Drunk, old, white dude in Georgia. yeah, I'm going to go there. This was an entitlement/power thing over a black woman. Some kind of weird ma'ssah fantasy bullshit that he felt entitled to pull.
Anti-LGBT, gun obsessed, railing against California, and what looks like a bunch of incel posts mixed in too.
It’s a profile filled to the brim with red flags, but destined to fly under the radar because it’s mixed in with a hundred thousand profiles just like it.
Nah they just live in their own twisted reality, reinforced by their other nutbag buddies online, and are vehemently intent on imposing said reality on everyone else. The scary thing is that if these muppets gain a majority, sanity flies out the window.
We saw what happened when the trumpy grumpies were in power. The only saving grace was their leader was an idiot.
We have to stay vigilant to keep the party of hate greed and power from ever gaining a foot hole again. Even at 40% they can still wreck havoc in the Senate. Always remember and always vote even in the local and mid terms.
It’s worse than that. They’re penguins on an ice floe. All the penguins want to get into the water; none of them want to get eaten by a leopard seal. They mill around until a penguin gets brave/hungry enough to jump in (or one gets pushed in), and the rest of them wait to see if he gets eaten. If it survives, all the rest of the penguins jump right in after them.
With fascists you have a bunch of folks nudging people toward (but carefully avoiding openly calling for) violence. They push right up to the line, inch by inch, as close as they possibly can without technically crossing it. They do it until someone trips over, and then they all watch to see if/how that person gets punished.
The absolute instant that law enforcement ever stops punishing these people in a meaningful way we are going to see some crazy shit. That crazy shit will suddenly become the new normal, and the fascists will start pushing a new, more extreme line.
I think there would be a lot more urgency around this if more regular people could hear how conservative gun owners talk to each other when they think no one else is around. There are a lot of real normal-seeming guys who have reached a casual acceptance that any day now it will be time to “do the things.” Which is a fun little euphemism for murdering anyone they feel isn’t conservative enough, white enough, or Christian enough. They haven’t affiliated themselves with a larger extremist group yet, but are none-the-less arming and training themselves toward the goal of joining right in when it’s finally time to “do the things.”
Now, U.S. regulators are considering a similar policy, because they say it will help consumers make healthier decisions. The details haven’t been ironed out yet — the Food and Drug Administration just announced it is studying the idea. The reforms seem likely to be more modest; the FDA already appears to have rejected the stark, stop-sign-like warnings on Mexican packages and hasn’t mentioned banning mascots. But advocates in both Mexico and the United States say that U.S. regulators should prepare for a years-long political fight.
Isn’t the daily amount like 0 you need? So Infinity % for any added amount?
This is actually an honest question, because you can easily cover your daily needs with other carbs and even those are technically not necessarily as it can be metabolized by fat in your body, but no point in bending the truth here. The body needs sugar one way or the other, but none of them are processed sugars and should probably come from rice, potatoes or bread instead.
“% daily value” is supposedly something like “percent recommended daily value” and it’s a bizarre balance between minimum to avoid deficiencies and maximum to avoid overdose as determined by a board of corporate employees with no training in medicine, diet, or nutrition
so, while there’s no minimum for “total sugars”, most who are actually trained in diet and nutrition seem to agree you really shouldn’t be going over 25–30g total sugars …
FDA does provide a daily value for “added sugars” – 100% daily value is 50g (10-ish teaspoons) which sounds a little excessive to me …
Keep in mind that modern fruits have almost nothing to do with natural fruit, they have been selected for a higher sugar content and other things. Fruits themselves aren’t healthy, they are more like candy, just not quite as bad.
Maybe, kinda. You have to eat them in moderation like anything. They at least provide other useful nutrients.
In my opinion fruits are slightly more beneficial than bread, pasta or potatoes which do not contain as much sugar, but more of other carbs which are in my opinion not much better.
So I see your point, but I don’t think they are as bad.
Potatoes are very low glycemic index* and have potassium, fiber, B6, and an alright amount of protein. I will fight for potatoes.
Edit: preparation matters, just mashed potatoes are super high glycemic index, but boiled waxy potatoes with the skins on alongside a protein is at the top edge of low or medium glycemic index. I will still fight for potatoes, but they probably need to be a side dish if you are looking out for your blood sugar.
Sorry, but aren’t potatoes even worse than white bread and sugar regarding the glycemic index? According to google they have scores between 80 and 90 on average while sugar (sucrose) has a score of 68.
I guess starch is really bad. I wasn’t aware it has such a high impact.
Don’t get me wrong they are not terrible in a balanced diet, but I don’t believe they have any real benefits either. Besides they are tasty which is honestly a good reason to like foods.
Exactly right. The four foods that endocrinologists tells diabetics not to eat commonly or much of are potatoes, corn, sweet potatoes, and beets. That’s on top of all the obvious items, like sugary confections, cakes, pies, etc.
I think the difference is the kind of potatoes, because they were recommended to a friend by her doctor to treat her prediabetes, but now I’ve just googled them and found what you found. Boiled waxy potatoes with the skin on are the most common home preparation here in Germany, which brings the glycemic index down to 59, according to tufts
the Food and Drug Administration just announced it is studying the idea.
Translation: They are bombarded by the food industry to let this idea go, STAT! They probably don't have time for a (healthy) lunch because lobbyists are sitting on their laps from sunrise to sundown, dictating their version of the law.
My trader joes had a breaking point where shitty Karens and their dogs were getting yelled at by hipsters, while a Hawaiian shirt manager tried to defuse the situation.
there are two reasons why Musk seems to be interested in this change. Firstly, removing the headlines would free up space in the timeline to show users more posts. At the same time, Musk wants to force journalists to write their articles directly on X. On his personal account, the billionaire said that journalists who want “more freedom to write” and “higher income” should publish directly on the platform.
Is he really this delusional? Journalists aren’t going to uproot their entire workflow because of one dumbass change and start publishing on your shitty platform.
Musk has said repeatedly his goal is to create an app for everything that is called “X”. He is attempting to strong arm twitter users into doing everything through twitter and never needing to navigate to another site. He is delusional.
It’s so weird to file 18 and 19 year olds under “children”. Aren’t 18+ already considered adults and their lifestyle is going to be more risky than an actual child in grade school?
If you kept it at actual “minors”, I wonder how this data would look.
It’s kind of like saying that car accidents are a major cause of death in children because they drive too fast.
Older adolescents, ages 15 to 19, accounted for 82.6% of gun-related deaths in 2021.
Poking around the CDC website adolescence is defined in multiple ways but generally includes ages 12-19, so might be better described as "teens" even though 18+ is a legal adult. I think it's being treated here as more of a developmental stage than a legal one.
Digging into it by age, from 2018-2021 firearms made up 2,149 out of 22,545 total deaths (~9%) for the age range 5-14 in the US. Looking at 15-19 this increases significantly to 13,321 out of 46,323 total deaths (~29%). This corresponds to increases in both homicide and suicide by firearm for older adolescents.
Quoting this just to make the point that firearms do have differing impacts on younger and older children, and that extends to race and income level as well. But whether guns are the leading cause of death for an age group or not, the end result is the same: more dead kids.
I’m more interested right now in the obvious agenda.
I’m not saying that child death’s aren’t up or that we shouldn’t do more to protect them but when citing data this way, I get the very strong feeling that it’s being made to look worse than it is on purpose. The majority are from suicides and murder fatalities are extreme in the 18-19 year old bracket.
Why on earth does the metric include 18 and 19 year olds as children if not for making something look worse.
The dictionary defines a child as a person between birth and puberty. Or not having attained the age of legal majority.
It’s similar to when a 10 year old gets shot by the police, and then the news conference later has the police referring the 10 year old victim as “a young man” instead of “the child”. Does it not feel like they’re trying to achieve something?
Why on earth does the metric include 18 and 19 year olds as children if not for making something look worse.
Honestly, I tried pretty hard to find a good reason and other than the fact that the CDC groups data into <1, 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15-19 age ranges there’s no real explanation. You could go up to 14, and then get individual year data up to 17/18 whatever the cutoff.
I wouldn’t say it’s totally dishonest because it is baked into the data and the CDC considers them developmentally similar, but I think it also an issue NBC wasn’t too interested in fixing because it makes the article’s argument seem more convincing.
Yeah, it’s misleading. Especially considering the hot topic use of firearms.
Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, we can agree that data should be free of the organization present here. The discussion isn’t helped by this interpretation of the interpretation and it surely needs helping.
It’s the Same Old Same Old “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” authoritarian push to limit the freedoms of the citizenry. Communists, Terrorists, Pedophiles, and Satanists are all coming to get your babies and only Big Brother can save you by restricting your naughty freedoms.
The reality is that if you look at the overall statistics, 99.9999% of children aged 0-18 in the USA are unaffected by gun violence. So I am not compelled to trade any of my freedom for more alleged safety.
I’m sorry, but the ability to defend myself and my family isn’t a hobby. It’s what gave my mother the ability to fend off a guy with a knife last year. You want her to fight him off with her bare hands in the parking lot? I had a friend who was almost gang raped by three men in an alley. She now carries a giant gun in her purse and you want her defenseless?
Not everyone has the luxury of police around the corner or to see guns as a hobby like you do. Especially the population of “children” you’re referring to. Let me shed some light for you.
The fact is that these stats aren’t a majority school shootings. These homicides are male inner city black ADULT youth who are given the worst cards in life and they have gotten zero attention. This is gang violence politicized.
The pandemic hit this population hardest and the facts show it here. Look at deaths from ALL types of things and it’s gone up in this particular minority population. It’s disheartening because it’s been like this for decades and people are thinking it would be solved if only you could remove the guns.
The appropriate response is (if you’re not already) supporting programs and services that help people who are suffering from poverty and mental health illness. Not making my family and friends defenseless.
Edit - My mother wanted to add that she also peppered sprayed the guy the week before. He came back.
I don’t feel like enumerating the red flags in your post…so I won’t. Suffice it to say we won’t see eye to eye, and I don’t think your worldview is healthy, but theres not much purpose to further discussion. Bye.
I honestly want you to enumerate them because discussion helps and is an opportunity to progress the ideas. Just because we disagree, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t share the ideas. I enjoy discussion and I try hard to not be inflammatory or rude.
You should tell me where the “flags” are so I can look back and think on it.
To summarize:
The article discusses a CDC report about stats on children which includes adults, and discusses homicides of black inner city adolescents, and suicides of white adolelescents that are on the rise since the pandemic. The loss of life is terrible.
Self defense is a right, not a hobby. The potential loss of life is terrible.
Between #1 and #2, you and I have to navigate to find a solution that satisfies both of us.
We can agree that any life lost to anything is too much.
So even if we disregard your rampant disrespect for the lives of children, you have successfully described (at most) a little over 10% of child gun deaths, so I'm sure the families of the other 90% will totally agree with you.
I, for one, am offended that you are implying White House doc and totally non-partisan dude Ronny Jackson would have been embellishing things when he said Trump was a paragon of mental and physical health.
I’m 6’1” (186cm) barefoot and measured. Trump claims to be 6’3” (190cm).
I stood next to a wax statue of him at Madame Tussaud’s, which is famous for its exact replicas, and I was comfortably an inch taller than that statue and it was in heeled shoes (I was wearing flat-soled Connie’s), so Trump is 6’0” max, but my guess is he’s just under - maybe 5’11” (183cm).
Nah, he’s taller than 5’9”, but he’s definitely not the 6’3” he claims to be. Not even close. I’d bet my last dollar that barefooted he’s pretty close to 5’11”.
Yeah he’s going to exploit the shit out of that mugshot. Bet it’ll be on the cover of his newest memoir. Do they let people smile in their mugshots nowadays? I’m seriously hoping they don’t at Fulton.
He’d be a king in gen pop. What will kill him is being in ‘protective custody.’ 23 hours a day of solitary? No one kissing his butt? That’s what will break him.
It is a trend on all governments to push public services to third parties and, as consequence, social media platforms. How many we see that have their own websites but news and updates only available on twitter or facebook? It’s insane, imho.
Nobody reads the sites. For every org only using Twitter there are two using a custom cms that costs half a mil each year and getting two visits a year.
It’s because 2 billion people a day login to instagram but no one is visiting Calgary.ca and the people asked for everything important to them to be in one place so instagram it is. Meta should have to pay to use someone else’s work, this isn’t a radical idea, what’s radical is that meta has just decided it’s going to be a supreme leech for free while making billions and there’s nothing anyone can do about them being assholes
It’s not just that 2 billion people access the third party vs the main page, is that you can’t go cheaper than free using the third party and to me that’s the problem. Governments selling themselves cheap to big data is the issue. Screw it if Calgary.ca doesn’t get 2 billion accesses a day, that’s not why it exists! In that I think you missed my point.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.