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.
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).
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.
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_...
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.
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.
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.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/most-viol...
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...
>muh blue cities
>deflecting from the larger point and arguing about team colors
It's all so tiresome.
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.
Haha holy shit, I never thought I'd see someone just be so casually and brazenly racist. Incredible.
There is a high correlation between between ethnic or racial makeup of a certain area and crime and gun violence. I’m not sure simply handwaving this by calling everyone who points that out a ‘racist’ is the most productive attitude…
Generally the same applies to poverty though which is probably a more direct indicator than race.
Not the case in the US, poverty is a bad indicator, race is a good one.
Poorest white crime rates are lower than the richest blacks.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Which is why my simple modification to solve it all is mandate that all firearms be hot pink with a hello kitty logo.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/...
The highest gun violence rates are in heavily blue cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis and Baltimore.
Cop violence isn't counted in murder stats, by the way, because it's "lawful" and they're effectively above the law.
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.
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.
Are people in Texas just as willing to report it as in California?
etc.
I’m not saying that hate crime is necessarily more prevalent in Texas. I have no clue. It just seems like a weird comparison to make when it’s not that clear you’re not comparing oranges to apples..
I find it more weird that you're immediately doubting the data because it goes against pre conceived notions.
Also from the website itself the definition is: "The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program defines hate crime as a committed criminal offense which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias(es) against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity."
Looking at the data again personally I find it interesting that there was no anti white crime reported in CA but it was the third most reported hate crime in Texas
Isn’t that a fairly good indicator that the data is not necessarily comparable between the two states?
I’m not sure how much more comparable you can get, and if we go along your logic then the original point of this thread, which is that some people feel threatened in red states (apparently) because of their sexuality or similar, then there is no data that would ever validate or go against that mentality, since the data from each state by the federal bureau is not comparable right?
Then if we start going with anecdotes it gets nowhere because I’ve lived in both Texas and California and have traveled to many blue and red states and have seen way more discrimination/racism in blue states. But that’s a personal anecdote
1-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...
2-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
states were the original topic, and it looks like New York is actually the 2nd lowest by 2019 numbers
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. 0 Bangor, ME M.S.A. 0 Casper, WY M.S.A. 0 Columbus, IN M.S.A. 0 Dalton, GA M.S.A. 0 Danville, IL M.S.A. 0 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.
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.
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 from 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...
Only certain people are given the freedom to ignore politics.
Also most suburbs even in blue states are conservative enough, no need to go further MAGA.
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.
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.
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?
Allowing the police to seize weapons based on suspicion is unconstitutional.
CA only recently started allowing concealed carry after the Supreme Court forced them.
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, 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.
It's been ruled this way in the courts, and it's also just kind of obvious if you're reading it with no anti-individual prejudice/bias.
The definition of a militia is a body of non-professional (ordinary citizen) soldiers not part of the regular army, who stand ready to be called up in an emergency.
Notice the being called up part - the militia is to be SERVING IN and to be UNDER THE COMMAND of the ordinary military hierarchy.
A militia is NOT as you are implying, some kind of batch of citizens ready to raise an insurrection to fight against the army. That is the exact opposite of "being necessary to the security of a free State".
While I'm not for bureaucracy, even the Army has qualification standards of who can join. While militia standards should be lower, we cannot argue that they should be zero, enshrining some "right" for any mentally-incompetent and/or skilled-incompetent person to buy any armament and carry it in any situation.
If you are a sane, competent, and responsible citizen, no one is even proposing a law infringing your right.
(and FTR, I used to argue a "gun control is using two hands" approach. But accumulation of facts and a bit of thinking has changed my mind.)
The fall of nearly all great nations of this magnitude in history have been due to internal corruption and decay of the institutions. You don't protect against that with state-affiliated paramilitary organizations. You end up being the one protecting the decayed institutions and corruption. And if you refuse, and join a group of people trying to fight against it, then what? Oh interesting, an independent militia.
Your side's arguments really make the founders sound like idiots. They were not. They considered all of this. And they made a pretty simple and clear statement about it: it's a right of the people, to keep and bear arms. And it shall not be infringed.
If you don't like it, then amend the Constitution. That's how this place was supposed to work. But I guess society has decided we can forgo that step entirely.
"all 50 states have some provision in their state law, whether it's their state constitution or their state statutes, that prohibits private militia, private paramilitary activity. " [0]
"In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in a major gun rights case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, that citizens had a right to own a firearm for purposes other than being in a militia, namely for self-defense. The ruling affirmed the right of states to restrict militia-like activity." [1]
So, it is pretty much decided that independent militias, unaccountable to the state(s), can be illegal under the constitution, and are in fact illegal in all 50 states.
So, either the founders were either not actually interested in unregulated militias (hint: they did say "well regulated", not "unregulated, independent"), or SCOTUS has gotten it wrong — very possible, but it is very unlikely that a different SCOTUS would help, as this is the most right-wing SCOTUS in a century and it still upheld outlawing independent militias.
And again, there is nothing that says that independent militias would not, or could not have qualification standards. In fact, they'd be idiots not to.
Again, I do not see any right to buy arms & ammo as easily as a bunch of bananas, or that the right is enshrined for insane, incompetent, or irresponsible people. Being required to pass a background check, not have demonstrated inability to control your own violence, and demonstrate basic safety and skill with firearms is not infringement.
I live in Massachusetts, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. It is a minor inconvenience, certainly nothing resembling infringement. We need to attend a 2-3 hour safety session and iirc get the cert signed off by the Chief Of Police in the town[2].
The results are clear [3]. While the nation has hundreds of mass shootings every year, there have been only 2 in MA in this century (the only one in the last two decades being in the Boston Marathon Bombing, an international terrorist act), and only 4 in the last 33 years.
Yet, if I want to, I can go get qualified and get a firearm next week.
Seriously, where is the infringement?
[0] https://www.npr.org/2020/08/30/907720068/are-citizen-militia...
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-09-2...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_Mas...
Also, I still find SCOTUS too milquetoast to represent me. They still ruled in favor of permitting, which is blatantly unconstitutional, and to argue otherwise is totally disingenuous.
I don't think you're worth my time, nor am I yours.
That sounds kind of self-contradictory. If your 'militia in the private realm' is doing nothing, it seems to be a meaningless organization, or at best a proto-organization, and if it is a useful militia, as in threatening the power of the state or federal govt, that's clearly illegal.
And if you believe that requiring a basic firearms permit to be unconstitutional, it seems that that standard might only apply to 18th-century weapons. An AR or even a good hunting rifle is more deadly than a cannon of those times (and also required more fiddly knowledge & skill to shoot effectively).
I've seen no law or proposal that is anything more than a modest inconvenience for any sane, competent, and responsible person. I don't see how any of the founders would be objecting to that at any level. And this society is both much more complex and the weapons orders of magnitudes more powerful.
And yeah, I agree SCOTUS has enough problems for everyone, about which we could commiserate until the cows come home, and then some.
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...
The SCOTUS has now clearly shown that such precedents are not binding, leaving the door open for a decision that does account for the actual text of the constitution's Bill Of Rights.
And again, even with that Heller decision, and with many other posts, not a single respondent has shown a single proposed law by even the most liberal state representative that would infringe on a right of a sane, competent, and responsible person to keep and bear arms.
And if we are going to say that there is no restriction, then why isn't anyone arguing that we should be allowed to have .50cal machine guns, rocket launchers, or nukes? These are simply armaments with different rates and power, so why should the state restrict those? Hell, it's perfectly OK under the law for someone to walk into a theater or shopping mall and mow down dozens of people, why shouldn't they be able to just blow up the mall or nuke the city (provided they have the funds to buy the armaments)? That's half in jest, whole in earnest.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. It’s not that the prefatory clause is ignored — it’s that its presence doesn’t negate the operative clause.
Notably, the second amendment neither prefaces the word “people” with “sane”, “competent” or “responsible”, so it’s not entirely clear to me as to whether you’re arguing on a basis of constitutionality or on something else altogether (is it both and neither simultaneously, maybe?)
The "shall not be infringed" part does not stand on it's own. If it did, the "well regulated militia" part would not have been written.
The claim that these are some kind of absolute, unqualified, unrestricted rights is just wrong on it's face.
The constitutional part of the argument is that — that there is a right, but it is qualified by the well-regulated militia requirements.
The fact that there is no specification of what counts as well-regulated means that we must use our knowledge of the intent of the founders, and of our own reality to make reasonable restrictions.
Since the army of the time was primarily citizen soldiers (the actual army numbering in the hundreds), they would have had some regulations and qualifications. I do not see anywhere that Washington insisted that every deranged village idiot be issued or permitted muskets. We can also use current-day standard military practice, where people qualify, are issued weapons, and have rules about where they can be carried or loaded.
And the original question is based on reasonability - are any even proposed laws actually going to infringe on the ability of a sane, competent, and responsible person to keep and bear arms (and no that does not mean instantly acquire and carry in all situations).
Wait, you’re saying the Supreme Court read it wrong, but you read it correctly?
That’s your argument?
That doesn’t mean they are right, in fact it almost certainly means they are wrong.
So yes, in America you’re allowed to be wrong.
It ignores that all SCOTUS cases are seriously contentious and most were differently decided by multiple appeals courts on different sides of the argument. Then, very few cases are decided 9-0; there is almost always at least one, if not multiple dissenting opinions among the SCOTUS justices themselves.
They are not all wrong, they were on the losing side of the argument.
Before this court, it might be argued that these were at least settled law, but since the current court has obviously decided that precedent is no longer important, the decisions are simply the current state of the law.
At least bring an actual argument on the point of the topic, not "that piddling hobbyist must be wrong (to agree with the dissenters on a now-notoriously fickle SCOTUS itself). Sheesh.
Not only is it allowed in America, but its is likely sometimes correct, insofar as a matter of interpretation can be said to be (at a minimum, the Supreme Court has been wrong, one time or another) as the Supreme Court has reversed itself on the meaning of Constitutional provisions.
It’s not like they’re scientists.
However, in the last two years, the court has repeatedly overturned, either explicitly or by the shadow docket, many large precedents set by the same court.
The impetus from the court politically skewed by senate leadership (note Merrick Garland, Amy Cohen Barrett), and the nature of the cases taken by the court and these reversals is obviously political.
This opens up as fair game all prior SCOTUS decisions, as they are obviously not settled law, but open to change on a whim. The SCOTUS has degraded its status from a determiner of settled law to a set of umpires for the current inning.
So, yes, it is entirely reasonable to question prior SCOTUS decisions, especially now.
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.
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.
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.
No, I didn't check the laws, serial numbers, registration, etc. But your comment did make me do a quick search which turned up many references to "California-Legal" AR-15s.
The 1989 law was basically a list of products, so it was easily evaded by making similar products and slapping a different name on them. California tried to tighten up the law in 1999 by specifying features, which was then worked around by adjusting the features. The 2016 San Bernadino shooting provoked another tightening, and I presume he bought it before that went into effect.
Here's a key quote: "In 2016, California enacted a law to provide a statutory definition for the term “detachable magazine” to clarify that firearms outfitted with bullet buttons are restricted. People who lawfully obtained these types of guns before Jan. 1 2017 could retain them as long as they registered them with the California Department of Justice in time." [0]
The article found after a quick search indicated that he needn't have been so worried, as the manufacturers also found quick work-arounds to that set of restrictions. It also mentioned that there were something like 189,000 currently registered... so yes, obviously extremely possible to have one.
QED was nothing, except that you know almost nothing about the topic; perhaps consider refraining from posting stuff about which you are obviously ignorant and then doubling down. Sheesh
[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/california-assault...
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.
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.
0. https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/01/05/idaho-supreme-court-u...
What are conservative (and liberal) hobbies?
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.
There's no winning with you people. That's why the 2A movement is progressing finally. You're impossible to please.
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
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.
> 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
People don't have to do what you believe is best for them. They don't need you 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 you are in no way an authority of what is or isn't good for anyone other than yourself.
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
You however, tossed in a "are you mad?" I won't engage with you further.
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.
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.
> 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)
>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.
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)?
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
See e.g. https://katv.com/news/nation-world/idaho-hospital-to-end-bab...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/04/21/abortion-ba...
I deeply believe that unwanted children make society worse so expect abortion banning states to become less desirable in 15-20 years.
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.
"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's pretty clear that that is the modus operandi.
1. The sort of "Boomer hate Millennial" or vice versa or "Zoomers have no idea what a record player is"-type clickbait.
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.
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?
K.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/15/about-six...
Or in other words, perhaps they'd like to say they support their child, but it'd be disingenuous.
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.
Imagine saying this to a trans person right now.
Trans person: "These people are passing laws to strip me of human rights. Some call for my death, while others actively try to kill me and others like me."
You: "Have you tried harder at being friends with them? Sounds like you just have a bad attitude."
Nobody is saying “make friends with someone who hates you”. That’s true of anyone.
But can a trans person make friends with someone who disagrees on that minors should be able to start transition therapy without informing their parents?
Sure, why not?
If you can’t be friends with people who don’t hold 100% of the same political views you do, you’re going to have a very lonely life.
Well said...and true.
What I'm not fine with is being friendly with someone who supports policies designed to hurt my friends and family.
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.
Seriously, what the fuck.
I think I see the problem here.
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.
Trans people are having their civil rights stripped away, and some are being murdered.
> 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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.