5 ms·

how is op saying "almost anywhere" has the same issues? canada and sweden have issues too. talk to many aboriginals?

by modzu 8y ago

loeg 8y ago
The countries of the American continents have a ton of historical baggage with regards to treatment of first nations / indigenous / aboriginal / native american people and plenty of current baggage. And I don't doubt Sweden does too. However, the current status is not in remotely the same league as the violence, corruption, and warfare raging throughout Mexico. This is quantifiably worse.
- modzu 8y ago
  i didnt say anything about mexico. im replying to someone who says there arent parts of canada or sweden comparable to mexico. well this is ignorant. look up missing and murdered aboriginal women. does that count as violence to you? because aboriginal women make up like 1% of the canadian population, but something like 25% of murdered women. of course in broad strokes canada and mexico are very different (canada is wealthy, has no cartel, etc) but that doesnt mean there arent little bits of bad there and doesnt mean there arent bits of good in mexico (remember this reply traces to a parent comment praising a notewrothy academic study coming out of a country generally only mentioned in mainstream news for its problems). thats all.
  - loeg 8y ago
    Taking a step back, I'll try to explain where I'm coming from. My read of Waterluvian's comment is that: 1. "Problems" (e.g., violence) quantifiably differ in magnitude between Mexico and other places. And, 2. Those differences matter. That is, the dismissal in the form of "well, everywhere has problems" is disingenuous. To illustrate that, he provided three specific salient examples (armed guards at gas stations, mass graves, and rampant corruption). My read of your response to that comment was that you dismissed the idea that armed guards, mass graces, and rampant corruption are a level beyond the violence in e.g., Canada and Sweden, because "what about aboriginals?" By dismissing Waterluvian's comment, you made a statement normalizing Mexico's level of violence. So I tried to clarify that the difference in level of violence matters, and, here we are. > i didnt say anything about mexico. Sure you did. Denying "A != B" says something about A. > im replying to someone who says there arent parts of canada or sweden comparable to mexico. That's not what the comment you responded to said. Violence and corruption is quantifiably endemic to Mexico. Small populations in Canada and Sweden see outsized violence, but on the whole, those countries experience less violence. To put some real numbers on it, there were 611 homicides in Canada in 2016, across a population of 36.26 million. That's 1.68 per 100,000 people. The homicide rate in Canada peaked at 3.03 per 100,000 in 1975. In contrast, the homicide rate in the US peaked at 10.1 per 100k in 1974 and now hovers around 4.5 per 100k. Mexico's homicide rate in 2016 was 19.3 per 100k. And "as of 2014, Mexico has the 16th highest rate of homicides committed against women in the world."[0] If you're trying to illustrate that Canada is just as violent as Mexico, you picked a poor example. [0]: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/ngos/CDDandCMDPDH_forthesession_Mexico_CEDAW52.pdf http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/ngos/CDDandC...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - modzu 8y ago
      no, no, i am not making such a strong claim -- i absolutely agree in the differences you cited b/w canada and mexico. although im hesitant to generalize so much about a region; taken to the extreme, your argument is something like, "mexico is bad, canada is good" -- if instead youre only saying mexico is more violent in terms of per capita homicide, well that is trivially true so not subject to debate. what im trying to get at is that we discuss the violence (valid a concern as it is) to the detriment of appreciating the rest -- that, generally, most mexican citizens are fairly typical cf. a canadian or swede in terms of their own morals and desires of life, but when we see an advancement such as the subject of this thread it is approached with an intrinsic skepticism. does that make some kinda sense? its hard to say more on a mobile device :p
      - loeg 8y ago
        Yeah, that makes sense; I think we're more or less on the same page now. (Less: I am not making the claim that Mexico is bad, Canada is good, or that ordinary Mexicans are all that different from ordinary Canadians. Or that science journalism from Mexico should be approached with any more skepticism than science journalism from the rest of the world.) > if instead youre only saying mexico is more violent in terms of per capita homicide, well that is trivially true so not subject to debate. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying :-). Per capita homicide, corruption, arming of the regular police; on all of these metrics Mexico stands out compared to affluent NATO countries. I thought that was kind of what this comment thread was debating; I misunderstood. Mea culpa. It can be hard to communicate clearly on the internet, especially on mobile. I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand your thoughts.
        modzu 8y ago
        likewise, thanks!

how is op saying "almost anywhere" has the same issues? canada and sweden have issues too. talk to many aboriginals?

by modzu 8y ago

how is op saying "almost anywhere" has the same issues? canada and sweden have issues too. talk to many aboriginals?

loeg 8y ago

The countries of the American continents have a ton of historical baggage with regards to treatment of first nations / indigenous / aboriginal / native american people and plenty of current baggage. And I don't doubt Sweden does too. However, the current status is not in remotely the same league as the violence, corruption, and warfare raging throughout Mexico. This is quantifiably worse.

modzu 8y ago
i didnt say anything about mexico. im replying to someone who says there arent parts of canada or sweden comparable to mexico. well this is ignorant. look up missing and murdered aboriginal women. does that count as violence to you? because aboriginal women make up like 1% of the canadian population, but something like 25% of murdered women. of course in broad strokes canada and mexico are very different (canada is wealthy, has no cartel, etc) but that doesnt mean there arent little bits of bad there and doesnt mean there arent bits of good in mexico (remember this reply traces to a parent comment praising a notewrothy academic study coming out of a country generally only mentioned in mainstream news for its problems). thats all.
- loeg 8y ago
  Taking a step back, I'll try to explain where I'm coming from. My read of Waterluvian's comment is that: 1. "Problems" (e.g., violence) quantifiably differ in magnitude between Mexico and other places. And, 2. Those differences matter. That is, the dismissal in the form of "well, everywhere has problems" is disingenuous. To illustrate that, he provided three specific salient examples (armed guards at gas stations, mass graves, and rampant corruption). My read of your response to that comment was that you dismissed the idea that armed guards, mass graces, and rampant corruption are a level beyond the violence in e.g., Canada and Sweden, because "what about aboriginals?" By dismissing Waterluvian's comment, you made a statement normalizing Mexico's level of violence. So I tried to clarify that the difference in level of violence matters, and, here we are. > i didnt say anything about mexico. Sure you did. Denying "A != B" says something about A. > im replying to someone who says there arent parts of canada or sweden comparable to mexico. That's not what the comment you responded to said. Violence and corruption is quantifiably endemic to Mexico. Small populations in Canada and Sweden see outsized violence, but on the whole, those countries experience less violence. To put some real numbers on it, there were 611 homicides in Canada in 2016, across a population of 36.26 million. That's 1.68 per 100,000 people. The homicide rate in Canada peaked at 3.03 per 100,000 in 1975. In contrast, the homicide rate in the US peaked at 10.1 per 100k in 1974 and now hovers around 4.5 per 100k. Mexico's homicide rate in 2016 was 19.3 per 100k. And "as of 2014, Mexico has the 16th highest rate of homicides committed against women in the world."[0] If you're trying to illustrate that Canada is just as violent as Mexico, you picked a poor example. [0]: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/ngos/CDDandCMDPDH_forthesession_Mexico_CEDAW52.pdf http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/ngos/CDDandC...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - modzu 8y ago
    no, no, i am not making such a strong claim -- i absolutely agree in the differences you cited b/w canada and mexico. although im hesitant to generalize so much about a region; taken to the extreme, your argument is something like, "mexico is bad, canada is good" -- if instead youre only saying mexico is more violent in terms of per capita homicide, well that is trivially true so not subject to debate. what im trying to get at is that we discuss the violence (valid a concern as it is) to the detriment of appreciating the rest -- that, generally, most mexican citizens are fairly typical cf. a canadian or swede in terms of their own morals and desires of life, but when we see an advancement such as the subject of this thread it is approached with an intrinsic skepticism. does that make some kinda sense? its hard to say more on a mobile device :p
    - loeg 8y ago
      Yeah, that makes sense; I think we're more or less on the same page now. (Less: I am not making the claim that Mexico is bad, Canada is good, or that ordinary Mexicans are all that different from ordinary Canadians. Or that science journalism from Mexico should be approached with any more skepticism than science journalism from the rest of the world.) > if instead youre only saying mexico is more violent in terms of per capita homicide, well that is trivially true so not subject to debate. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying :-). Per capita homicide, corruption, arming of the regular police; on all of these metrics Mexico stands out compared to affluent NATO countries. I thought that was kind of what this comment thread was debating; I misunderstood. Mea culpa. It can be hard to communicate clearly on the internet, especially on mobile. I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand your thoughts.
      - modzu 8y ago
        likewise, thanks!