I find this line of thinking to be flawed. If race can be excluded as a factor for consideration, how is the most qualified people getting ahead a bad thing? I couldn't get into Harvard even if I had good blackmail on the Dean. Maybe I don't understand the argument but that's my take.
The people getting into Harvard, many of them get in because of social connection’s rather than merit. The social connections of their parents. It’s also super common to just buy their way in.
The students getting in on merit are the ones they let in because they have a reputation to maintain and can’t have everyone being dumb. That would look bad.
Further, even if that weren’t true, the reason “the most qualified” seem to be rich white kids from rich white families is simply because they can afford much better educations. So, if you want to promote diversity it can’t just be about academic qualifications because you have people who’ve always been in power buying academic quals for the kids- so they always will be in power.
Affirmative action isn’t about taking away from one group and giving it to another, it’s about giving back to a group that historically has been taken from- its about righting a past wrong- you can’t do that solely on merit, when the system was designed to perpetuate a certain kind of status quo
We don't need to right past wrongs. Just continue to be good people and give everyone and equal opportunity. That's what I do every day. Just be a good person to everyone you see, be willing to share knowledge to those who ask and elevate those around you. I don't specifically treat anyone differently than others based on "past wrongs".
Im sorry, but that's just a flawed way of thinking and perpetuates a divide.
Those "past wrongs" are still impacting people alive today. When one racer has been given a two hundred year head start, it's easy to look at the race when everyone's running and think it is fair.
Rich people profit off of the pain and sorrow from society being divided over these issues. Please let's everyone focus on the rich folks hoarding and unfair share of money and working us to the bone. They like when we argue over shit like this. Divided people aren't aware of how much they're getting fucked up by the select few.
It's a great lesson in how important elections are. Trump was able to appoint multiple supreme court justices which have shaped the future of America for years due to their most recent decisions and will continue to shape it for decades after he is gone.
yeah, i'm glad that there wasn't anything that could of been done under Obama...oh wait (yes it was a multi factor fuck up, but all the fuck ups were from people who were supposed to be "on our side" trying to claim power just a little longer and fucking miss me with the hand waving of there was nothing that could be done! there was!) Voting is important yes but can we stop pretending it's a fucking magic bullet? Cause it's not. Its one tiny itty bitty thing that needs to be done. Hell voting doesn't even work if you don't have any of the other stuff surrounding it. People need to get organized both at home and at work and get ready to take the fight to them through unions and strikes at the very least.
i'm so fucking sick of the answer to all of this is "go vote" when there is much more than just that needing to be done. Don't just vote, go get fucking organized with community, and fucking fight.
You know how everyone knows you're supposed to brush your teeth twice a day for 2 minutes, AND FLOSS? If we all did that on the regular, dentist appointments would be quick and painless the vast majority of the time.
Instead, we've got people who barely brush, never floss, avoid the dentist and then hate the dentist for giving them pain and grief when they finally get around to it.
Voting is like that. No one would have to harp on everyone to go vote if everyone did it, and frankly if everyone voted according to their own actual interests and benefits, we wouldn't be IN this mess to begin with.
It's not that it's a magic bullet, and I don't think anyone is pretending it is. It's that not enough people ARE voting, and it's the single best way we have to make a large step in the right direction.
If we all voted blue every election, without fail, eventually we start to see the impact of avoiding the GOP regressions. Eventually we gain momentum.
Vote AND organize. But if you can't even be arsed to vote, what makes you think you'll be willing to do the vastly more intensive actions involved in an active fight?
Do the bare minimum ffs. If you (global you) don't vote, miss me with the bullshit angst and wimpy call to actions no one will take. It's just as much a hand waving whether it's a fist, a middle finger, or a dismissal if it's not engaged otherwise. We need to use ALL the tools we have against oppression.
"Why won't they just let us make wildly unpopular decisions that jeopardize the livelihoods of Americans without having to make us feel bad about it?!"
Well if the court didn't engage in clearly partisan politics, maybe the liberal justices wouldn't have anything to criticize.
Does he realize how bad it looks when he voices that his problem is criticism and not like, I don't know, taking money from political interests? Or refusing to recuse in cases where there's a relative directly involved?
It is really incredible how far down the drain the SCOTUS has gone in such a short period of time. Not saying it was great before Justice Kennedy retired either, but at least back then it was generally respected.
Why do you think they would've filled her spot when they didn't fill the other one with Merrick Garland? She protected her spot or they would've held it up until Trump.
She could have retired at any time, including right after Obama was elected. The Republicans couldn't have held the spot open for years. It would have become a major election issue.
I'd bet good money McConnell would have tried to find a way/reason to keep it open, look at all the rules making/breaking they did to fill/keep a seat empty close to elections, I'm sure they'd just come up with some other bullshit
I'm sure he would have tried, but we're dealing with massive hypotheticals at this point. Under your argument, we should not have a justice at any point ever step down because McConnell would try to block a nomination. Yes, he would try. Doesn't change the fact that the best move was for her to step down at the beginning of the term.
We should honestly be pushing for justices getting on in years and having health issues to step down at the beginning of presidential terms regardless.
The supreme court even as a concept is one of the most asinine yet accepted institutions in the world. On par with the Catholic church, but so much worse because it actually has enormous and direct power over 330+ million people. I am dreaming and pining for the day that someone in power, most likely a president, just legitimately tells them to fuck off. They have no enforcement power and they fucking know it. I'm yearning for someone to have the courage, but it's as clear as it possibly can be that it certainly won't be a Democrat.
The thing is that the court only has so much power right now because Congress is so fucking broken. If Congress where in working order it could just legislate all the shit that the court is blocking the executive on.
Is there any sense when Congress went off the rails? Some folks I have listened to say it was around the 90s but there were obviously very contentious times before then.
The Congress has never consistently functioned well, I'm not entirely convinced it's designed to. For the current mess, both in Congress and American politics in general, probably the most influential source is Newt Gingrich's electioneering policy of attacking wedges and saying anything you have to to get headlines without regards to the truthfulness of your statements. That's what reshaped the Republican party to be particularly welcoming to extremists, popularized science denial, and led to the modern wave of Christian Nationalism.
Can you elaborate on the comparison to the church? You don't like a panel having authority so you want to consolidate it to a president unilaterally ignoring the third branch? Would term limits on judges change how you see the court?
The Catholic church is an unjustifiable and ridiculous institution in the same way the supreme court is. The Catholic church also had a lot of control over the lives of many people for a very long time, although that influence has obviously waned in recent centuries and decades (although it's clearly still not completely gone). Now, as far as the president having control, I will also say fuck the presidency, but it would always be my hope that a person in that position would do anything in their power as a president and a person to stand up to unjustifiable institutions like the supreme court. Obviously a president couldn't abolish the supreme court single-handedly, nor do I think that would necessarily, inherently be a good thing, but I do think that a president could and should call out the obvious reasons for which the institution needs to be abolished, because it absolutely does. The fact that nine human beings can directly control the lives of millions and millions and millions of people is an absolute travesty. I don't even feel dissimilarly about congress, but obviously it's a bit better because they are actually elected. In general, though, I am a very strong proponent of direct democracy. Term limits are a starting point, but it would be akin to applying a bandaid to a gaping, oozing wound.
I am sympathetic to Kagan's argument on standing and similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure. In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements. Not really seeing a solution until primary rules change. Centrists are left unserved presently.
Centrists can go suck a fat one. The primary reason we're in this fascistic mess globally is the centrists' aversion to being inconvenienced for the rights of their fellow people and for the future of the planet.
That's what creates dictatorships, that's what starts world wars, in summary, that's what enables fascists.
Can you give me an example? Some purple states have protected reproductive health in response to the court overturning Roe. My perception is that the primary races are selecting increasingly polarizing candidates who's goal is just notoriety/fundraising over governing. MTG is a prime demonstration of this effect.
Thank you for your reply. What I am trying to articulate is that I see the trend toward extreme candidates cascading through many government systems. The origin being at the legislature in America's circumstance. The legislature holds nominations of judges in it's hands now which is why we are seeing the buck stop at the court. Congress gets to bemoan the fact that the court is responsible because they aren't offering any practicable solutions. Please note, I am not saying the court is without fault. There are certainly ethics rules issues at play and the court composition as it is now is due to the faults of congress in how the nomination process works.
My thought is that if primaries worked differently legislative candidates would run more moderate campaigns and we would see less brinkmanship at the court. Roberts I think is correctly concerned about the perception of the court and is genuinely worried about the last branch of US government losing the respect of the populace. With the decision on Roe v Wade, I think he should be.
To the three of you who downvoted me without a word of explanation: we can see who downvotes who on kbin.
So I ask you, why did you downvote me and why do you think that this guy talking to his fellow politicians is news worthy? We are not on an american website anymore, the rest of the world doesn't care about the american constant struggle and crying about politicians saying stuff.
You asked why you were downvoted. It's because of your arrogant attitude and trolling. But, I'll sometimes have some pity and feed the troll.
You asked why anyone outside the US should care what happens in the US. The answer is very simple. If the US experiences a collapse of some kind (which it might), it will have a profoundly negative effect on the value of currencies worldwide, including the EUR and GBP. So, no matter how much you hate it, the value of your currency is affected by the value of ours.
That's just one reason why you should care about the rise of conservatism and how it harms the U.S.
You asked why you were downvoted. It's because of your arrogant attitude and trolling.
You are the troll here, so change your tone: "Don't forget me too! 🤣"
You asked why anyone outside the US should care what happens in the US.
No, you read it wrong. I specifically talked about the nature of the post which was political. We already have magazines for politics, specially the US one, but the nature of the problem is politics seen as news. The US politics is and endless shitshow which doesn't qualify as news anymore. Breaking news! Trump called AOC FAT!
The answer is very simple. If the US experiences a collapse of some kind (which it might), it will have a profoundly negative effect on the value of currencies worldwide, including the EUR and GBP. So, no matter how much you hate it, the value of your currency is affected by the value of ours.
That must be the most ridiculous argument I've read so far. Look at this news that I just picked from the news magazine:
The Supreme Court will decide if abusive spouses have a right to own guns (vox.com)
Girlparts
The world is shaking! Suspense! Good thing that I've been informed about this one.
That's just one reason why you should care about the rise of conservatism and how it harms the U.S.
I don't think they're being ridiculous to say that US politics has an impact outside of the US. To quote a former Canadian Prime Minister:
"Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."
why do you think that this guy talking to his fellow politicians is news worthy?
I'm one one of the downvoters, so I'll try giving you an answer. As an American, it's newsworthy to me when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is publicly calling out the other justices for behavior he deems unbecoming a justice. I had not realized that @news was specifically for European news? And I think perhaps YOU had not realized that in America, the supreme court is theoretically above politics. A justice is not a politician. Again, in theory. Lately our supreme court has been behaving very much like bought-and-paid-for politicians, and that should be concerning to all Americans.
I had not realized that @news was specifically for European news?
There is a whole world out there. Right now @new is around 50% US. How is it a good thing? Look at this from a non US perspective. You open your news feed and nearly half of it is about US politicians doing the political dance.
If you have political news to post, please post them at least in a political magazine, not in news.
Lately our supreme court has been behaving very much like bought-and-paid-for politicians, and that should be concerning to all Americans.
This is not news, everyone around the planet know that your politicians are sold to the richest people. Again, keep it into political magazines, or we will be flooded.
Do you really want US politics to flood each sub like what happened on reddit?
I'm downvoting you because you're being incredibly immature right now. People can disagree with you
Saying "how dare you downvote me, I can SEE IT!" and calling them out makes you look like a giant child. You need to take some time to consider your own response and whether or not that's something WE want on the fediverse. You can just as easily be blocked too, you know.
Downvoting and running away was a reddit thing, now you are accountable for your downvotes.
I have the maturity to ask for answer when people react to what I say. My question about sorting posts out of @news and moving them to @USpolitics is perfectly legitimate. I'm glad that some people took the time to answer so we can have a discussion, but so far among the handful of people who had the courage to put up a written argument I've read nothing convincing me that this post has its place in @news rather than in politics.
If all you want is a copy of reddit then please go back to reddit.You will have a barrage of US political news all day long.
You need to take some time to consider your own response and whether or not that's something WE want on the fediverse. You can just as easily be blocked too, you know.
Block me, be my guest, at least you won't be able to downvote me on sight anymore.
Doing things like calling out someone's post history or making a whiney edit about the people downvoting you are also reddit things. And that's the kind of behaviour you're exhibiting right here. You're being close minded and demanding that other people cater to your needs. Just like Americans shouldn't only concern themselves with their news, you too shouldn't only close yourself off and only care about your news. And if you don't like it, unsubscribe yourself.
Doing things like calling out someone's post history or making a whiney edit about the people downvoting you are also reddit things. And that's the kind of behaviour you're exhibiting right here. You're being close minded and demanding that other people cater to your needs.
I'm not whining, I'm calling people out on their bullshit votes. @news is turning into political trash and you don't seem to care.
Just like Americans shouldn't only concern themselves with their news, you too shouldn't only close yourself off and only care about your news. And if you don't like it, unsubscribe yourself.
I'm not closed, I already posted about foreign countries. And if you are not happy with people calling you out on your bullshit then go back to reddit where you can downvote incognito.
You can turn this place to shit if you want to but I won't remain quiet about it, dude...
Okay, I've been staying out of this but now I just have to: what kind of extraordinary qualifications do you have to unilaterally decide which votes are valid and which are not? Is it as simple as any vote that disagrees with you is automatically "bullshit"?
Have you considered that people are just downvoting you and moving on because they feel that the flaws in your arguments are apparent enough that they can just click the down arrow without having to type a whole essay about it?
And really, why should anyone have to type out a whole response to justify clicking downvote? What makes your opinions so astronomically important that they deserve everyone's full intellectual energy or none at all?
Okay, I've been staying out of this but now I just have to:
What an entry!
what kind of extraordinary qualifications do you have to unilaterally decide which votes are valid and which are not? Is it as simple as any vote that disagrees with you is automatically "bullshit"?
I'm talking about very factual points: the usage of the tool that we are building now. Many of us have migrated because of the flaws of other media platforms.
Your position about "downvote" is like expression a feeling. For other people like me it's very factual. That's part of what I wanted to establish. It emotions vs facts all over again. The reaction I had were mostly based on feeling. Just like the content I'm seeing spammed here. Ragebait.
Have you considered that people are just downvoting you and moving on because they feel that the flaws in your arguments are apparent enough that they can just click the down arrow without having to type a whole essay about it?
And I gave them an opportunity to answer with arguments. That was the point. If they have such a big reason to downvote then let's go and say why. And the result is poof.... there was not much except feelings. This magazine is turning into a collection of ragebait. And now one of the default magazine of the alternative to reddit has fallen into the same trap that reddit laid to us: ragebait content. I wouldn't care if is was posted into USPolitics or politicus, but news, what, the whole planet???
I expected much better from the first wave of people who left reddit. In the end they just want more of the same ragebait.
And I know exactly what you are all going to say. "then go away if you don't like it". Yes, I don't like it, that's why I left reddit. I couldn't care less about your political shitshow non-stop circus which leaked thorough all the subs. You think people care about your senators killing a dog with their car? The people posting other news are now thrown down the frontpage so we can make more space for the latest Trumpstunt. And now you are getting out of the wood because you had too much! What a superhero you are.
SCOTUS is not held to any ethical standards and have appointments that last for life. The conservative court has gone off the rails on their latest rulings, arguably making discrimination legal, even on protected groups. This upends decades of protections for vulnerable groups that were targeted by fascist groups.
While Roberts is whining about criticism on what his court has done, the main topic of criticism is newsworthy in that it has real consequences.
The same groups that lean toward authoritarianism, also lean toward Putin being allowed to take Ukraine. This fight spills over to the rest of the world.
I'm thinking you should probably stop speaking on behalf of everyone. I am not American but I do care that millions of Americans are losing their rights. I care that US businesses got over a trillion in PPP loan forgiveness but that the same can't be extended to 40 million individuals and their student loans for education they are almost forced to have if they want a shot at making more than minimum wage and even then, it's not a guarantee.
I'm not a refugee but I care that the Greek government effectively let hundreds die rather than assist them.
I'm not French but I am interested in the riots happening there.
I'm not Russian, Ukrainian, or even European but I want to know what is happening with the occupation of Ukraine, the coup attempt, and what other countries are doing to ensure the Russia doesn't violate NATO and the repercussions if they do.
Why do you believe you get to narrow the scope of what is news on behalf of everyone else?
I'm thinking you should probably stop speaking on behalf of everyone. I am not American but I do care that millions of Americans are losing their rights. I care that US businesses got over a trillion in PPP loan forgiveness but that the same can't be extended to 40 million individuals and their student loans for education they are almost forced to have if they want a shot at making more than minimum wage and even then, it's not a guarantee.
Stop importing US problems in your own country. Nothing meaningful happens in your country? You still have to indulge into america politics even with the @news magazine? What is so hard with posting US political news in one of the US political magazines? Tell me!
Have a look at the frontpage of @news, we are at around 50% of american news and most of it is political.
I'm not a refugee but I care that the Greek government effectively let hundreds die rather than assist them.
I'm not French but I am interested in the riots happening there.
I'm not Russian, Ukrainian, or even European but I want to know what is happening with the occupation of Ukraine, the coup attempt, and what other countries are doing to ensure the Russia doesn't violate NATO and the repercussions if they do.
We can fill the frontpage of news with french political news, should we? Of course not.
At least post it in @politics. So far absolutely no one could argue why political news weren't posted to @political instead.
Again, why do you believe you get to narrow the scope of what news is to everyone else? You are welcome to create your own magazines that talk about exactly what you want and block the ones that aren't what you want to engage with.
Why don't YOU take your content and publish it into the magazine that was designed for it in the first place?
I will tell you: popularity! You don't want to read USpolitics because it's not popular, you want the buzz
Also, if you were a little bit coherent with what you said, you would agree with me. You said:
I'm not a refugee but I care that the Greek government effectively let hundreds die rather than assist them.
I'm not French but I am interested in the riots happening there.
I'm not Russian, Ukrainian, or even European but I want to know what is happening with the occupation of Ukraine, the coup attempt, and what other countries are doing to ensure the Russia doesn't violate NATO and the repercussions if they do.
So you pretend to care about what happens outside of the USA, but look at the results on news:
Zelensky, 5 upvotes
Uruguay, 3 upvotes
Sweden, 3 upvotes
Cambodia, 2 upvotes.
Israel 7
China 8
Australia 5
Germany 8
Scotland 7
uk 9
Colombia 5
meanwhile, prostitution in Maine 80
supreme court total around 500
See? This is american redditors pushing their political content in the news feed and pushing the content you wanted to see down the frontpage. What do you think of this?
Still, my opinion is the only one justified. Read the comments, see by yourself. I gave a chance to anyone who downvoted me to voice his opinion and all I saw was miss and miss.
Is this really the content that we want for @news ?
There is an up/down vote button for you to express that POV on the post itself. I get what you're attempting to do, but as someone mentioned, this isn't Reddit you have open the ability to create your own @news. Hell, I encourage you to. A nonhomogeneous mix is actually healthier in the long run. And, at least for my part, now you have the answer to why someone down voted you.
Also, no one likes the explicitly @-ing folks who down voted you. Yes, you can see who down votes you but I feel, you should perhaps use the saying of "with great power comes great responsibility." Maybe ask "openly" why you're being down voted. @-ing the folks, and remember this is solely my subjective opinion, that's not cool.
Also, no one owes you an explanation of jack crap. And that applies "in general." Yes, it's better when someone explains their position to you and what not. But no one OWES you an explanation. I think that's what rubs me with the @-ing folks wrong here. None of those people HAVE TO explain themselves, it'd be great if they did, but you are not owed it and that is a very important distinction.
There is an up/down vote button for you to express that POV on the post itself.
NO.
There is a reason why we have different magazines with different names. Got to @USpolitics or @politicus. How many more political subs do you need? When we register for @news it's not to get yet another american political shenanigans. You really think that someone from Italy registered to @news to hear about what your governor or potus or whatever wizard said to his king? Use your magazines! What is wrong with you? We are not your audience.
Let's invite some people from lemmy.ml and see if you agree to follow their votes. They have news too, do you want to hear from them? Of course not! So change your tone.
Also, no one owes you an explanation of jack crap. And that applies "in general."
I don't care, I will keep callout you out on your bullshit. block me if you want. After all, you said yourself that there is an upvote/downvote button, well there is also a block button, please use it, but I will keep calling you out anyway. Post your political soap opera to your political magazine, end of the story.
America is in the world. As is Africa, Asia, South America, etc. Perhaps you should talk to the mods of @news and see if they won't change their rules for submissions. Maybe you want it limited to big, important, European, and most critically non-American news? The front page of that magazine currently has the earthshaking news that Italy is offering the Colosseum for Elon and Mark to duke it out in. And that Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen is fighting with Meta. And that a well known Oscar winner has died. Would none of those articles have been submitted before the Reddit migration?
And the news about Ukraine, France, Sweden, Uruguay, Cambodia, Australia are in the single digits. So kbin is turning into reddit. In less than 3 weeks we are back at square one. And this is without the influx of the people who will be pushed away from reddit on July.
Hmmm. I wonder why there are more posts about US news than Cambodian news. Why is that? Do you think it could be a conspiracy by thousands of users to flood the Fediverse with US news pieces to try to drown out all of the Cambodian news everyone would prefer to hear?
Or maybe the content you see is whatever is on people's minds, so they post it. Maybe you can post some Cambodian news instead of complaining about the lack of it. I'm interested in Cambodian news too, so please feel free to post all that sweet, sweet Cambodian news you are so upset about not seeing.
Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has launched his ruling party's campaign for re-election in a poll that has been criticised as a sham after the main opposition party was prevented from running.
But of course if you all want to share what brand of cereals Donald Trump had for breakfast then please be my guest and post it as NEWS. But the best place to do it is reddit.
@sinnerman That article is much better, thanks for sharing it! I'd never thought of ultraprocessing as predigestion before.
For a time, Kevin Hall, a nutrition and metabolism scientist at the National Institutes of Health, was also skeptical that ultra-processed foods were harmful.
To test the idea, he designed a study that compared what happened when men and women were recruited to live in a lab and fed different diets. In one phase of the study, the participants ate mostly ultra-processed foods for two weeks. Their daily meals consisted of things like honey nut oat cereal, flavored yogurt, blueberry muffins, canned ravioli, steak strips, mashed potatoes from a packet, baked potato chips, goldfish crackers, diet lemonade and low-fat chocolate milk.
In a second phase of the study, the participants were fed a diet of mostly homemade, unprocessed foods for two weeks that was matched for nutrients like salt, sugar, fat, and fiber. Their meals consisted of foods such as Greek yogurt with walnuts and fruit, spinach salad with grilled chicken, apple slices, bulgur and fresh vinaigrette, and beef tender roast with rice pilaf, steamed vegetables, balsamic vinaigrette, pecans and orange slices.
In both cases, the participants were allowed to eat as much or as little of the foods and snacks as they wanted.
“If it was really about the nutrients — and not about the processing — then there shouldn’t be any major difference in calorie intake between these two diets,” said Hall. “I thought that was going to be the result of the study.”
But, he added, “I was hugely wrong.”
When people ate the ultra-processed diet, they consumed substantially more calories — about 500 more calories a day compared to when they ate the mostly unprocessed diet. The result: They gained weight and body fat.
The researchers also noticed a difference in how quickly the participants consumed their food. They ate the ultra-processed meals significantly faster, at a rate of about 50 calories per minute, compared to just 30 calories per minute on the unprocessed diet.
To say that this makes processed foods bad for you however is kinda ridiculous imo. Might as well tell people to only eat raw things because it has the least calories / most filling.
Bad food is bad for you, eating junk food is known to be a giant waste of calories and how it's prepared doesn't make it better or worse.
Outside of increased calories I have not seen any evidence that food being more "processed" is actually bad for you.
I'm not sure when this movement against junk food became a movement against processed foods but it's moving in the wrong direction. Plenty of shitty junk foods can have very little processing involved. And I'm convinced it's exactly those "low processed" junk food providers that are pushing all this bullshit.
With respect, I think you're ignoring the facts. How it's prepared absolutely makes a difference in how it tastes, how easy it is to eat, etc. and there is a resulting effect on how much people eat.
Freshly grilled chicken and frozen chicken patties are both chicken. But the chicken patty is ground, pre-seasoned, pre-cooked, etc. This makes it easier to get ready and easier to eat than a fresh chicken breast.
The poison is in the dose, as they say. 500 calorie surplus every day is a pound a week of weight gain.
And as dieticians have shown us over and over again, you can eat shitty food and be healthy, you just have to eat an appropriate amount of it. There are diets based on cookies and snack cakes, if you eat at your maintenance and cover a few basics with supplements, you can easily thrive on them.
I bought a bunch of expensive microwave meals on sale (6 or so that were originally $6 each, but bogo’d, so $3 each) for times I have to drop what I’m doing and be busy or gone for an extended period. Nice ones like beef and broccoli, mashed potatoes and Salisbury steak, umami bowls. Imagine my chagrin when they ranged from 350-600 calories each, and nutrients were so minimal, they didn’t list a percentage of rda, but added sugar, sodium content and carb count were of the chart and besides for fat content, were the only things memorably listed.
I know it's getting into conspiracy realms, but there seems to be a large right-wing buyout of social media. Reddit and Twitter two of the best Independent News sources in North America I've already been hit and even though people will argue they are not true new sources, they allow smaller groups to be heard globally. Young people don't realize how limited news broadcast were before the 2000s. Almost all media was owned by about 50 people worldwide and good luck getting something published that wasn't in their agenda. You could see it throughout the 50s and 60s as people being labeled radical when their views didn't coincide with the media magnets. I try not to be an alarmist but I think we're heading for another dark ages.
Going to the US or living there is scary. At least in some countries like in Mexico, an innocent my get hit accidentally by gangs wars. In the US the bullets seems to be directly for the innocent people.
Meh, I grew up next to some favelas, and that level of violence is another level entirely, it's just not covered as intently. People get kidnapped, families of rival gangs are targeted, not to mention the extortion.
That being said, the US has no fucking excuse. Central and South American countries suffering from massive gangs and civil wars, they have a good reason for having so many gun deaths.
As an American, you are statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than randomly shot.
I am 65 years old and have lived in multiple states. Never been shot at, never shot a gun (except in the US Navy), never experienced any gun violence in my personal life.
As a child welfare worker I have experienced a few cases of gun violence in my professional life of nearly 30 years.
The situation of gun violence is extremely serious but also highly dramatized by media leading to the possibility of miscalculating risk.
Be careful and situationally aware is all the advice I can provide.
To quell some confusion regarding gun deaths and gun deaths related to crime in the U.S. you have to dig a little more to understand the picture better.
Gun crime in the U.S. is not great, but it is not as bad as it is perceived. This said, I'm in firm agreement that something needs to be done about mass shootings. We have the collective will to do this, yet are constantly stymied by interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and the NRA (which lobbies against gun related crime/deaths in the U.S. on a continuous basis).
So gun deaths in the U.S. are high...second highest in the world.
Brazil — 49,436
United States — 37,038
Venezuela — 28,515
Mexico — 22,116
India — 14,710
Colombia — 13,169
Philippines — 9,267
Guatemala — 5,980
However deaths related to gun violence offers a different picture...here are the top 10 countries with the highest number of gun-related homicides per 100,000 (2019 data).
El Salvador — 36.78
Venezuela — 33.27
Guatemala — 29.06
Colombia — 26.36
Brazil — 21.93
Bahamas — 21.52
Honduras — 20.15
U.S. Virgin Islands — 19.40
Puerto Rico — 18.14
Mexico — 16.41
Suicide
Bringing in suicide statistics via firearm clarifies this picture even further
Top 10 countries with the highest suicide rate by firearm per 100,000
Greenland — 16.36
United States — 7.12
Uruguay — 4.74
San Marino — 4.08
Montenegro — 3.40
Argentina — 2.67
Finland — 2.66
Monaco — 2.64
France — 2.64
Venezuela — 2.50
The total rate of firearm deaths in the U.S. is 10.89 per 100,000. This means, the total rate of firearm deaths due to violent crime is 3.77 per 100,000 people.
So while mass shootings in the U.S. are a problem, it's not as impactful as the suicide rate by firearm in the country.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.