/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>397711
Do you know who inhabits congo??? XDDDD

>>397711
>America is shit because of blacks
>Thread is about the Congo being safer then the US
Are you retarded or something?

This list is a little misleading because one of the major factors they use to measure it is how many wars a country is engaged in. So the US is considered one of the most dangerous countries to live in because it's always in like 5 or 6 wars.

>>397717
They are not wrong.

>>397717
Did you know that childrens hospitals are unsafe for kids to be in the united states because of how rampant molestations are within those institutions?
https://www.familyeducation.com/life/choosing-daycare/protecting-your-child-abuse-daycare

Holy shit it gets better it gets so much fucking better when you look at more sectors of the graph

>>397737
Not only Haiti but also El Salvador.

>>397746
Meant to>
>>397711

>>397708
You're confusing the republic of the congo with the democratic republic of the congo which is an entirely different country. It's the DR Congo which is the failed state stuck in a perpetual, insane world war tier conflict.

The US certainly has one of the highest rates of violence globally, at least compared to other advanced economies although I'd need to see the methadology used to determine if this is accurate, if they may be defining safety in limited or vulgar terms. In general it's worth being suspicious about any figures put out by for profit NGO groups as often times they are designed to create snappy headlines which raise donations & provide increased state support.

IE like the Oxfam stat that the 5 richest people or whatever own more wealth than the bottom 4.6 billion, that it would take "just 200 billion to end food insecurity" or that a signifciant portion of the global poorest live in America. All of these stats use really dodgy methadoloy and are actually outrigh false. IE it's closer to the top 2000 richest who own equivalent wealth to 4.6 billion, the 200 billion to end food insecurity is literally just determining the cost of producing, transporting & feeding people with food rather than developing self sufficient agriculture, food production, agrichemical industries etc, and the later one about a significant number of Yanks being among the global poor is intentionally exploiting ignorance about how wealth is defined in economic terms to the point that that "bottom 10% of humanity in wealth" includes many America billionaires and millionaires, including Trump in the 1990's who technically had far less "wealth" than slum dwellers in New Dehli.

>>397751
>dude it's just that the statistics are discredible it has 0 real world application
Watch >>397728
America has had a history of trying to destabilize its neighbors and when it comes to its homicide oh boy it was alot fucking worse

>>397753
Methadology is important when conducting studies and statistics can easily be manipulated, twisted or fudged. Blind worshipping of statistics is no different to empirical cultist style worship of "facts" while completely neglecting analysis or building a plasuble narrative which can end in ridiculous conclusions, ie the famous example wherin icecream consumption is tied to homocidal tendencies. There's a reason Mao talked about "Seeking truth from facts".

>America has had a history of trying to destabilize its neighbors and when it comes to its homicide oh boy it was alot fucking worse

I don't doubt this, it's pretty clear that based on mass shootings alone the United States is an extremely violent country, and when factoring in small scale violence and domestic abuse, etc, the United States is a uniquely brutal state.

The problem is these studies have inherent ideological biases baked into them, ie they include typically only direct, individual acts of violence or direct political violence (ie terrorism or war related casualties) and not for instance social violence. If a Marxist were to conduct a similar study they would likely factor in deaths resulting from deliberate neglect on the behalf of states/economic entities, which in a state like India where millions of children die from malnutrition each year or Bangladesh where something like 1/3 of the 160 million people die from conditions related to arsneic poisoning in the water supply would obviously be far higher.

Social violence is almost never calculated when it comes to studies of violence or calamity in capitalist states (whether imperial or neocolonial) however it is almost always applied in bourgeois calculations regarding death in socialist states to an comically liberal degree, ie absolutely any death which occured for any reason is factored in as "murdered by communism" and then has extened mortality rates applied to it, so ie an elderly couple well past child baring age dying in their Tsarist era apartment in Moscow due to a fire becomes 8 people murdered by Stalin in official statistics.

That aside, even excluding social violence I'm not doubting that the US is an intensely violent society and that said violence stems in large part due to the United States foreign policy (particularly toward Latin America) however I'm intensely skeptical of the claim that the US is "less peaceful" than Papua New Guinea.

>>397775
Papua new guinea is a mostly underdeveloped agrarian society that's limited by its geography being that the farmland that's available cant sustain crops that yield massive amounts of food that could feed an organized society, because of this most new Guineans live in small homogeneous communities unlike in metropolitan areas in the united states and europe as a whole(this includes russia and southern europe) where crime and violence can proliferate due to a need for ones survival as their access to living self sufficiently is limited.

>>397779
Fair enough, yeah. I was thinking exclusively about conditions in Port Morseby and not the majority rural population.

>>397751
>the later one about a significant number of Yanks being among the global poor is intentionally exploiting ignorance about how wealth is defined in economic terms to the point that that "bottom 10% of humanity in wealth" includes many America billionaires and millionaires, including Trump in the 1990's who technically had far less "wealth" than slum dwellers in New Dehli.
What possible measure of wealth could classify a slum dweller in India earning $2 per day as more wealthy than an American millionaire (much less billionaire) who has multiple properties, capital investments, stock portfolios etc? Seems like you just made this one up and it isn't actually a thing.

>>397795
The actual definition of "wealth" in the economic sense and not its pop usage is income + assets minus debt.

Many multimillionaires and billionaires have either long term or temporarily more debt than they do income and assets (ie property, stockmarket shares/bonds, physical assets) often for long periods of time, so while these people may live in mansions, have private jets and access to enormous amounts of spending money they technically have negative wealth.

In fact, the ability to have negative wealth is a sign of a "privileged" class background as the majority of proles globally do not have access to financial services or banks, money borrowing which does occur often exists on an informal or non-legally binding basis from richer members of the community/family and is not calculable for that reason.

So ie, a New Dehli bigger or landless peasant in Peru might literally own the clothes on their back, but even without valueing them having net 0 wealth renders them far wealthier than a billionaire with -100 million $USD wealth.

If it sounds fucky and dishonest, that's because it is. Almost all statistics and official figures on economics coming out of bourgeois states are similarly fucky, ie inflation, PPP calculations, poverty reduction rates, unemployment, etc.

As to why oxfam & others lie this way, it's because intentionally misrepresented & fudged stats and intentionally misleading graphis like this create catchy headlines which lead to both more donations and also government funding for them and similar NGO's.

>>397708
Does it factor domestic peace or just conflict as >>397717 said? If so then ofc Haiti would be higher than the Failed States of America since they aren't busy provoking ww3 right now

>>397708
You're getting the Congos twisted anon. That's "Congo-Brazzaville" which was a ML state in the Cold War, the other is the more infamous DR Congo, formerly Zaire.

>>397708
I don't think that's what that metric is measuring. It's probably mostly America's overseas wars.

>>397728
How common are said molestations? I don't think that your link says anything about them.

>>397775
>I don't doubt this, it's pretty clear that based on mass shootings alone the United States is an extremely violent country, and when factoring in small scale violence and domestic abuse, etc, the United States is a uniquely brutal state.
Only a tiny portion of Americans die in mass shootings. Most gun deaths are in smaller scale acts of violence, particularly suicide. Additionally, America is around the middle of the pack in regards to homicide rates, ranking 93/229 countries and territories.