• Ohthereyouare@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I personally agree with this list. But, we have to be pragmatic here. This is what CNBC says they did:

    “The study measures quality of life issues including crime, health care, childcare and health care, as well as inclusive policies on discrimination and reproductive rights.”

    See, the last two skew this study. People in these shit hole states (not all, but at least enough of the voting public) don’t want inclusive policies or reproductive rights. So, to them, this metric is backwards. They would argue that living in California or New York was way more terrible because of the brown people and gays.

    This isn’t exactly a scientific study. It’s taking objective data to reach a subjective conclusion. Neat headline though.

    Edit: many if them are arguing exactly that in this thread. With a nice dose of racism and misogyny thrown in. Nice. I love when shit comes full circle.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean… if you want to move to one of these states as potentially any type of person (ie. perhaps not white and straight) then the inclusive policies are not an optional feature. If you’re a woman, having the government meddle in your health decisions can actually be life threatening.

      For white, straight folks, and especially males, it’s easy to think these other two factors just subjectively improve life, but that’s because they already have a baseline level of respect and power in society.

      Based on your take, I’d guess you’re straight, white and male.

      • OwenEverbinde@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Granted, I’m also straight, white, and male… But there are a hell of a lot of women who support abortion bans AND adore Mr “Grab 'em by the Pussy!”

        I know one who doesn’t believe God would allow a dangerous, nonviable pregnancy to take hold in (or in the case of ectopic pregnancies, outside of) a woman’s uterus. She just doesn’t believe something as sacred as a uterus can have that kind of flaw built into it.

        And even if you could convince her dangerous pregnancies were real, I think @[email protected] was saying that Republican women would not agree that their ability to survive an ectopic pregnancy is good or worth it if it also helps the “sluts” they despise to have more “convenience abortions.”

        Surviving might seem pretty good to you and I, but that doesn’t make that ability objectively desirable to the people voting against their own interests. And they would be offended if their access to healthcare was deemed “better” in a quality-of-life metric than access to a set of theocratic restrictions.

        They would tell you, “well I’m happier. Liberals think they can speak for me just because I’m a woman and my opinion doesn’t matter! But if they asked me, I’d tell them I would prefer to live in a place where the sanctity of life was valued! They’d have to censor me and edit me out of their videos because I wouldn’t support their narrative!”

        • TechyDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I know one who doesn’t believe God would allow a dangerous, nonviable pregnancy to take hold in (or in the case of ectopic pregnancies, outside of) a woman’s uterus. She just doesn’t believe something as sacred as a uterus can have that kind of flaw built into it.

          But I guarantee that the second that she (or any other woman with similar views) had a pregnancy that threatened their life, they’d opt for an abortion ASAP. They’ll rationalize that their abortion was justified and blessed by God, but all those other abortions are just “liberal sluts who want to kill babies” or something.

      • Professorozone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yup, I am, but if it’s fair to say that the positive things about Florida don’t count because those positive things exist in other states then it seems to me that it’s fair to say that prejudice against minorities should count against those other states too. Florida does not have exclusive rights to mistreatment of minorities. In fact I’m pretty sure that exists in all 50 states.

        My only point, was addressing the thought that a poster said he felt sorry for people living in those states (Florida in this case) and all I was saying was it wasn’t like we all just get up every morning and fail to function because we are all so overwhelmed by how bad it is where we live. We have running water in Florida.

      • Ohthereyouare@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yep. It is. That’s sorta the point though. “Worst” is subjective. Personally? I’d never move to one of those 10 places. But, a lot of them think that the lack of reproductive rights is a good thing, not a bad thing.

        I don’t think that… But, a lot of folks in America do.

          • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            23
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Healthcare isn’t a right because a right cannot be reliant on service provided by others. That’s just an entitlement given out by shitty governments. Not to mention that abortion isn’t Healthcare

            • JoeyJoeJoeJr@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your right to a jury trial depends on the service of your fellow citizens, as well as the judge, etc.

              Your right to vote depends on the service of many volunteers to work the polls, count votes, etc.

              Rights are granted and protected by governments; whether they require a service is irrelevant.

                • JoeyJoeJoeJr@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That sidesteps my point, which was that “rights” are granted by governments (the first of those two, jury trial, is literally in “The Bill of Rights”). You can disagree about what should be a right, and in a country with a democratic procedure for determining rights, you can vote to change what is considered a right, but whether it requires a service or not is irrelevant.

                  Healthcare requiring service does not preclude it from being a right.

                  • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    17
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That sidesteps my point, which was that “rights” are granted by governments

                    False. Our rights exist whether or not governments choose to respect them.