Posts by Joshua Garcia12

velvetcyclist95 said:No matter how this plays out, NATO needs to be actively working to undermine the Russian Federation and get Putin's regime replaced.

Oh, really?

You mean more "exporting democracy" via the US style? And in Russia, of all places?

That sounds like some pure fantasy to me. 🤣

Ashley Hernandez15 said:The cowboy era has officially begun.
https://twitter.com/Caucasuswar/stat...xDZQwDT8w&s=19

I’m lost. What am I even looking at here?

Are those Ukrainian soldiers?
And who are the guys fleeing in the car?

Rachel Allen55 said:The Italians themselves came out and said those 20,000 deaths in 2003 were directly linked to the heatwave. So yeah, I'm sticking with those figures.

The fact that Italy and its healthcare system haven't been top-tier for ages isn't news. You could list a ton of things where the healthcare system in that country has just been buckling at the seams, even without this mess. That doesn't mean the doctors are to blame or that they aren't trying. Not at all—honestly, I think they’re giving it everything they've got. But the Italian government is the real issue there, not just this one, but plenty of them before it. And obviously, that's a whole different conversation. But you can't separate the two. That's just how countries work. Doctors don't make the calls on money and laws; politicians do.

Another thing a lot of medical scientists have started pointing out is that the Mediterranean diet—especially the Italian version—doesn't exactly play nice with human immunity. The truth is, while people live a bit longer because of that light eating, they're also super sensitive to even the tiniest changes or attacks. How much attention you pay to that is a fair question. But look, Italy is famous for having huge numbers of people die from the regular seasonal flu every year, mostly the elderly. We're talking up to 68,000 deaths linked to seasonal flu, which is roughly 186 cases a day. That puts Italy way above other countries in Europe. In Denmark, they see maybe 1,400 deaths a year from seasonal flu, which is 0.0002% of the population. In Italy, it's 0.001%. For a place like Denmark in the far north to almost hit the massive numbers Italy sees relative to its population, they'd need about 5,700 cases a year.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01971219303285

What's the reasoning behind throwing those numbers out there?
What's the point of everything you just wrote?
Is there actually any conclusion we can draw from all this?

Michael Morgan5 said:The kid is five.
He already knows how to add and subtract up to twenty.
Times have changed, and those old Mickey's comics aren't being printed anymore. Besides, following Pupovac's political agenda isn't exactly a compelling enough reason to waste anyone's time learning Cyrillic today.

We don't even need Italian.
It’s not really about whether we actually *need* it or not. Minority language laws and all that stuff... they aren't designed for the majority, anyway.

Richard Wilson4 said:Norway isn't even in the EU.
Is every single one of those countries you just listed actually offering bilingual options based on specific minority percentages?

Who's giving anything to Malta?

And who does France give it to?

Ireland actually does, but they treat their own native tongue as the minority language.

Everything is laid out in the links I provided.

Every culturally driven nation does this. Personally, I think we should be following the lead of other cultural nations. As far as the law goes, we follow the formalities, but in practice, we don't really enforce it in places like Pittsburgh where about a third of the population is Mexican. I can totally get why the Mexicans want bilingualism, and I also get why the Americans in Pittsburgh find it annoying.
But honestly, it’s just gross how politicians score points over this. Just by changing their rhetoric, politicians could actually improve how Mexicans and Americans live together in Pittsburgh. The war ended thirty years ago. It's probably time to just move on.

Richard Wilson4 said:Most? Like which ones? Greece, France, Denmark?

The EU itself doesn't care. Some member states do.
But the EU? Not really.

When someone hit up the European Commission about bilingualism issues, they basically said it’s an internal matter for America.

Whether we drop the threshold to 5% or hike it up to 95%, they aren't going to step in.

Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Malta, Romania, Cyprus, America, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands...

Richard Wilson4 said:Most? Like which ones? Greece, France, Denmark?

The EU itself doesn't care. Some member states do.
But the EU? Not really.

When someone hit up the European Commission about bilingualism issues, they basically said it’s an internal matter for America.

Whether we drop the threshold to 5% or hike it up to 95%, they aren't going to step in.

It’s actually a pretty big deal for the European Union. I mean, if you want to get in the door, you basically have to ratify that convention regarding minority rights and their languages. It's one of those mandatory hoops you have to jump through to join the club.
I was just falling down a rabbit hole reading about all the different official languages used across the continent, and man, it really makes you realize how messy and complicated things are over there. It’s wild to think about how much identity is tied up in these specific tongues, especially when you consider how the political boundaries in the US don't really force that kind of linguistic fragmentation on us. I guess what I'm getting at is that while we mostly just deal with English and a healthy amount of Spanish, the sheer variety of official mandates in other places is almost overwhelming. You have these massive blocks of territory where everyone speaks one thing, and then you have these tiny little pockets where a single language defines everything. It's a bit of a headache if you're trying to look at it from a logistical standpoint, I suppose. Maybe it's just more interesting than our way of doing things, though. I don't know. Just something that's been rattling around in my head today.
I was reading through this deep dive on how different countries handle minority rights, and honestly, it’s enough to give anyone a headache. It’s one of those topics that sounds straightforward on paper—just protect everyone, right?—but once you get into the legal weeds, it becomes an absolute mess of bureaucracy and conflicting interests. The whole concept of "framework conventions" basically tries to set a gold standard for how governments should treat their minority groups, but even then, implementation is hit or miss depending on where you are. I guess it really comes down to whether a government actually wants to play ball or if they're just checking boxes to look good on the international stage. It makes me wonder if there's ever a version of this that actually works without constant litigation or political friction. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but looking at how much red tape is involved in protecting basic cultural identities, it feels like a losing battle most of the time. It's just a lot of lofty ideals bumping up against messy, real-world politics.
Looking through these lists of international treaties and legal agreements, I can't help but feel a bit exhausted. It’s just one massive, sprawling web of paperwork that seems designed to make anyone feel small. I was scrolling through the sections related to the US, and honestly, it’s a lot to process. The sheer volume of things like the Geneva Conventions or various UN-backed protocols makes you realize how much of our global existence is actually dictated by fine print written by people in suits sitting in offices in D.C. or Geneva. It’s all very formal, very heavy, and—if I’m being honest—kind of overwhelming. I guess it’s easy to get lost in the minutiae of which treaty covers what specific type of maritime law or human rights standard, but when you step back, it feels like we're just trying to build a giant safety net out of paper. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but it sure is complicated. It really makes you wonder if any of this actually changes anything on the ground, or if it's just a way for governments to feel like they have everything under control. I don't know. It's probably just my cynicism talking.
At the end of the day, I guess the European Union—or even the international community as a whole—can't just waltz in and start meddling with domestic issues that stem from treaties the US has already officially ratified. It’s complicated, maybe, but once those agreements are signed and sealed, there's a certain limit to how much outside interference is actually allowed.
There’s a whole string of instances where America just refuses to follow through on international treaties it actually signed. It’s one of those situations where the global community basically stands around with their hands tied, unable to do a damn thing about it. I guess it’s just how things work sometimes.
Mainly, we're talking about environmental protection conventions here. But then again, you see cases like this popping up regarding minority rights, too. I guess it all ties back together somehow.

Richard Wilson4 said:Most? Like which ones? Greece, France, Denmark?

The EU itself doesn't care. Some member states do.
But the EU? Not really.

When someone hit up the European Commission about bilingualism issues, they basically said it’s an internal matter for America.

Whether we drop the threshold to 5% or hike it up to 95%, they aren't going to step in.

Once a treaty is ratified and baked right into the legal system—or in this case, the Constitution—it’s supposed to be set in stone. But looking at how things work, it feels like they can choose to enforce them or just... not. It’s like the rules only apply when it’s convenient. I guess the European Union has decided to just leave our local folks alone for now. Maybe they realized it wasn't worth the headache.

Richard Wilson4 said:The bilingualism concept isn't even a big deal in most EU countries. It wasn't some requirement for joining the EU, and the European Commission couldn't care less about whether we have it or not.
We basically just decided to do it ourselves back in 2002, and both major political parties were totally on board.

As for those signs? Who cares. They can put whatever they want on them.

The way you're framing this makes it sound like the European Union doesn't care about bilingualism at all.

But actually, bilingualism exists throughout most EU countries. And in many of them, the threshold for minority populations to trigger bilingual requirements is as high as 10%.

I don't know, I guess Brooks just seems like he's totally out of it. Such a shame, really.