Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue • Hacker News Board

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#391

Post by InitialLastName » Tue, Apr 04, 2017, 10:04 PM UTC

sathackr wrote: post #319

lliiffee wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're making the argument that with more guns, countries tend to have fewer gun deaths per gun. This makes sense, casually. However, I doubt that anyone cares about the number of gun murders per gun, but rather the total number of gun murders, which is (please correct me if wrong) still correlated with more guns. Also, I see that you've focused the discussion on gun murders, which is fine, but we should note…

Does it matter what weapon the murder/suicide was committed with? Yes, fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths -- but does it mean fewer deaths in general? If fewer people own Honda Civics, then fewer people will die in Honda Civic accidents. But that dip in Honda Civic deaths would likely be absorbed into deaths by all other car models, such that the overall death rate remains the same.

Suicide is one of those clubs where we, as a society, probably have an ethical compulsion to increase the barrier to entry.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#392

Post by code_duck » Tue, Apr 04, 2017, 10:13 PM UTC

scott_karana wrote: post #195

jtmcmc wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

legalizing drugs would cause the collapse of the cartels and help to end this violence.

It would likely end violence, but why can't these highly-organized, powerful cartels simply pivot into dealing wholesale, once legal?

They'd be competing with alcohol and pharmaceutical companies, who could easily arrange supply and wholesale distribution, and have the advantage navigating political and regulatory issues in a legal way. The paramilitary aspect of cartels would become obsolete, or perhaps be focused elsewhere? Like many people in the black market for cannabis in the US, ranging from growers to judges, they probably see legalization as a disruption that is not welcome since the current system is working well for them.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#393

Post by mattmanser » Tue, Apr 04, 2017, 10:31 PM UTC

mter wrote: post #363

mattmanser wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not make you feel better, but Holland's gun death per 100,000 is in the 0.5's compared to the U.S.'s 10's and Mexico's 10's. You're 20 times more likely to get killed by a gun in the US or Mexico. Note that in the whole of Holland there are 50 gun homicides per year, so you were actually pretty unlucky to experience that. Your experience is exceptional and not a common occurrence, especially as I assume most…

> You're 20 times more likely to get killed by a gun in the US This is very misleading because this audience is primarily middle class/rich white/asians employed in the tech industry. There are 2 primary factors in homicide rates. Be poor or be a certain race. If you are not either of those things, your chances of being murdered in the US is very low. *edit 3 factors -- men. Women don't get murdered often.

How is it misleading? Are all Holland's gun killings well-heeled white techies? Why wouldn't those same factors apply in Holland? I haven't looked at stats but I'd take an educated guess that the economic/ethnic divides also apply in Holland.

You've also made the same mistake as another commentator (I admit I wasn't clear), my first figures are total gun deaths, including self-harm. A significant percentage of those deaths are white men killing themselves with guns. As I understand it, a figure that only partially translates into other forms of suicides in countries or states with better gun control (basically, less guns = less suicides, other methods need more preparation and so are caught in time or fail). A brief google seems to support that:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

Proportionally speaking, the factors probably hold, the cold, hard, truth is that as a white techie you're still much more likely to die by a gun in America or Mexico than in Holland.

Your own state department warns about Mexico:

U.S. citizens have been the victims of violent crimes, including homicide, kidnapping, carjacking, and robbery in various Mexican states

You can search for US citizen deaths in foreign countries:

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/statistics/deaths...

I see 75 homicides of US citizens in Mexico last year. It doesn't list guns or not guns.

I tried Holland, the UK, Germany, Spain no homicides of US citizens. 2 people killed in Italy, 3 in France (Nice terrorist attack).

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#394

Post by digitalmaster » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 12:42 AM UTC

Banthum wrote: post #3

digitalmaster wrote: post #2

This is why real journalist need to be protected regardless where you stand on the issues. It's a pillar of democracy for a very important reason.

Agreed, but let's make that even more general. No need to limit that to "real journalists", since then you're just asking for people to build an ivory tower and use it as a power base for control of "non-real" "journalists". Everyone needs to be free to speak their minds. Freedom of speech is for everyone.

I agree. The only reason I say "real" is to make the distinction between publicly stated opinions, feelings, tweets etc. and journalism. Journalism is really the painstaking gathering of information (usually from multiple sources) for every story you write. Among many other things it's also necessary to make clear distinctions between the facts of the evidence and a particular journalists conclusions/opinions reached based on this evidence.

And yes you are correct in saying that this should in no way should prevent or limit people from speaking their minds and stating their opinions publicly.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#395

Post by digitalmaster » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 12:51 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #17

caiob wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. And "Freedom of Speech" is a broad term, with a wide variety of implications. Freedom of speech also means being able to channel ideas that aren't as popular and most of the mainstream media may not agree with. People should be able to express those ideas as well.

> People should be able to express those ideas as well No. There is no place in the world for antisemitism, homophobia or other right-extremist views. These "opinions" are direct threats to people. And when the state, as it often does, fails to protect the marginalized, then in my opinion nearly anything is acceptable to stop these "opinions" from being expressed. We in Germany already have seen what happens when you…

Agreed. But I think that the way you combat negative harmful speech is with more speech.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#396

Post by dredmorbius » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 12:56 AM UTC

gozur88 wrote: post #349

dredmorbius wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of the world does. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/03/29/felony...

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with that link.

That fraud committed under cover of "news", "journalism", or other forms of reporting, remains fraud.

Here committed by a "citizen journalist", interpreting the term very broadly.

There's the Infowars / Alex (nutjob) Jones / Pizzagate case as well, where, under threat of a lawsuit, Jones has tried to walk back earlier reporting.

(There's another Alex S. Jones, a serious journalist, associated with the Shorenstein Center. Who I strongly suspect curses his, or Nutjob's, parents, on a fairly regular basis. One of the rather more pronounced, ironic, and tragic cases of identity confusion.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(journalist)

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#397

Post by 6stringmerc » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 12:56 AM UTC

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #330

6stringmerc wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BDN is a use at your own risk site. I far prefer www.borderlandbeat.com Very committed group working with material to translate into English to spread knowledge about the goings on in the large scope of the country. Many different regions / players. Just a suggestion.

> BDN is a use at your own risk site. I'm curious, what risk(s) do you mean? If you mean NSFW and disturbing violence, you're right, and I apologize to anyone who didn't get that - I assumed given the topic it would be self evident. Also I second your endorsement of Borderland Beat, that's what I actually read as a non-Spanish speaker.

From what I'd seen posted on the Borderland Beat forums on a semi-regular basis BDN gets injection type viruses. They're a target in that regard because of their site having vulnerabilities.

That's the main concern of why I don't visit, but in a secondary category is I've seen several instances where the Borderland Beat crew fact-check and note that BDN has recycled old material / videos under the guise of new information. I don't see that as helpful so I keep that under advisement.

Might not be a surprise but Breitbart apparently is staffing a Cartel / Mexico Crime crew to a decent extent and I have given them a look here and there. Viable sources are viable, and that's a dangerous as all get out sector to be in, so if they can get facts reported, I'll check them out / cross-reference with Borderland Beat.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#398

Post by digitalmaster » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 1:05 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #10

digitalmaster wrote: post #2

This is why real journalist need to be protected regardless where you stand on the issues. It's a pillar of democracy for a very important reason.

One wonders how many "real journalists" in USA will see this sad event as an occasion to bask in the reflected glory of those who really have spoken truth to power, and how many will instead call out the actual reason that gangsters have power: USA's foolish and evil drug prohibition.

Yup.. the social and economic cost of this futile war is insane.. This talk really helped me realize how wrong we've been about this issue: https://www.ted.com/talks/ethan_nadelmann_why_we_need_to_end...

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#399

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 1:28 AM UTC

hwillis wrote: post #237

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to just drop a kid down so they become a citizen, it is a hundred times easier to do it on a travel visa and it always will be. Regardless of how many state green cards there are, it will always be orders of magnitude easier to get a travel visa, hop on a plane, and stay under the radar for a couple months. That requires that you can afford to buy a plane ticket and then spend nine months not working wh…

>That requires that you can afford to buy a plane ticket and then spend nine months not working while paying US cost of living and pregnancy-related medical expenses out of pocket, which puts it out of reach for most people in the world. Uh... It requires literally none of those things. You can get into the US on a car, train, boat, bicycle or a good pair of chanclas. You certainly don't need to be here nine months t…

> You can get into the US on a car, train, boat, bicycle or a good pair of chanclas.

What does it buy you to trade one expensive ticket for another? I don't think you're seriously suggesting that walking here from even Central America is not a large impediment, to say nothing of the unconnected continents where the large majority of people actually live.

> You certainly don't need to be here nine months to have a kid.

The alternative is to get a travel visa when you're already pregnant, in which case the government can observe what you're attempting to do and deny the visa.

> You can certainly find work in that time

Working on a travel visa is illegal, therefore harder to do and lower paying.

> and emergency medical care is "free"

That implies going through a pregnancy with no access to non-emergency medical care (e.g. ultrasound), risking the life of the child.

> And while yes, it means more people, those people are a far cry from new immigrants and their numbers can still be limited federally.

Either you're increasing the number of unskilled immigrants or you aren't.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#400

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 1:53 AM UTC

hwillis wrote: post #374

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to just drop a kid down so they become a citizen, it is a hundred times easier to do it on a travel visa and it always will be. Regardless of how many state green cards there are, it will always be orders of magnitude easier to get a travel visa, hop on a plane, and stay under the radar for a couple months. That requires that you can afford to buy a plane ticket and then spend nine months not working wh…

>Take away the federal money and the states won't be able to afford it. Or won't want to pay it. The problem isn't social security, it's schools and healthcare. >And it's not like you can just leave children to grow up without schools or let infections go untreated. Having actually looked it up, federal funding is only 13% of public education ie it would be absolutely trivial to require states to fund state green car…

> Having actually looked it up, federal funding is only 13% of public education ie it would be absolutely trivial to require states to fund state green card immigrants.

You're forgetting that the federal money goes disproportionately to schools in poorer areas, i.e. exactly the schools in question and the ones who can't afford to lose the money.

> Likewise emergency healthcare isn't federally subsidized.

Well that's the other problem, isn't it? It is subsidized but the subsidies are indirect. Every time someone goes to the emergency room without paying, the price goes up for ACA-subsidized private insurance and Medicare.

And the same for the lack of non-emergency coverage resulting in people running around without vaccinations and carrying untreated contagious infections.

The only real fix would be for the state to pay for all the immigrants' healthcare.

> Plus, it's highly unlikely that allowing this program would actually even increase the number of immigrants we have, just make the illegal ones legal.

It can't not. The program makes it easier to be an unskilled immigrant. Supply and demand says if you lower the cost the quantity will increase.

If you set a quota at the current number then you aren't actually solving the problem, because more will come hoping to get one of the slots and then you have more people than slots. If you set no quota then the number goes up even more.