Saryn

I shouldn't have to explain it because it's common sense.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that if we were to change the focus of our comparison from apples and oranges (which is what comparing gun-related deaths in the US to heat-related deaths in European countries comes down to, not to mention the vast differences in data collection approaches across disciplines, countries, etc.) to another pair of equally uncomparable fruit but one that you are not so strongly predisposed to thinkinking a certain way about, you would have the same reaction as I. Chuckle a little bit.

Why, you might ask? For the simple reason that comparing apples to oranges doesn't make sense unless you've been predisposed for it to seem like it makes sense.

And no, this is obviously not a uniquely American issue (I wish it were but it's definitely universal for all of us chimps). It's just that this specific comparison, absurd as it is, has a uniquely American flavour because it's clearly meant to rationalize the exceptially high levels of gun violence in the US.

And yes, "exceptional" is definitely the right word to describe gun violence in the US. You start to appreciate just how exceptional when you compare US numbers to literally any other wealthy nation. Now we're comparing apples to apples and things start making a lot more sense, don't you think?

My friend, those stats don't mean what you want them to mean. The narrative you are trying to sell is frankly ridiculous and criminally stupid. And dare I say - American

Hope you get better soon!

Damn, sorry to hear that. Hope you get better soon!

Not unless what you wrote is code for "I'm an ignoramus and like to spout the brand of dogma I've based my identity on".

But it's not, is it?

You got it buddy! Being politically active and engaged with your community is how this works.

Pity for you and your poor soul

Some people obviously care. You obviously do.

Not my face, the other brown people's face!

You obviously didn't read or understand a thing I wrote. If you did, you wouldn't have simply doubledowned on the same fallacies and false assumptions.

But let's be real - this isn't about assessing what's true and what's not. Its about individual psychology and our desperate need for self-affirmation to build confidence. It's part of the reason why you'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over, regardless of evidence, regardless of substance, regardless of logic, ultimately abondoning any notion of intellectual honesty.

Once you adopt that whole mentality, you cannot be reasoned with on the rational level, which is why some compare it to a mild psychiatric disorder. And looking around what's been happening with communities around the world vis-a-vis the media they consume, it's easy to understand why. This usually occurs after about 5 to 10 years of consuming a certain type of content. I honestly hope you're not at that point. I always like giving people the benefit of the doubt. In this case, I basically kinda assume you're relatively young. Which is good, if that's the case.

Best of luck to you on your journey. Don't stop resisting the ego. Never stop resisting the ego. The most important fight is the one inside our head.

Edit: You're next message is going to completely ignore (and thus reject) any of what I said and probably contain quite a bit of ad hominem and doubling down.

There is nothing to be baffled by. You're just misrepresenting the argument.

It baffles me how you don't see the hypocrisy of both complaining about the US not joining WWII until they were directly attacked and also complaining about American hegemony today.

It's only baffling if you assume ab initio that the only possible kind of intervention is the imperialist, hegemonic one, and that that is the only way of describing the country's (or any other Allied country for that matter) entry into WW2. More generally, its only baffling if you assume that involvement naturally equates to "hegemony", and the behavior that implies, in the long-term. This viewpoint totally negates the normative side of the exercise of power which is why it has been all but abondoned by contemporary IR scholars, political scientists, sociologists, etc.

In short, you misrepresent (deliberately or otherwise) your opponent's argument by assuming that all exercise of power is "hegemonic", an assertion that is not grounded in reality. At this point, you should also be able to see the moral issues with some of what you said and the overall image you presented of the human condition. Classical geopolitical thinking is simply not valid and tends to reproduce highly unstable and dangerous systems by ignorant human who reify it into reality.

Can you articulate why, with what they knew in 1939, the US should have declared war

Sure (and you too should be able to - its real simple). It starts with an f and ends with a ascism. Though I'll give you that policy analysts at the USDOS at the time didn't see it in those terms. I'm also willing to bet they knew a lot more than you think you know but do let me know if you think I'm wrong.

That articulate enough for you?

Thank you - well explained.

It's also interesting to think of the stocks that the various oligarchs and politicians control or own as a backdoor for institutional capture. You want Trump on your side and his administration making decisions that benefit you and your companies? Easy - just buy some of his BS stock and use it as leverage. You won't even have to push it - he'll do what you want because that's how his underdeveloped brain perceives existence - as a series of quid pro quo agreements.

Of course, it's not just stocks. He's created so many other avenues to bribe him. It's bonkers.