You must log in or register to comment.
The country claiming to have the most “freedom” of any country has the highest incarceration rate of any country.
Not so fun fact: the constitution allows for slavery as long as it’s a punishment for a crime.
Hmmm… Nah, those dots don’t connect at all.
And many plantations converted to prisons that are still in operation to this day.
And many states can’t reduce their prison populations because then they’d lose free labor.
And some states use prison labor to staff the governor’s mansion with butlers.
Here in California, prisoners are employed to fight wildfires.
Until very recently, former prisoners were not allowed to be employed as firefighters when they got out. That was corrected by Newsom in 2020.
Man, I fucking love that guy and what he’s been doing. Him and my governor, as well as the governor of Michigan have been having a pissing contest to see who can be the best governor, and we’re all winning.
Go read about the nightmare this Angola prison in Louisiana.
It’s even worse. The original US Constitution does not prohibit slavery. It wasn’t until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed seventy years later - after a Civil War tore apart the country - that slavery was abolished. With the express exception of punishment for a crime. No qualifications for the severity of the crime. And that exception gets frequent use to this day in the penal system
The original US Constitution is explicitly pro-slavery. Not only does it explicitly require non-slaveholding states to return fugitive slaves to their oppressors, but it has multiple mechanisms intended to ensure the dominance of slave states in the federal government.
The Constitution was never a unified idealist vision of liberty. It was a grungy political compromise between factions that did not agree on what the country should be. These included New England Puritans (religious cultists; but abolitionist), New York Dutch bankers (who wanted the money back they’d loaned to the states), Southern planters (patriarchal rapist tyrants), and Mid-Atlantic Quakers (pacifists willing to hold their noses and make peace with the Puritans and planters).
Not only does it explicitly require non-slaveholding states to return fugitive slaves to their oppressors
The Fugitive Slave Law wasn’t part of the Constitution.
but it has multiple mechanisms intended to ensure the dominance of slave states in the federal government.
Again, not part of the Constitution. Those were the various compromises that the South kept getting pissy about foreseeing the end of Slavery, so they kept threatening rebellion.
If anyone tries to tell you the civil war was about states rights, not slavery… These are pretty obviously about slavery. But if they don’t believe that, just let them read the Southern States Declarations of Secession. They say what the civil war’s about in their own words.
The Fugitive Slave Law wasn’t part of the Constitution.
The Fugitive Slave Clause, which authorized it, certainly is though!
There’s a great documentary called 13th about this and racial inequality in America
Not even just the highest rate. The highest number of incarcerated people! Countries with over 1b people still have fewer prisoners, total.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country
This is actually not true any longer, El Salvador now has the highest incarceration rate
The Star-spangled Banner (where the phrase “Land of the Free” comes from) was written in 1814, 51 years before slavery was abolished. The idea that America is or ever was the land of the free is a total joke.
The third verse of “The Star-Spangled Banner” is not typically sung today. It refers to “the hireling and slave” among the foes of the Republic. “The hireling” refers to the mercenaries employed by the British crown in fighting the American revolutionaries. It is unclear whether “slave” is intended to derogate all British subjects as “slaves” of the crown, or if it specifically refers to enslaved Africans who were offered their freedom by the British if they fought against the revolution.
That’s what Lincoln said! America’s enemies point to slavery and use it to call the ideals of liberty lies.
… and built its initial wealth on slavery revenue.
It’s a shame because there are a lot of other great things to be proud about when it comes to the US. I guess when people boast about US freedom, what they mean is democracy, and starting the end of the colonial era, inspiring a tidal wave of democratic uprisings around the world, which is accurate. I wish they didn’t use the word “freedom” for that.
That’s sounds 100% right and is 100% right
Yeah, of all the words that can follow the legaly declared prohibition of slavery, except might be one of the dumbest you can pick…
Many companies are making profits off of this. So many states have for profit prison systems and will get fined of they don’t have enough people in those prisons. That is above the free labor most people have talked about.
Oh, I have two good ones:
-
Nuclear power causes less deaths (per energy unit produced) than wind (source)
-
You get less radiation when living near a nuclear power plant, than if that nuclear plant hadn’t been there.
To explain the second: A major misconception is, that nuclear power plants are dangerous due to their radiation. No they aren’t. The effect of radiation from the rocks in the ground and the surroundings is on average 50x more than what you get from the nuclear power plant and it’s fuel cells. (source). Our body is very well capable of dealing with the constant background radiation all the time (e.g. DNA repairs). Near a power plant, the massive amounts of isolation and concrete will inhibit any background radiation coming from rocks from that direction to you. This means, that you’ll actually get slightly less radiation, because the nuclear plant is there.
Regarding the dangers of nuclear disasters. To this day, it’s been very hard to find out, if at all any people have even died to Fukushima radiation (ans not other sources such as tsunami/earthquake/etc.) Nuclear radiation causes much more problems by being an emotionally triggering viral meme spreading between people and hindering it’s productive use and by distracting from the ironic fact, that the coal burned in coal power plants spew much more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants themselves. (source)
To this day, it’s been very hard to find out, if at all any people have even died to Fukushima radiation (ans not other sources such as tsunami/earthquake/etc.)
Truly no offense, but this is sort of burying the lede on Nuclear Power risks. Mathmatically coal releases more radiation - no question. It’s also hard to pin down how many died due to Fukushima for ver good reasons: Correlation might be easy, but determining cause is ultra tough and no right-minded scientist would say it without overwhelming evidence (like they had something “hot” that fell on their roof and didn’t know it for a long time). Also? They aren’t dead yet. So we look to statistical life span models crossing multiple factors (proximity, time of exposure, contaminated environments and try to pin down cancer clusters attributable, and people can live for decades, etc…
The problem is that people rightly are concerned that in both Fukushima and Chernobyl (and 3 Mile for that matter) unforseen circumstances could have been catastrophically worse. You blow up a coal plant? You expose a region locally to it and it’s probably “meh”. You blow up a nuclear plant, and you get melt down corium hitting ground water or sea water with direct exposure to fissioning material and all the sudden you have entire nations at risk for subsequent spewing of hot material that will contaminate food supplies, water resevoirs, and linger on surfaces and be pulled into our lungs once it’s in the dirt. Radioactive matieral is FAR more dangerous inside the body when you eat plants and animals that are exposed and pull it from the ground. Even cleaning down every surface, eventually you’ll get some of it airborn to be breathed into our lungs again with wind storms, flooding and other natural erosion. The consequences are exponentially higher with Nuclear accidents and ignoring that is whitewashing. And that’s not even getting into contamination from fuel enrichment, cooling ponds/pools leaking water, or the fact that it will take 30-40 years to clean up Fukushima (and they aren’t sure how exactly that will happen and there could be another tsunami). Probably hundreds to try to clean up and contain Chernobyl - and given the current state of affairs we may find out even worse.
BTW, I’m pro-nuclear. Thorium salts seem a good way to go and we probably would already have these if not for the nuclear arms race making nations hungry for plutonium. Please don’t short sell everyone’s intelligence because you can claim “only” a handful of people died due to Fukushima. Direct death is only one facet. Lives were disrupted (and displaced) and for a while there, the impacts spread to the US across the Pacific and there were discussions of evacuating like 1/3 of Japan’s population outside an exclusion zone. You can be pro nuclear while still acknowledging that some fears are real and well founded, and unfortunately the industry has proven gaps in safety that make it harder and harder to argue when we have Solar and Wind and rapidly ramping power storage. Nuclear is likely to simply be outcompeted over time (just like Coal and NG).
Iv read about Thorium the last 3-4 years and it seems so promising. Im really disapointed that the push is not greater as it would make everything a lot more safe.
Additional fun fact. There has been a lot of research and activity dedicated to potentially switch coal power plants to nuclear. Currently, they cannot do it, because the coal plants and all the equipment associated produces far more radiation than regulations allow a nuclear plant to emit.
Therefore, unless they could find a practical way to decontaminate the radiation away from existing coal equipment, or regulations change for transformed plants, they can’t do it.
Did you know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s only mandate is to ensure the safety of nuclear power, not to promote its implementation. Many regulatory bodies have a dual mandate to stop them from just shutting down what they’re supposed to regulate.
Can’t be unsafe if it doesn’t exist lol
What are you trying to say by linking this article?
I mean, it even says that it was a mechanical issue - and the radiation danger was low. And even then, it’s just a single person. Looking at the bigger picture, the numbers game favors nuclear+wind+solar over fossile.
Just found it coincidental that today someone died from radiation at a nuclear power plant. It does not happen that often.
Nuclear power is actually the cleanest way to produce energy. The waste from replacing solar panels and windmills (which have a service life only three to five years) is actually more of a problem than the waste from spent fuel rods. Plus environmental impacts from fuel rod production are less than solar panel and windmill production. The problem with nuclear energy happens when things go wrong. It would have to be absolutely accident free. It never has been and never will be.
Though they’re on the right track with nuclear power. Fusion would be ideal, runs on seawater (fuses deuterium/tritium) and if there’s a problem you simply shut off the fuel. Problem is insurmountable engineering issues, we just don’t have tech for it yet (need anti-gravity). They’ve been working on it for many decades and progress has been painfully slow.
-
A day on Venus is longer than a year on Venus.
If you start to think about how these lengths of time are defined it becomes clearer.
1 day = time to rotate on it’s axis once 1 year = time to complete a full rotation around the sun
For Earth, it takes us ~24hrs to rotate on our axis and 365.25 days to orbit the sun.
However, because Venus’ axial rotation is so slow (and another interesting fact, it rotates in the opposite direction to other planets) it actually completes a full orbit of the sun before 1 axial rotation.
Hence, a year is shorter than a day
For those interested:
1 Venus day = 243 earth days 1 Venus year = 225 earth days
Colloquially, most people use “day” to mean how long it takes the sun to get to the same place in the sky. Solar day vs sidereal day, the difference is only about 4 minutes on Earth, but can be much greater elsewhere. Venus’ solar day is about 117 Earth days, so you would see a couple sunrises/sunsets each Venusian year.
Wow! That’s another thing I learned from QI recently. Great fact though, and nice to see it mentioned here 🙂
Really interesting.
This is the most interesting one I’ve read so far.
The closest planet to Earth is Mercury.
On average that is. Mercury is actually the closest planet to every other planet in average. Because when it’s on the other side of the Sun, it’s still pretty close.
Wow, you’re absolutely correct!
The average distance from Earth to Mercury is about 1.04 astronomical units (au), which is the average distance between Earth and the Sun.
In comparison, the average distance between Earth and Venus is approximately 1.14 au, while the average distance between Earth and Mars is around 1.7 au.
You can check that in Wolfram Alpha.
I learned this from QI recently. Great piece of trivia!
deleted by creator
Cleopatra was born closer to the invention of cellphones than the building of the pyramids
We live closer in time to the T-Rex than the T-Rex to the stegosaurus. Which makes the land before time a fictional story not based on true events.
Also the T in T-shirt stands for tyrannosaurus because it has short arms, just like the T-Rex.
Where did you get that the T stands for Tyrannosaurus? 😂
It looks like a T, that’s why it’s called T shirt, imo, no source either.
I always love this one, just it sounds so crazy
General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil, and Phillips Petroleum were convicted of an actual conspiracy related to the monopolization of transit systems, which replaced beloved streetcar (rail) systems with rubber-tired oil-burning buses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Isn’t this Judge Doom’s plan?
Wasn’t this the plot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
The northern most part of Brazil is closer to Canada than it is to the southern most part of Brazil.
What is this sorcery?
All the planets in the solar system can fit in the space between the Earth and the Moon
But putting them there is almost definitely a bad idea.
this is actually a misconception! the gravity of the planets combined would cause them all to crash into each other!
deleted by creator
Maine is the closest US state to Africa.
Is that really true haha
I once read a blog from a sailing group that pointed out that there is possible sea route where you could sail from Halifax, Nova Scotia in a straight line and end up in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Every Rubik’s Cube, no matter how scrambled, can be solved in at most 20 rotations.
I don’t think this is true for all of them. My cube takes at least a couple hundred rotations and then you have to take the stickers off and move them around to solve it.
Consider: Hammer.
nooooo dont peel the stickers
take it apart
rotates a corner piece
The can opener was invented 30 years after the can.
Well, wouldn’t it be weird if it was the other way around?
“Yooo, check this out, I made a new invention, it’s called a can opener!”
What does it do?
“idk”I mean i can invent a time machine opener right now.
deleted by creator
The elevator shaft was invented before the elevator. Tom Scott made a video about that
Surely you understand that the remarkable part is the duration between the inventions, not the chronological order.
Crazy amount of not understanding jokes in this thread.
Air is a fluid.
I was about to argue with you but the dictionary says you are right.
Take my upvote.
In english generally we see liquids to be the same as fluids but technically liquids are a state and fluids are matter that flows. Similarly we will see accuracy and precision as the same thing but accuracy is within a range where precision is exact.
As an example: Strawberries and raspberries aren’t even berries but pumpkins are botanically speaking. I would be accurate to regard strawberries and raspberries as berries as we use them as berries but I would not be precise.
Names not fitting botanical definitions are due to the names being given before we (people) knew what we were talking about. DNA kind of came and shook things up, well even before that but what ever.
Also pineapples are neither apples nor grow on pine trees. And in many European languages the word for orange mean apple from China. Example appelsin, where sin in this case comes frome Sina or China
They’re not berries because of DNA advancements but because they’re from a single flower with more than one ovary. This is stuff we’ve known for far longer than DNA but generally people were… well… illiterate and the language operates on what you’re exposed to. Hell, even today people will call something a “digital” copy to talk about it being virtual but DVDs, CDs, and BluRays are all digital copies as they are all written digitally. But people are generally not concerned with this, they only care what was meant. If at a hospital someone starts yelling to get someone fluids and you show up with some compressed air, you’ll be seen as an asshole.
Hell, bananas and avocados are technically berries.
According to any hydrodynamics code, so are solids.
99.99% of population have more arms than average value.
What about the legs? What happened to the legs?
how
The USA is not a true democracy in the academic sense of the word.
A democratic republic more specifically
That’s virtually meaningless. A “republic” is virtually any country that doesn’t have a monarchy or dictator.
So drawing a distinction between a “democracy” and a “democratic republic” in this manner is a waste of time. There plenty of democratic monarchies, which are equally democracies, too.
There has never been a true democracy anywhere and anytime in history, even today.
Every democratic government in existence currently today is severely affected or influenced by monied, corporate, aristocratic, hereditary or powerful interests to some degree. Some countries manage it better than others but all of them fall short of a true democracy … a system that is controlled by the people and benefits everyone equally.
Could you elaborate?
The President isn’t elected by majority rule is the first thing that comes to mind.
And it was never designed to be. It was always meant to be a republic.
We first were a confederation. Were your idea of a true democracy was more or less in place. The revolutionary war was won in 1783. The constitution wasn’t ratified till 1789, and the bill of rights written until 1793. Before that the US had almost no central government, and each state was independent from one another. Had their own currency, banking system, laws, and military.
States still have a lot of that same autonomy today, but there was no central government tying them together. If the US went to war and a state didn’t want to go, they wouldn’t. A little more complex than that, but generally that’s what it amounted to.
Having this type of system created a bunch of problems and came to a head when Shay’s Rebellion happened. I won’t go into depth about it, but mainly confederated Massachusetts couldn’t fight off the rebels attempting to take over the state. Since the US was a confederation there was no central government the state couldnt call on for help, and all the other states more or less said ‘meh sucks for you’.
This incident lead to the Constitutional Convention that wrote the document we still uphold today, and bringing in more of a centralized Federal Republic, and not a decentralized confederated one.
My ranty point is, we tried the whole true democracy thing and it failed. So we went to a Federal Republic, still very much democratic, but moved away from a true democracy.
“republic” is opposite to “monarchy”. It is unrelated to democracy or authoritarianism. Nazi Germany was a republic. France is a republic.
Your republic is flawed by design. Your founders didn’t trust democracy so they weakened it, the country hasn’t managed to improve the democracy since.
Australia is also a Federation, but a monarchy not a republic. Australia is quite a bit more democratic than America
Ok
Most people have more than the average number of legs.
The average person has one fallopian tube
"The average person has… " is very different from “People on average have…”.
I suspect you meant the second, but sometimes people truly mean the first.
The difference doesn’t matter until it very suddenly matters. 😉
I was actually quoting Bo Burnham, it’s a direct quote from his 2010 special Words Words Words
