[slg]

>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...

[prepend]

> …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.

[slg]

>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).

[prepend]

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.

[slg]

>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.

[readwriterick]

"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.)

[LeanderK]

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?

[red-iron-pine]

> 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.

[_gabe_]

> 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.

[slg]

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.

[DangitBobby]

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...

[seanmcdirmid]

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.

[FrontierPsych]

>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.

[ImPostingOnHN]

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

[iinnPP]

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.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> 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.

[iinnPP]

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.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> My comment wasn't really meant for you.

In the future, to avoid such misunderstandings, it would be best if post replies were replies to posts.

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

Not sure what imaginary "are you mad?" you're referring to, but nobody can force you to respond to the actual points in the posts you reply to, so go ahead and don't.

[FrontierPsych]

>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.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> You implied it

> you didn't literally say it, but you implied it.

Did I? It doesn't seem like I did, perhaps you wrongly inferred it.

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

Am I? It seems like I'm just stating the facts, your emotionality in response to them is on you (and totally normal, given these facts)

[FrontierPsych]

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.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> "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)?

[FrontierPsych]

whatever you say, dude.

[dumbotron]

> my hobbies tend to be populated mainly by the conservative demographic

What are conservative (and liberal) hobbies?

[seanmcdirmid]

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.

[imajoo]

My assumption would be hunting perhaps? Since that involves gun ownership, and gun ownership/rights typically being associated with "conservatives".

[seanw444]

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.

[AndrewKemendo]

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.

[seanw444]

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.

[AndrewKemendo]

Difference is, I’ve actually been to war as an active combatant

Also you assume too much about what I would and would not agree with

I’m all for Revolution, but yours is incoherent and disorganized

[fundad]

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.

[refurb]

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.

[ovao]

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.

[toss1]

>>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?

[refurb]

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.

[seanw444]

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.

[toss1]

>>deprive people of obtaining CCW permits without ridiculous requirements and mind boggling wait times.

Again, in the context of A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, what is the problem with qualifications and a wait time? (yes, if they are actually egregious, it can be an effective ban).

Beyond that, what is so mandatory about concealed carry? It is the right to bear arms -in a well-regulated context- not the right of any mentally-ill person to sneak arms into any place at any time.

[toss1]

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...

[refurb]

See District of Columbia v. Heller - "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

[fundad]

It's unconstitutional to regulate a militia.

[throwawayacc5]

>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.

[toss1]

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.

[throwawayacc5]

>Yes, I do.

No, you don't.

>He purchased them specifically before the law against purchasing them went into effect.

The California Assault Weapons Control Act was passed in 1989, not "a few years ago". So no, they did not buy them "a few years ago". QED.

[justinzollars]

This is a very preachy church lady like response.

[slg]

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.

[mattcaldwell]

Trans woman here, can confirm eye roll.

[iinnPP]

Yes, tell people how they ought behave in order to meet your view of them.

[CapstanRoller]

It's only "preachy" if acknowledging the harsh reality faced by repressed minorities makes you feel uncomfortable.

[fundad]

Yeah ask a church lady how she feels about government and if her state should defend the rights of ALL religions.