I was born in Texas and stayed there through college. Most folks really underestimate the mental burden your state actively working to make your life worse takes on you. I fortunately escaped to Washington, and would seriously never consider returning.
Exactly my reasoning for moving out of Poland. It's fun to watch and cheer if you are a normative citizen who will never be affected by this, but for everyone else it turns into hell sooner or later. There are multitudes of people I know who ended up under psychiatric care because it's becoming hopeless for them as the anti-modern kulturkampf gains in strength.
Isn't this the whole point of passing the law and others like it while they still can? To scare off the "liberals" who are dangerously close to flipping Texas blue.
I was planning on eventually moving to Austin to be closer to family, but I won’t do it now. Will stay here in Washington, even though housing is very expensive here.
In my opinion, while many parts of Austin are becoming expensive, I think it’s still not seattle levels of expensive (a lot of bidding /price wars in Austin are for newer houses, while bidding is pretty common in seattle for houses built in early 1900s).
If we didn't have variety in states we could eliminate state government. If you like the laws in California, and don't in Texas no one is forcing you to go there. If you offered a construction business and the state made construction unprofitable, you would likely change businesses or leave. Diversity is our strength.
All correct, though the progression from “a couple of cells” to “person” obviously has a lot of interpretation that will be different for different people.
An interesting thing is that the law is, as I see it, allowing civil protection for being offended at another’s actions, since the citizen plaintiffs otherwise have no standing. Should SCOTUS uphold this mode that’s a messed-up principle that can be gamed by every legislature to create chaos in our courts.
I also wonder if companies will simply put big centers in red and blue areas to allow employees to pick the place they’d rather be. In a remote-first era, HQ location matters less than it did.
> All correct, though the progression from “a couple of cells” to “person”
The count of cells, sure, but the DNA is as constant as anything in organic chemistry.
The gaze aversion of the abortionistas from this invariant is stunning and bespeaks a need to reach a pre-conceived (heh) conclusion no matter the cost.
17 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 58.4 ms ] threadLaws are passed.
People make decisions for/or against a location based upon its laws.
What is not to like about people having choices?
(The law in question seeks to protect those truly lacking a choice in this context.)
An interesting thing is that the law is, as I see it, allowing civil protection for being offended at another’s actions, since the citizen plaintiffs otherwise have no standing. Should SCOTUS uphold this mode that’s a messed-up principle that can be gamed by every legislature to create chaos in our courts.
I also wonder if companies will simply put big centers in red and blue areas to allow employees to pick the place they’d rather be. In a remote-first era, HQ location matters less than it did.
The count of cells, sure, but the DNA is as constant as anything in organic chemistry.
The gaze aversion of the abortionistas from this invariant is stunning and bespeaks a need to reach a pre-conceived (heh) conclusion no matter the cost.