As a trans person I see this as a ‘do not travel’ map.
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
211 points (96.9% liked)
Data is Beautiful
3900 readers
6 users here now
Be respectful
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
red usually means danger zone. and its right to assume that.
Given how gerrymandering works its not adequate. Notice how there's no red in California on this map?
That just means no county in CA got to 80%.
It really depends. Some of these areas that aren't literally out in the sticks or old sundown towns, they're just ignorant morons and not dangerous face to face.
Source: I've lived in several of these places for far more years than I'll ever care to contemplate and boy do I understand the social isolation trans people have to live with... These ignorant hicks are harmless in the literal sense, but they'll still give weird looks and cold shoulders to anything their tiny shriveled brains fail to understand. Which is a lot.
My hometown is one of these red areas, I haven't been back in almost a decade and I don't plan on returning any time soon. I disagree that they're harmless; hate crimes against queer people have only gone up in the past few years. It can happen anywhere, but it's way more likely to happen in one of these red areas.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
A.K.A. the "fucking idiot" belt.
Now that's a fault line!
What's the lead content of the water in these counties?
Title should read: places to avoid at all costs
Title should read: Land that gets voting rights in the US.
Go ahead and overlay a crime and poverty map.
Peasant Republicans love voting against their own interests.
Clearly, tornadoes are a cause of trump votes
I'll take Places I'll Never Visit for 1000, Alex.
Actually though, great map of places to avoid forever
I plan on avoiding both the red and grey sections for the foreseeable future.
Some of us aren't so lucky
load more comments
(10 replies)
All the places where most people don't live. Funny
Decade that a county peaked in population:
So thats a pretty good correllation, eyeballing it, its basically the areas that haven't had any real economic growth in decades, and are overwhelming populated by old people, and of course generally de facto have low populations.
If a population peaked in decade x, well, its been shrinking since then.
They are the past, lashing out violently as the light dims... they were never able to figure out why everything sucks for them now.
I'd bet you could make this a better corellation if you did 'decade that white population peaked'.
And then even better if you also did 'decade that white, non college educated population peaked.'
Dumb, dying, racist failures.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Data is normally beautiful. This data is (redacted).
Actually, I'mma unredact it since this post made me run and make a fitting gif.
This data is:
Simple Jack's favorite. He loves it.
I'm surprised no place in California is lit up. Inland can get very dumb very fast here.
I get that. Up in BC the stupid correlates to distance from the ocean. By the time we near Alberta it's hard to discern from Demented Flatlander.
The armpits of America
You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know; morons.
(lol voted down already when it's a famous Blazing Saddles quote... I say again: morons)
load more comments
(2 replies)
If there were more then two viable political parties, it would be much harder for one party to completely sweep the country off its feet like this.
First-past-the-post voting is a national security threat.
Looks like a rash. Should get that checked out and maybe excised.
I'm surprised no Arizona, and so little of Florida.
Probably only 79%
80% is still only like 50 people.
If all that empty land didn't have a disproportionate representation in government we might not be living in this cesspool.
Anyone here surprised
Привет, «Новая Россия».
view more: next ›