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.

(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.

How did a Starlink post devolve into this chain about rural ideologies?

GP did us the courtesy of stating the source of their views. Seems to be hearsay, but if this statement is true it's not speculation.

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).

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.