|
Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
gregory999
Joined: 29 Jul 2015 Posts: 372 Location: 999
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
steki47 wrote: |
America doesn't not have a gun problem, it has a demographic problem. |
What do you mean by "demographic problem"?
Do you mean that the population of America is shrinking? If yes, then I agree with you.
If you mean that "demographic problem" is related to the increase of immigrants population in the US, then you are wrong.
America has a big problem with guns.
DEAR AMERICA: Here's why everyone thinks you have a problem with guns
http://uk.businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-2015-6?r=US&IR=T
Quote: |
Frankly, given the increasingly Third World nature of parts of the country, the murder rates are quite low. |
?????
What do you mean? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear gregory999,
"Frankly, given the increasingly Third World nature of parts of the country, the murder rates are quite low.
?????
What do you mean?"
Unfamiliar with dog-whistle code? "Dog whistle politics usually refers to the use of certain code words or phrases that are designed to be understood by only a small section of the populace. Generally speaking, these are phrases that have special meaning to that subsection entirely independent of its meaning to others, and represent a particularly insidious use of loaded language.
The term alludes to the sound of a dog whistle, which can only be heard by the intended audience (the dog). In theory at least, dog whistle terms are only noticed and understood by the people they are intended for. In practice, the meaning is often understood by others. For example, negative references to "ghettos" are taken by pretty much everyone to mean "black parts of town."
Third World = immigrants - but not ALL, just the Hispanic, black, Middle Eastern variety
Thug - black man
inner city/Ghetto dwellers: Blacks, Hispanics
"Another way to complain about minorities without offense is to complain about ghettos, the bad part of town, etc. Or if one's a politician, "fixing" the impoverished areas of a city will do the trick (alternatively, "cleaning up our streets"). Particularly in the Midwest, it's common for people to mock places like Detroit, Cleveland, and the South Side of Chicago as it sounds innocent to the untrained ear."
It's the "socially more acceptable" face of racism.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_politics
Regards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
adventious
Joined: 23 Nov 2015 Posts: 237 Location: In the wide
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Posts: 1029 Location: BFE Inaka
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
johnslat wrote: |
Dear gregory999,
Unfamiliar with dog-whistle code? "Dog whistle politics usually refers to the use of certain code words or phrases that are designed to be understood by only a small section of the populace. |
It is not really dog-whistling when the writer explicitly states the point.
Oh, a definition of Third World if one is needed here.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Third-World.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear steki347,
Clearly, gregory999 was having some difficulty understanding your terminology. And besides, there's this:
""Third World" is archaic: The notion that there is not one world but three is a vestige of the Cold War, when the U.S. and its non-Communist allies were deemed the First World, the Communist Bloc was defined as the Second World, and nonaligned nations, which were predominantly poor, were designated the Third World.
In the post-Cold War environment, Third World became a way to refer to the most impoverished countries and regions of the world, serving as a blanket term for characterizing the political and economic life of Latin America, Africa and Asia. It has also began to operate as a shorthand for extreme destitution in otherwise affluent countries; the U.S. has often been described as containing bits of the Third World because of its failures in health care or exceptional wealth inequality.
The term Third World is no longer fashionable due to a growing consensus that the category is neither accurate nor socially appropriate for the 21st century. The term First World provides a veneer of primacy and superiority for countries slowly declining in power unable to provide material abundance for significant portions of their population, and plagued by their own unique maladies. What is to be made of emerging economies like Brazil and India, which both host enormous populations of poor people but are also the site of a new middle class and are key players in the global production of goods and services? If First World countries have Third World qualities and Third World countries have First World qualities, we'd be better served by a term that captures how countries can be different, but not quite a world apart."
http://mic.com/articles/107686/why-you-shouldn-t-call-poor-nations-third-world-countries#.LbikKkgVL
Regards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gregory999
Joined: 29 Jul 2015 Posts: 372 Location: 999
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
steki347's terminology is the same as Trump's terminology, both are miss-leading and wrong. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Posts: 1029 Location: BFE Inaka
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Posts: 1029 Location: BFE Inaka
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gregory999 wrote: |
steki347's terminology is the same as Trump's terminology, both are miss-leading and wrong. |
Comparing me to the Emperor-King is both flattering and wrong. Trump is a bit too moderate for me on some issues.
But thanks all the same! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear steki47,
Well, if the whole country is "Third World" then why do you write "parts"?
And let's take a look at why they could be the case:
"That's right. America looks a lot more like a third-world nation than the wealthiest country in the world.
As CJ Werleman points out over at Alternet, while America is the wealthiest nation in the world, and has the most billionaires in the world, not a single U.S. city ranks among the world's most livable cities.
Meanwhile, despite our nation's vast wealth, 14.5 percent of U.S. households were "food insecure" as of 2010, and as of 2011, 1.5 million American household were struggling with "extreme poverty."
If you want even more proof that America is in the steady decline to third-world status, take a look at the American middle-class today.
For over 30 years, under both Democratic and Republican leaders, we've been hooked on Reaganomics policies that have helped the wealthy elite and those at the top, but screwed over everyone else.
Reaganomics has gutted the middle-class, and destroyed the strong and vibrant economy that we once had.
The income gap in America has widened exponentially since Reagan took office and implemented the so-called "Reagan Tax Cuts."
Between 1947 and 1980, income gains were shared fairly equally between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else.
But then Reagan came to Washington and everything changed.
The wealthy elite began to take home more of our nation's income gains, while income gains for everyone else began to stay relatively stagnant.
In 1980, the top 1 percent of Americans controlled 10 percent of annual U.S. income.
As of 2007, the top 1 percent controlled 23.5 percent of annual U.S. income; the highest it's been since the Great Depression.
Between 1979 and 2012, the percentage increase in salary growth for the median American worker was just 5 percent, while growth for millionaire and billionaire executives was off the charts.
As result, the share of the nation's income going to the middle-class has been in a near nosedive for the past three decades.
Similarly, since the Great Recession, nearly all of our nation's economic growth has been eaten up by the wealthy elite.
Incomes for the top 5 percent of American households were up just over 5 percent between 2010 and 2012, while those households at the bottom of the income bracket had losses in income during the same time.
And, 95% of income gains during the first three years of the Great Recession recovery were taken in by the top 1 percent.
Meanwhile, as you might expect from these numbers, the American middle-class is no longer the richest in the world.
An analysis done recently by the New York Times found that our neighbor to the north, Canada, actually has the wealthiest middle-class in the world, dethroning America after decades at the top of the list.
And, estimates suggest that the Chinese middle-class is now larger than the entire population of the U.S.
Whether conservatives in Washington like it or not, the key to having a strong economy and a strong nation is having a strong middle class.
It's not just a coincidence that during a time when the American middle-class is the smallest it's ever been our economy is also in the gutter.
That's because middle-class consumption is the demand engine that drives an economy.
Fortunately, while America might look more like a third-world nation today than a global power, there's plenty of time to turn things around.
And that starts by saying enough is enough to 33 years of failed Reaganomics, and putting in place the economic policies that will allow the middle-class to grow and thrive.
From our trade policies to our tax policies to our labor policies and to the way that we handle big business and banksters, we need to roll back the Reagan Revolution.
Only then will we have a strong economy and a strong and developed nation."
www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23535-usa-the-worlds-newest-third-world-nation
Rggards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Posts: 1029 Location: BFE Inaka
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear John,
You clearly have read many books. Your posts indicate a deep analysis of the country's problems.
Sincerely,
S47 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear steki47,
I'd say living here, especially from 2003 to now, has contributed more to my "deep understanding" since it may offer more experiential information than those who are not residents might have.
But thank you for your complement.
Are you currently living in the US? If not, how long has it been since you've resided here?
Regards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Posts: 1029 Location: BFE Inaka
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
johnslat wrote: |
Are you currently living in the US? If not, how long has it been since you've resided here? |
I left Upper Mexico over ten years ago. Life in the Empire of Cute is much better overall. I visit the US every 2-3 years. It is nice to see friends and family, but I am generally happy to be out of there. I do read the news, though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gregory999
Joined: 29 Jul 2015 Posts: 372 Location: 999
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
steki47 wrote: |
Life in the Empire of Cute is much better overall |
Indeed, life in Japan is much much better than the USA, especially with regard to gun control.
Japan is a land without guns, what a fantastic life!
Of the world’s 23 “rich” countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America’s ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.
In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
So steki47, the probability that you will be killed by a gun in the US is 100%, whereas in Japan is 0.001%. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
steki47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Posts: 1029 Location: BFE Inaka
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gregory999 wrote: |
Indeed, life in Japan is much much better than the USA, especially with regard to gun control.
Japan is a land without guns, what a fantastic life! |
What's the murder rate for Japanese-Americans? They have the same access to guns as all other American citizens. They must be a murderous lot. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling. Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|