ObjectivityIncarnate

Absolutely opposed to “OK so lets extend an olive branch and start hating trans people, cheering on ICE and concentration camps so they feel at home”.

I’m quite certain no one meant this when they said “not turning away”, lol.

Anyone else concerned at Tim Walz implying that he is not a person? lol

Far as we know currently, looking/staring at screens does not cause permanent damage to your vision.

Screen time is no worse than book time or sewing time or Wolfenstein time.

Concentrating reduces your blink rate. Reduced blinking dries out your eyes. That’s the main detrimental effects.

You admit, within your sarcasm, that you’re guessing at the rate of incidence.

That was the entirety of my point, really.

The “undercurrent of hostility” exists only in your imagination. I just stated some facts that contradict the assertion, which I think is fair to say is much more hostile in nature than anything I wrote, ironically.

I certainly never compared Mexico or anything in it to feces, anyway.

How many people has that happened to? Surely you can show that it’s happened a statistically-significant number of times, to talk about that as if it’s a normal/typical course of action.

Or has alarmist media made you assume it’s a common event, when it isn’t?

Not offended, just pointing out the objective absurdity of the comparison, on the axis of overall average danger.

Don’t project your emotional response onto me.

We are talking about the risk to travelers.

Where the travelers are traveling to, and away from, generally tells you all you need to know about where the overall quality of life is better.

Again, Mexico’s net migration is literally negative. If two bordering nations have one nation that has a net loss of population to emigration, and the other has a large net positive from immigration from the bordering nation, saying that the former is “bread” and the other is “shit”, sounds pretty ridiculous on its face.

Not to mention that it comes with it the heavy implication that you know better than the majority of those who actually undertook the endeavor of leaving their home country behind in search of better surroundings.

I see what you’re implying. However:

Quote:

Homicide has been the leading cause of death [in youths age 1-19] since 2017 in Mexico…it reached 6.5 deaths per 100,000 people in 2022.

But in Figure 1 here, it shows the rate among US children to be about 1.5 per 100,000, in the same year, 2022.

Children are, likewise re the general population, four times more likely to be murdered in Mexico as in the US.

Also worth pointing out that in 2022, the rate for only Mexican children (6.5) is greater than the rate for all ages in the US (6.3). That fact should speak volumes all on its own.

Edit: Never stops being funny to see a simple, plainly-laid-out debunking of an assertion, with cited evidence, downvoted by ideologues who apparently just can’t handle having their narratives challenged.

What the base murder rate doesn’t tell you is that over 90% of the murders are by cartel members to other cartel members, which means that only 10% or less of the murders are happing to a random bystander.

And what makes you think the type of murder breakdown isn’t similar in the US? Most of the murders there are gang violence etc. as well.

The fact that Mexico’s raw number of annual murders is higher than the US’s, despite being a much, much less populated country, is not something that can just be handwaved away.

There is a reason Mexico’s net migration rate is negative.

You’re literally 4 times more likely to be murdered in Mexico as in the US, according to both countries’ own statistics.

Edit: lol, imagine downvoting a plain fact.

Yeah, never mind that the murder rate per 100k in Mexico is quadruple what it is in the “backwater” US (25.2 vs 6.3). It’s flawless and beautiful, and the US is just horrible and worse in every way than there and everywhere else, “shit”, as you said.

Wonder why so many people are trying to immigrate there, then, hm. Also, Mexico’s got more people trying to get out than get in, how strange.

Ah, what do all those people know, anyway? They’re just making the decision to completely uproot their lives and go to another country for fun, not because they’re desperate for a better life!

Don’t know how accurate it is, but I’ve heard of even CSAM being inflated this way in police busts, where if there’s a video that’s X seconds long and has a framerate of Y frames per second, it will be described as X * Y “images” (so a 10-second 60 fps video is treated like it’s the same thing as 600 photos) instead of plainly describing a video as being a video.

storytelling

yeah, The Tale of the Terminally Online, lol

Anubis is so lightweight you’ll forget it’s there until you look at your hosting bill.

I don’t know if they realize this is implying it’s onerously expensive, lol.

No, anyone whose brain isn’t addled by narrative-over-facts finds making up fake conversations to support a narrative extremely pathetic and cringeworthy. It stands to reason that if someone merits being criticized for acting a certain way, then you’re able to use actual examples of them acting that way to make your point.

You likely only say what you did because you and the majority of your social circle are part of the above-described addled category.

~$30 dollars an hour is, across the whole country broadly, just shy of a basic, liveable wage.

I do not live in a LCOL area (I’m close enough to NYC that a significant number of people around me commute there for their job), and at my last job, I was making ~$27/hr, and I was saving over $1000 on average every single month. That’s after bills AND discretionary spending.

The definition of “livable” (which never gets concretely defined, by the way) that results in $30/hr being “just shy” of it is frankly absurd.

By the way, it doesn’t fit the narrative, but the fact is that most people who live “paycheck to paycheck” aren’t people who barely earn enough to make ends meet, even though the desired implication is that that’s 100% of that demographic; in reality, in the majority of cases, they are people are able to save but CHOOSE not to. Reminder that 1 in 4 households earning over $100k a year live “paycheck to paycheck” in the US.

No, it isn’t.

Yeah, I get the point they’re trying to make, but this is a pretty silly comparison. It’s like “oh, so you can eat a 6” sub but not an 18" pizza? Pff, fake hunger".

we just barely squeaked Obama into office

???

Obama won in 2008 with 52.9% of the popular vote, a larger % of the popular vote than any President since.