this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
527 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19143 readers
2905 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Sorry, add here and super lazy. I started reading the piece and within a few paragraphs I realized I was just reading a story about some couple I don't really give two shits about. Then I quickly scrolled up and down in the article and saw how long it was.

So can anyone tell me when it gets to the actual evidence that there is a brain drain? Make no mistake about it, my wife and I (my wife highly trained and me a software engineer) left a red state with our family partially, even only slightly so, because of state policies. So its not surprise it happens.

[–] bonobi 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It started badly with that couple being the focus in a story-like section. Too long only to shift to discuss different reasons and examples of people leaving other states for various reasons. About 2/3 of the way through they finally get into demographics of college educated people, their economic benefits and new data on rates of leaving red states for blue states.

Eventually it was very good at describing the overall situation happening. But man, they didn't need to write so much about their personal lives. Especially at the beginning.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Recipe for raw apples:

When I was a little child, my mother and I used to go to the beach to laugh at the seagulls. We'd pick up random shells and yell "hey stupid, here's food! Harharhar!" One day I was riding a donkey and fell on my ass, not sure if it was the donkey or my actual ass I don't remember. There were so many memories of apples and asses in my past that I love to walk down the isles of my local supermarket and dream of the revolution where apples and pineapples will rise together, put their differences apart, and eat the rich.

Recipe: 1 raw apple. Eat.

[–] bonobi 1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's the classic "human interest" hook that probably works with most people. I didn't mind it, but yeah, it was long. The old a-spoonful-of-anecdote-helps-the-statistic-go-down method, but very poorly measured.

[–] Chocrates 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Eh I thought it was a fine article. The premise is in the title though. "knowledge workers", in this case health care professionals, are leaving red states for states that are at least going to leave us the fuck alone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It’s the classic “human interest” hook that probably works with most people

But, like reality junk television, I didn't really care about the people involved. Where these people ultimately work and live don't affect any part of my life to where I'm actually interested in the details of the process. Any editor should have seen the copy, seen the headline, and then trimmed 2/3 from the front of the copy.

load more comments (6 replies)