this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
499 points (94.2% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

40926 readers
703 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In absolute numbers.

How many users? How many per people?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I guess it's because one of these things is a widely used tool, a requirement for work / living in the USA and gives people freedom.

The other is just car.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Neither of these topics should even be drawing media attention, considering how frequent and non-notable they are. They just report on this stuff every day because it's cheaper and easier than exclusively finding and reporting on real notable local news, and television news needs filler content for selling ad spots. Ever had a day where there was no news, and they ended early?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I think the math works out that each year the average American has roughly 1 in 10,000 chance of dying in a car crash and a 1 in 200 chance of being injured in a car crash (Though the second stat likely leaves out a lot of unreported injuries). The average American rolls those dice once a year, so plan to live til 75? 1 in 133 chance that you die in a car crash, >1 in 3 chance you're injured in a car crash at some point.

I've known two people who died in car crashes, and at least several dozen who were injured in crashes including several really gnarly pedestrian bystander injuries. And I'm barely middle aged.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Cars are not designed to inflict harm. This cheap false equivalence tells us a lot.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, cars aren't even designed to kill people and they still do it just as much as guns. They're way too dangerous to be legal.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That doesnt make any sense. Since card have other purposes than killing they can be legal.

Since guns only exist to kill they should not be legal. But it is a fight against wind mills since americans love their ability to kill who they want more than they love their kids.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Car drivers kill more people without even trying than shooters kill. Imagine if the car drivers were actually trying to kill people. Cars are probably a hundred or a thousand times as dangerous as guns if you control for intent.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Are you saying that OP is making a "cheap false equivalence"? They are commenting on news coverage, so I don't follow what you mean.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

The graph didn't offer the conclusion- op did, and yes it's cheap

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, OP is very much doing that. They are commenting on how they think that news coverage should do a false equivalence on those two things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Right. I can't ride my gun to work or the grocery store. I get that there's a lot of negatives associated with car culture, but it's a tool in a way that firearms are not.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago

An automobile, at the end of the day, is a luxury item. A toy. Humanity existed for most of its history without cars, and even today, you can get to work or the grocery store without one. (Granted, often not easily, but that's only because we've made it difficult to get there any other way. But making it difficult was a deliberate policy choice designed to exclude poor people.) One could argue that the automobile is an anti-tool, as its use is making our lives materially worse (traffic violence, health impacts, pollution, ecosystem destruction, climate change, the burden on government and personal budgets), but that ignores a car's major function as a cultural identity marker, and for wealth signaling. We humans value that a lot. Consider, as but one common example, the enormous pickup truck used as a commuter vehicle, known as a pavement princess, bro-dozer, or gender-affirming vehicle.

In that way, they're exactly the same as firearms, which are most often today used as a cultural identity marker. (Often by the same people who drive a pavement princess, and in support of the same cultural identity.) Firearms are also also luxury toys in that people enjoy going to the firing range and blasting away hundreds of dollars for the enjoyment of it. But beyond that, the gun people have a pretty legit argument, too, that their firearms are tools used for hunting and self-defense. They are undeniably useful in certain contexts, and no substitute will do. One certainly wouldn't send mounted cavalry with sabers into war today.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Cars, roads, and car culture are inflicting harm though, even if it’s seen as a neutral tool by many

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Lots of things cause harm while also doing good things. It's a balance.

The problem is when that balance skews more one way than another.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Driving is orders of magnitude more likely to kill you at any second you're in a car, than flying is at any second you're in a plane.

People who are terrified of flying will get in a car and drive like a monkey like it's no big deal.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Driving is orders of magnitude more likely to kill you at any second you're in a car, than flying is at any second you're in a plane.

This is an oft-repeated factoid that comes straight from the airlines bending statistics to meet their desires. It’s true that on a per mile basis, planes are safer. But on a per trip basis, cars actually win on safety.

And this makes some sense once you actually think about it. A car ride is typically going to be a frequent, short distance; An average of like 90% of all driving happens within 5 miles of the person’s home. Whereas air trips are infrequent and cover huge distances. So the accident-per-trip stat is watered down with cars having lots of trips, but the short distances tend to inflate the accident-per-mile number. In contrast, the accident-per-mile stat is watered down with planes covering a lot of miles per trip, but the infrequent nature of the trips means the accident-per-trip number is inflated.

And airlines conveniently only ever quote the accident-per-mile number when comparing safety statistics, because they have a vested interest in making airplanes seem statistically safer. If anything, seeing this factoid repeated is just a reminder that even math can be intentionally biased to fit a certain agenda.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

Per trip is a completely useless metric as you say, that’s the reason.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So the point you're making is that going far away is dangerous? No shit.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

My point is that the “planes are safer” stat is, at best, disingenuous. Any single trip is going to be more dangerous in a plane. But people tend to fly less than they drive, so cars are cited as being more dangerous.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

Any single trip is going to be more dangerous in a plane

So you're saying driving from London to Shanghai is safer than flying there?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

Phobias are, by definition, irrational.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

They should fear neither. Orders of magnitude relative risk to a minute risk is still very little.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fuck cars and guns, ban both.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

cars, like guns, should require a mental check and a license to even purchase and own, be kept in secure storage, and only used in highly regulated locations where safety is guaranteed.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›