plenty of practical reasons for someone like myself to live here rather than in a Red State, no matter how nice and decent the typical Red State resident might be.

Red states fuck up the eduction system. What you going to do if your kid tries to make America Great Again, daughter needs an abortion.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html