4 ms·

> It wasn't fascism,but nazism. That's not really the point, and I'm not sure the semantics matter. I'm also not doubting that Trump would take up any "ideal"

by Delk 5y ago

> It wasn't fascism,but nazism. That's not really the point, and I'm not sure the semantics matter. I'm also not doubting that Trump would take up any "ideal" that supports his ego and power. Or that, among Trump supporters, there are people who would in fact be ready to go so far as fascism or nazism. I just think that, in a thread about the quality of life in different economic cultures, "about to be ruled by a fascists" is kind of cheap rhetoric if you can't actually argue that the U.S. are in fact close to being ruled by one. > Coming from Europe I am used to not being killed in the streets, in US the risk of being shot is 10 times higher. That's continuing along nearly the same lines of rhetoric as the comment I responded to. 10 times the risk means there's some kind of a meaningful difference, but that doesn't mean it becomes a huge risk. "10 times higher" is a lot as a ratio, but it doesn't mean shootings actually happen a lot. They might, but your figure alone isn't enough to show that. That's the same as with disease: 10 times the risk of a rare disease might still be rare. It might mean an actual, substantially elevated risk, or it might not. I gets you nice headlines either way, of course. If you wanted to argue that getting shot at is a major quality of life concern in the U.S., you would need to show that it actually is a major concern for a large proportion of Americans that affects their quality of life, not just that the ratio of occurrences compared to Europe is large. Again, I disagree about the style of rhetoric. I don't want to argue that gun violence isn't a problem. But I'm not sure us Europeans should tell Americans how that affects their quality of life in general. It's also easy to fall into the trap of stereotypes such as school shootings being everywhere and affecting everyday life. If it's not actually like that, then it's just a stereotype. Which is exactly what ChuckNorris89 was complaining about.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> to be ruled by a fascists" is kind of cheap rhetoric on the contrary being ruled by a fascist supporter and/or supported by fascist sympathizers has an enormous impact on the quality of life. That's true everywhere, in Europe as in USA, that's why everybody here in Europe is preoccupied by far right extremists especially in the former eastern Europe. > you would need to show that it actually is a major concern for a large proportion of Americans that affects their quality of life It is, having 10 times the chances of dying shot by a stranger makes it 10 times more probable that in US I would be dead instead of alive. Being dead it's much worse than being alive in my "quality of life" book. One can argue that Americans don't care, but it is objectively worse as far as the quality of life goes. Or to put it in another way: for Americans it could be irrelevant, but if we are comparing the two ways of life, it's a data point that can't be easily discarded. Imagine having the life of a young relative taken by criminals or, worse, by the police. Would you trade it for a better salary or a larger household, knowing that it's 10 times more probable that it could happen? In Los Angeles in 2020 there have been 75 murders every million people (a bit more actually, closer to 76), in Rome it was 5 (a bit less, around 4.4 but rounded for easier comparison). In NY it was 56, Kenya is 50, Egypt 25, Ghana 21, Sierra Leone 17. Is this a meaningful difference or not? Would you consider Los Angeles safer than Rome? Given the choice would you rather raise your kids in Los Angeles or in Rome? Remember: you're betting on their life or death chances. > into the trap of stereotypes such as school shootings being everywhere It's not a stereotype if it's true. It's the only place were regularly school shootings end up with casaulties. «There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000.Sep 24, 2014» (news from 7 years ago!) https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html Can you name another country with similar stats? I honestly can't.
- Delk 5y ago
  > being ruled by a fascist supporter and/or supported by fascist sympathizers has an enormous impact on the quality of life Of course. It's the "about to be ruled by" part that's the cheap-ish rhetoric, as it implies an unsubstantiated imminent threat, not just "some of these guys are really going in the wrong direction". > having 10 times the chances of dying shot by a stranger makes it 10 times more probable that in US I would be dead instead of alive. No, it absolutely certainly does not, unless that's the only way you could die. That's really, really basic statistics. I don't even need to check the statistics to assert that you're much, much more likely to die of causes other than violence, both in (at least the majority of) Europe and in (at least the majority of) the U.S. If you have a full watermelon, and then take a small slice of the watermelon and somehow multiply the slice by ten, you don't have ten watermelons as a result. > Would you trade it for a better salary or a larger household, knowing that it's 10 times more probable that it could happen? Depends on what it's 10 times probable than, and what my other circumstances were. I might not want to live in the most dangerous city, and certainly not in its most dangerous areas, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to live in the entire country. In any of those cases, I'd probably be much more likely to die of other causes than because of being shot; it's certainly that way outside of the most dangerous places. But what I want to do is not really the point. > 366 of the deaths in the past seven years I'm apparently past my paywall-free articles at nytimes.com, so I'll have to make some assumptions here. 366 deaths in seven years means ~50 deaths per year. That's, of course, an astoundingly large number for a modern western country, which typically see very few of these kinds of incidents. But if that's for the entire U.S. which has ~330 million people, that means an approximately one in a million chance of getting killed in a mass shooting per year. [edit: and of course I botched the maths -- it's more like one in ten million per year -- but the point still stands] The numbers would make me question what's going on. The risk of violence might also make me not want to live in the most dangerous areas. But a one in a million chance of dying would not stop me from wanting to live in a country if I otherwise so desired. You can't really just argue with numbers without putting them in some kind of a context.
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    > No, it absolutely certainly does not, unless that's the only way you could die. That's really, really basic statistics. You're right, but all other stats regarding mortality are worse for US than my country, so... Homicides rates in particular are many times worse not just some % worse, that's why I mostly complain about them. But we also have longer life expectations, better food, better healthcare, etc. etc. if that's of some interest. we have much worse salaries on average though... but less inequality overall. > so I'll have to make some assumptions here. 366 deaths in seven years means ~50 deaths per year If that was the only way people died. It's basic statistics. But in reality it's 50 more deaths, completely avoidable, every other developed country avoided them. It's like saying that in USA infant mortality rate is "only" 5.7 every 1,000 newborns, while Estonia, many times poorer than US, has only 1.9 x 1,000. In absolute numbers and as deaths per year rate is negligible, but on a human level it's a complete nightmare! and an healthcare disaster, especially for the country with the highest spending per capita on the Planet for healthcare. I think a positive example is deaths in space flights. Only 15 austronauts died during spaceflight, the odds of something going wrong and killing everybody in space are gigantic, but the space programs managed to keep the fatalities low by applying rigorous security checks. The fatality rate is around 3%, it's very high in absolute, it's quite low if we consider the kinds of risks involved. It's a matter of willingness, if in USA so many people die every year for reasons that other similar countries have mostly solved or reduced drastically, IMO means that there is no political will to keep'em down. > which has ~330 million people, that means an approximately one in a million chance of getting killed in a mass shooting per year. still a lot worse then everywhere else in the werstern World. And you don't really count deaths like that, 10 young students killed by another armed student destroy the fabric of entire communities forever. Because it's not 50 deaths a year, it's 366 people that shouldn't have died that way in a developed country. It's 366 families than won't see their kids grow old, without any logical reason. You are counting on luck, but I personally don't trust luck. it's a risk I would never take. For no reason. > But a one in a million chance of dying would not stop me from wanting to live in a country if I otherwise so desired. except that that's 1 in a million MORE, that adds up to, for example, the 1 in 13 thousands chances of being shot dead that you have in Los Angeles, that your kids have, in Rome the chances are 1 in 200 hundred thousand (assuming all other stats are similar, even though they are not and Los Angeles lags behind in all of them) If you understand basic statistics, as I imagine you do, it's pretty clear what a responsible parent would chose, given the choice. It's not only about how many people die every year, having lost someone for a 1 in a hundred million event, it's the mentality that also scares me: considering the chances of death kinda like a gamble is what makes me think I would never go back living in the USA, even more so after having enjoyed the peace and tranquillity of European life for a long long time. It's easy to discard the benefits if you don't factor them into the equation.
j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
> If you wanted to argue that getting shot at is a major quality of life concern in the U.S., you would need to show that it actually is a major concern for a large proportion of Americans that affects their quality of life, not just that the ratio of occurrences compared to Europe is large. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

by Delk 5y ago

peoplefromibiza 5y ago

> to be ruled by a fascists" is kind of cheap rhetoric on the contrary being ruled by a fascist supporter and/or supported by fascist sympathizers has an enormous impact on the quality of life. That's true everywhere, in Europe as in USA, that's why everybody here in Europe is preoccupied by far right extremists especially in the former eastern Europe. > you would need to show that it actually is a major concern for a large proportion of Americans that affects their quality of life It is, having 10 times the chances of dying shot by a stranger makes it 10 times more probable that in US I would be dead instead of alive. Being dead it's much worse than being alive in my "quality of life" book. One can argue that Americans don't care, but it is objectively worse as far as the quality of life goes. Or to put it in another way: for Americans it could be irrelevant, but if we are comparing the two ways of life, it's a data point that can't be easily discarded. Imagine having the life of a young relative taken by criminals or, worse, by the police. Would you trade it for a better salary or a larger household, knowing that it's 10 times more probable that it could happen? In Los Angeles in 2020 there have been 75 murders every million people (a bit more actually, closer to 76), in Rome it was 5 (a bit less, around 4.4 but rounded for easier comparison). In NY it was 56, Kenya is 50, Egypt 25, Ghana 21, Sierra Leone 17. Is this a meaningful difference or not? Would you consider Los Angeles safer than Rome? Given the choice would you rather raise your kids in Los Angeles or in Rome? Remember: you're betting on their life or death chances. > into the trap of stereotypes such as school shootings being everywhere It's not a stereotype if it's true. It's the only place were regularly school shootings end up with casaulties. «There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000.Sep 24, 2014» (news from 7 years ago!) https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html Can you name another country with similar stats? I honestly can't.

Delk 5y ago
> being ruled by a fascist supporter and/or supported by fascist sympathizers has an enormous impact on the quality of life Of course. It's the "about to be ruled by" part that's the cheap-ish rhetoric, as it implies an unsubstantiated imminent threat, not just "some of these guys are really going in the wrong direction". > having 10 times the chances of dying shot by a stranger makes it 10 times more probable that in US I would be dead instead of alive. No, it absolutely certainly does not, unless that's the only way you could die. That's really, really basic statistics. I don't even need to check the statistics to assert that you're much, much more likely to die of causes other than violence, both in (at least the majority of) Europe and in (at least the majority of) the U.S. If you have a full watermelon, and then take a small slice of the watermelon and somehow multiply the slice by ten, you don't have ten watermelons as a result. > Would you trade it for a better salary or a larger household, knowing that it's 10 times more probable that it could happen? Depends on what it's 10 times probable than, and what my other circumstances were. I might not want to live in the most dangerous city, and certainly not in its most dangerous areas, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to live in the entire country. In any of those cases, I'd probably be much more likely to die of other causes than because of being shot; it's certainly that way outside of the most dangerous places. But what I want to do is not really the point. > 366 of the deaths in the past seven years I'm apparently past my paywall-free articles at nytimes.com, so I'll have to make some assumptions here. 366 deaths in seven years means ~50 deaths per year. That's, of course, an astoundingly large number for a modern western country, which typically see very few of these kinds of incidents. But if that's for the entire U.S. which has ~330 million people, that means an approximately one in a million chance of getting killed in a mass shooting per year. [edit: and of course I botched the maths -- it's more like one in ten million per year -- but the point still stands] The numbers would make me question what's going on. The risk of violence might also make me not want to live in the most dangerous areas. But a one in a million chance of dying would not stop me from wanting to live in a country if I otherwise so desired. You can't really just argue with numbers without putting them in some kind of a context.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  > No, it absolutely certainly does not, unless that's the only way you could die. That's really, really basic statistics. You're right, but all other stats regarding mortality are worse for US than my country, so... Homicides rates in particular are many times worse not just some % worse, that's why I mostly complain about them. But we also have longer life expectations, better food, better healthcare, etc. etc. if that's of some interest. we have much worse salaries on average though... but less inequality overall. > so I'll have to make some assumptions here. 366 deaths in seven years means ~50 deaths per year If that was the only way people died. It's basic statistics. But in reality it's 50 more deaths, completely avoidable, every other developed country avoided them. It's like saying that in USA infant mortality rate is "only" 5.7 every 1,000 newborns, while Estonia, many times poorer than US, has only 1.9 x 1,000. In absolute numbers and as deaths per year rate is negligible, but on a human level it's a complete nightmare! and an healthcare disaster, especially for the country with the highest spending per capita on the Planet for healthcare. I think a positive example is deaths in space flights. Only 15 austronauts died during spaceflight, the odds of something going wrong and killing everybody in space are gigantic, but the space programs managed to keep the fatalities low by applying rigorous security checks. The fatality rate is around 3%, it's very high in absolute, it's quite low if we consider the kinds of risks involved. It's a matter of willingness, if in USA so many people die every year for reasons that other similar countries have mostly solved or reduced drastically, IMO means that there is no political will to keep'em down. > which has ~330 million people, that means an approximately one in a million chance of getting killed in a mass shooting per year. still a lot worse then everywhere else in the werstern World. And you don't really count deaths like that, 10 young students killed by another armed student destroy the fabric of entire communities forever. Because it's not 50 deaths a year, it's 366 people that shouldn't have died that way in a developed country. It's 366 families than won't see their kids grow old, without any logical reason. You are counting on luck, but I personally don't trust luck. it's a risk I would never take. For no reason. > But a one in a million chance of dying would not stop me from wanting to live in a country if I otherwise so desired. except that that's 1 in a million MORE, that adds up to, for example, the 1 in 13 thousands chances of being shot dead that you have in Los Angeles, that your kids have, in Rome the chances are 1 in 200 hundred thousand (assuming all other stats are similar, even though they are not and Los Angeles lags behind in all of them) If you understand basic statistics, as I imagine you do, it's pretty clear what a responsible parent would chose, given the choice. It's not only about how many people die every year, having lost someone for a 1 in a hundred million event, it's the mentality that also scares me: considering the chances of death kinda like a gamble is what makes me think I would never go back living in the USA, even more so after having enjoyed the peace and tranquillity of European life for a long long time. It's easy to discard the benefits if you don't factor them into the equation.

j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago

> If you wanted to argue that getting shot at is a major quality of life concern in the U.S., you would need to show that it actually is a major concern for a large proportion of Americans that affects their quality of life, not just that the ratio of occurrences compared to Europe is large. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx