I think this has much to do with how your suburbs are designed. All the one's I've lived in have had lots of trees and other greenery and always felt very pleasant to be in. But that's merely my experience and isn't likely to be universal.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Yes, I have a dataset for you too.
Rural-urban differences in depression prevalence: implications for family medicine - PubMed
The prevalence of depression is slightly but significantly higher in residents of rural areas compared to urban areas, possibly due to differing population characteristics.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I think there's a distinction that can come with organic development over time too. I live in the suburbs (of a small town, that itself is only about 15 minutes' drive from a small city) and the houses on the surrounding estates are all 1930s-1950s or so. And it's a nice place to live: generally well serviced with shops etc, near the coast and not far from the country if I want to stand in a field. Plenty of trees and a lived-in feel. I wouldn't characterise it as soulless (though maybe staid). But new-build estates of lego houses that are just built with uniform variation between them and no associated services (because profit margins) definitely have a soulless and depressing feel to them (but with time that will pass).
OTOH, new-builds are built to a much higher regulatory standard (i.e. they are warm), even if the actually building work itself is sometimes shit and the rooms are too small.
Yes, but did you read it? While it notes the difference as being statistically significant, it also acknowledges that the difference is minor. It's literally a difference between a rate of 5.2% and a rate of 6.1%.Yes, I have a dataset for you too.
Rural-urban differences in depression prevalence: implications for family medicine - PubMed
The prevalence of depression is slightly but significantly higher in residents of rural areas compared to urban areas, possibly due to differing population characteristics.
More to the point, it also made a point of saying that location was not a causative factor (which you seem to be implying is the takeaway), as evidenced by how controlling for characteristics known to be associated with depression caused the the difference in prevalence to disappear.
Per the paper itself: "Increased prevalence among rural persons did not appear to result from rural residence itself, however, since residence was not independently associated with depression once health and resource factors were held constant. Rather, people in rural areas were more likely to have characteristics that are strongly associated with depression, including poor health status, chronic disease, and poverty."
the least surprising revelations just keep unraveling.
article format for the (understandably) twitter averse
kutv.com
article format for the (understandably) twitter averse
Tim Ballard faces new allegations involving Latter-day Saint leader, Utah A.G Sean Reyes
New allegations were filed by several women against Tim Ballard and Operation Underground Railroad.According to court documents, the new accusations filed on Th
kutv.com
Yes, I did, unless you like nature, and hate diverse social encounters. Cities are better. Rural places don't have that many types of jobs, it's most likely farming, factory work, and maybe on occasion a headquarters of a single company. Plus hospitals are leaving them in droves.
The author shouldn't have omitted these. It's like saying well if systemic factors 1, 2, and 3 weren't here this place would be the good place. You are not getting Cleveland Clinic or Johns Hopkins-sized hospitals to go to the middle of nowhere.
I think a lot of the rural/suburban/urban debate boils down to a matter of expectation and perspective. I've experienced all three and I know people who've settled in all three, as well as people who hope to settle in either of the three. I'll admit that I live in a country where even the most rural residence will never be more than 30 minutes from an ER or more than 15 minutes from some sort of grocery store, so take this with a grain of salt.
The rural folks that I know makes the choice based on money and availability, and since travel for work is rarely more than 30 minutes it is acceptable. These people are also more independant and typically married.
As for the suburban folks those are also typically married, but they tend to enjoy easier acess to businesses and their places of work, but even so, socializing is fairly limited either in terms of scope or in terms of frequency.
The urban folks tend to be either single or child-free, and while they prefer work to be within biking or public transport distance the main feature that draws them to the urban lifestyle is the easy access to social events, I know of nobody living in our capital that doesn't attend at least one social event per week, whereas rural and suburban citizens, at most, do an event a month.
The rural folks that I know makes the choice based on money and availability, and since travel for work is rarely more than 30 minutes it is acceptable. These people are also more independant and typically married.
As for the suburban folks those are also typically married, but they tend to enjoy easier acess to businesses and their places of work, but even so, socializing is fairly limited either in terms of scope or in terms of frequency.
The urban folks tend to be either single or child-free, and while they prefer work to be within biking or public transport distance the main feature that draws them to the urban lifestyle is the easy access to social events, I know of nobody living in our capital that doesn't attend at least one social event per week, whereas rural and suburban citizens, at most, do an event a month.
You fucking republican dog shit liar.
Rural hospitals aren't "leaving" shit. They're being Walmart'ed and bought out by major health systems, downsized or shuttered when they (predictably) can't meet arbitrary profit goals, and (best-case) replaced with urgent care centers. This is the exact case behind the rural PCP shortage, too: private practices can't compete, have to join health systems, and then have to deal with profit goals.
Doesn't even have to be rural. I live in the Louisville suburban sprawl on the Indiana side of the river, and the closest hospital is five minutes' drive under typical traffic conditions. Three of those are waiting at a godforsaken hellpit of a stoplight that's the bane of my existence, because whomever controls the timing on stoplights in this town has to be dumbest human being on the face of the planet. In fact, that proximity was the biggest deciding factor on where I live, because my mother was a disabled, homebound elder with multiple chronic conditions.
Notice that "was" there? Yeah, that proximity meant exactly fuck-all when she collapsed three months ago, because that hospital's health system consolidated services, and it no longer performs open-heart surgery on campus. While there would have been a reasonable chance of her surviving surgery, the complication of interfacility transport (and her chances of surviving it) made further intervention futile. Which meant I got to make the call to withdraw life support so she could die with family, instead of alone on a helicopter. Y'all thought I hated capitalism before, you ain't seen shit.
Last edited:
following on from Tim Ballard update, been lucky to have found this channel who've unique critical insight from within wealthy Utah Mormon culture. Direct, intriguing sometimes like their desire for teaching the Mormon history oft slipped under the rug within some of the large high control groups going on there. but honestly...the Simpsons references are probably what hooked this lizard brain
No worries, nothing but good things and comments on this video. They go in to great depth about the episode.
Last edited:
site doesn't cooperate with my region, but for those it do;
Indy police arrest ‘terrorist’ for purposely driving her car into what she thought was a Jewish school
INDIANAPOLIS — IMPD officers arrested a woman, who they labeled a “terrorist,” after she drove her car into a building that she thought was a Jewish school. However, the building is used by t…
fox59.com
Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Al-Ghazali
Neil DeGrasse Tyson often claims the Islamic Golden Age of science was ended in the twelfth century by Al-Ghazali. But historians disagree.
historyforatheists.com
No Al-Ghazali didn't cause the end of the 'Islamic Golden Era of Science and Knowledge'. It was the Mongols who people venerated on the internet. They fucking sweep in with their horse archers, murdered, and took all the smart people. That's it. But of course, Neil doesn't want you to know that because he thinks it will cause people to vote to divert funds to the military.
Which is also wrong, it's about balance. As a semi-general rule, we need proportional responses according to the problem. Sometimes however you just need to do sweeps, and arrests like with the Mexican drug cartels and other crime-infested countries in Central America.
What you don't do is get pissed off at losing face and murder everyone and do the exact opposite of your opponent's values in almost every way. In my country of China, we had the historical Song Dynasty who generally didn't know how to fight, but the economy was booming. But then everything changed when the Mongols attacked, and China had to suffer the Yuan Dynasty. Afterward, the next government depopulated much of the Steppes in modern-day Mongolia like the mad idiots that they were, and proceeded to destroy all their ships for no fucking reason, ended their era of knowledge and invention, and became a closed-off society.
Proving the point that you need both gold and arrows to survive in a hostile world.
But of course, since governments have an incentive to not teach you history, and analysis(because they are afraid of comparisons, and revolts) but instead their views on it we get people hating on intellectuals in China, and the US favoring STEM, and people gaslighting each other with get-rich-quick schemes of no this job/course/whatever will land you six figures when in reality supply and demand means that the oversupplied jobs will end up lowering wages anyway for said job.
Fascinatingly, the British Home Secretary Suella Braverman has decided the problem with the police is that they are too nice to left wing causes:
www.theguardian.com
Not, however, the fact they've been letting people with far right links join and failing to take action with officers who are sexual attackers / domestic abusers.
For those not keeping abreast of British politics, the Home Secretary is frequently awful - seemingly one after another thinking their main job is to represent the most repressive, iron fist of the British state against its own citizens. In the last 10-15 years, it's been the a frantic race to the bottom with each one trying to outdo the last in the most punitive, vengeful, hate-raddled assault on crime, immigration, Europe, the poor, the law, police, Muslims, left-wingers, black people, or just about anyone and anything. I mean, it's kind of amazing to think that the Tories have taken the view that the Home Secretary's job is to wreck social cohesion.
The current, incompetent barely seems to want to let a single week go by without an incendiary and controversial comment which even her own party tends to disavow. Why she gets away with no-one is totally sure. As she's super-popular with a certain wing of the party, and the suspicion is that the PM is simply too weak within his own party to fire her. More latterly, people have started to suspect that she is deliberately trying to get fired from her job, because then she can start a leadership campaign. (As a general rule, Tories tend to punish perceived betrayers.)
Braverman’s future as home secretary in doubt as No 10 investigates police article
Downing Street says it did not agree to content of article that accused Met police of bias over protests
www.theguardian.com
Not, however, the fact they've been letting people with far right links join and failing to take action with officers who are sexual attackers / domestic abusers.
For those not keeping abreast of British politics, the Home Secretary is frequently awful - seemingly one after another thinking their main job is to represent the most repressive, iron fist of the British state against its own citizens. In the last 10-15 years, it's been the a frantic race to the bottom with each one trying to outdo the last in the most punitive, vengeful, hate-raddled assault on crime, immigration, Europe, the poor, the law, police, Muslims, left-wingers, black people, or just about anyone and anything. I mean, it's kind of amazing to think that the Tories have taken the view that the Home Secretary's job is to wreck social cohesion.
The current, incompetent barely seems to want to let a single week go by without an incendiary and controversial comment which even her own party tends to disavow. Why she gets away with no-one is totally sure. As she's super-popular with a certain wing of the party, and the suspicion is that the PM is simply too weak within his own party to fire her. More latterly, people have started to suspect that she is deliberately trying to get fired from her job, because then she can start a leadership campaign. (As a general rule, Tories tend to punish perceived betrayers.)
Wait, you mean when she was saying that being homeless is a lifestyle choice she was wrong? And that banning tents for homeless people is therefore a bad idea? Well, I never...
And don't forget that the homeless people cluttering up the streets with their tents are also foreign.
To be fair, in London, statistics bear that out. Although when you consider that about a quarter of the population of London are foreign nationals, it might be a lot less suprising that a large chunk of the homeless might also be.
And that's the Tories' real objection. They don't mind immigrants as long as they are rich people who'll donate shitloads of money to the Tory party to ensure that the British authorities don't look too hard at where their money came from and might be going.
She may be trying to get kicked out of cabinet before the election.
If she hangs on, then she inevitably absorbs some of the blame for the catastrophic wipeout the Tories will probably face, and her career prospects are damaged. But if she throws red meat to the far-right wing of her party, and gets canned for it, then she creates a platform and an angry, motivated support base for a future leadership campaign.
