zlacker

>>dtagam+(OP)
The fact that is even possible is insane. Imagine there being over 700 videos of pilots messing up in one month, 700 crane operator mishaps in a month, 700+ food poising by a chain in a month. The also imagine you believe there's no problem.

This is Ba Sing Se levels of delusion for some people.

>>DeonPe+ek
To be fair you are comparing an adversarial job with a cooperative one. A crane operator won't feel unsafe, or confronted by someone he calls hostile. This is no excuse whatsoever for the multitude of outraging problems in the system, but the comparison isn't straightforward.

>>devcpp+3n
So just compare It to police officers in other Western countries...

>>camill+Pt
There's a dead comment in reply to this. I disagree with it as strongly as anything I've seen on HN. I think it racist. I don't think it should be hidden. It highlights a mentality that needs to be known about and considered including any possible sensible response to it.

Also I've seen it before here not many year ago with comments like "can only compare US to Brazil not any Europen country"

To what extent do these, not uncommon - even here, sets of beliefs contribute to the problems of violence in policing? Not something that seems to me like a good idea to pretend does not exist or is minor or fringe.

>>harry8+IC
> Also I've seen it before here not many year ago with comments like "can only compare US to Brazil not any Europen country"

Can you explain why you feel that's terribly unfair? I don't know why somebody would pick Brazil specifically, but you might easily say "compare the US to countries with a similar income inequality". Take the gini coefficient for simplicity [1] and compare the US to Côte d'Ivoire, Argentina, Haiti, and Malaysia or Mexico, Madagascar, El Salvador, and Rwanda, depending on whether you take the CIA's numbers or the World Bank's. If you look at the list, you'll see that the European countries are closer together and in a different area of the list, the US isn't in their group.

Wouldn't that be a better indicator for "similar countries" than average internet speed or NATO membership status?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...

>>luckyl+NK
Nations also interact, muddying the “compare” waters further.

Where I live, we drive cars, but we don’t fight the overseas oil wars. We’ve outsourced all that brutality to the US. That lets us smugly reap the benefits and point fingers at Americans for the violent, backwards, gun-toting culture.

>>jpttsn+qR
I don't know that the US would need to have a violent society to be a military super power. China is on its way, and so far at least they seem to have managed to avoid that, so maybe those things are not related.

>>luckyl+9X
The point is that the study participants interact; it’s misleading to compare nations by the stat. The extent to which China is a military superpower interplays with other participants.

>>jpttsn+6Z
> The point is that the study participants interact; it’s misleading to compare nations by the stat.

So what though? Do European countries like the UK (that are usually with the US when it's time to bomb somebody in the Middle East) outsource their domestic violence?

Really, you need to provide some evidence for "we have less crime, less murders, less police violence because the US has more". "The US has more income inequality because it has to fight wars for the European countries" doesn't follow either, so please don't.

>>luckyl+E11
Yes, my belief is that 1) nations outsource violence to the superpower 2) the superpower’s military prowess comes at the cost of a warlike culture at home.

Your belief is (?) that the US aggregate violence/whatever is in no meaningful way confounded with the levels you measure in (say) EU nations: any confounding is small enough to make no difference?

We have a population of 200 (nations) of very diverse size and age, all related by historic and present competition and cooperation. Is there any fair shot at comparing apples to apples?

What sort of “evidence” would you reasonably concede to?