this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
1607 points (99.9% liked)

196

16416 readers
1698 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 38 points 1 year ago (7 children)

If at least 1 person in the room of 400 is shot per day they'd be dead in just over a year...

Last I checked the population of the US wasn't plummeting, so what else is wrong here?

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 59 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh no I see the point, but I'm hardly going to believe a point that's surrounded by obvious mistakes or embellishments

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

In this case, being more accurate would have distracted from the overall point.

Granted, attracting the dismissive comments of insufferable pedants and the wilfully obtuse isn't ideal either, but here we are 🤷

[–] OmegaMouse@feddit.uk 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How would being more accurate distract from the point? I agree with what the post is saying, but making up statistics doesn't really help IMO and takes away from the credibility

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Expressing the number of people shot as a tiny fraction of 400 million people would raise at least as many questions about accuracy and make it EASIER for people like you to distract from the point by obsessing over an unimportant (to the point being made) detail.

Analogies and third decimal-accurate statistics just don't fit together.

[–] OmegaMouse@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'people like me'. To be 100% clear, I agree with the point of the post but I just don't think they've gone about explaining it in the best way. To somewhat agree with what you're saying, I'd say yes, analogies and accurate statistics don't fit well together, but neither do analogies and statistics in general. Either stick to written analogies/hyperbole OR use actual statistics.

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'people like me'

Pedants, the easily sidetracked, those who will jump at the opportunity to distract from the message itself by hyperfocusing on an insignificant technical detail.

Take your pick.

[–] OmegaMouse@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You seem to have a very binary view of things though. Is it not possible for someone to agree with a message, but think we can improve on how we tell it? If we want to convince people of something, is it not best to provide as convincing an argument as possible? I'm not trying to distract from the message, I'm wondering how we can tell it better.

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You seem to have a very binary view

Of distracting from the actual topic by needlessly fixating on an only tangentially relevant detail? Yeah, I'm kooky like that.

Is it not possible for someone to agree with a message, but think we can improve on how we tell it?

Sure, but that's not what you're doing. You're, deliberately or not, pulling all attention away from the message by demanding a fix to something that, in the specific case, is unimportant.

If we want to convince people of something, is it not best to provide as convincing an argument as possible?

As I said before, being more exact would invite MORE distracting arguments about it, not fewer.

I'm not trying to distract from the message

You're also not trying to NOT distract from the message either, though. Or you are and you're doing a piss-poor job of it.

I'm wondering how we can tell it better

It was told just fine. You're actively obscuring the salient point with your pedantry.

[–] OmegaMouse@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok my friend. If I have distracted from the message, that is genuinely not my intention. I'll leave things here.

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 3 points 1 year ago

Fair. Have a nice day 🙂

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ok so you're saying that you need to outright lie to get people to side with you?

That makes you sound like a politician, not a human rights advocate, but sure

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Burning Man called. They want their gigantic strawman back.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How about you address the fact that you're saying that telling the truth would distract from the point instead of pulling up distractions? Sounds like whataboutism to me

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let me put it another way.

There's 4,947,3842.562 kinds of people in the world: those who obsess over needless numeral exactitude when faced with a rhetorical argument, and those who don't.

[–] li10@feddit.uk 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If anything the people pointing out how others are missing the point, are actually missing the point…

There’s a middle ground between ‘autistically measuring in decimals’ and blowing something completely out of proportion to make a forced point.

People are just getting defensive because it’s an underlying point they agree with (rightly so) and going on attack for anyone calling it out for being disingenuous.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why are you using 'autistic' as an insulting word?

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nope. That's just objectively wrong.

The choice of 1 almost certainly wasn't a deliberate exaggeration of the actual amount. It's just the nearest number that isn't too specific to distract from the overall argument and/or small enough that pro-gun advocates can use it as an argument for gun violence not being a problem at all.

[–] li10@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can’t say they’re just rounding up when they randomly decided to choose 400 as the starting point…

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So what you're saying is that 400 is completely random and because of that, it follows that 1 is meant to be accurate? 🤔

I'd say that it's much more likely that they're operating under the (incorrect but commonly believed) assumption that the US population is closer to 400m than 300m and both numbers are rounded up for simplicity.

[–] jaspersgroove@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

The post says “at least 1” which implies that if anything they’re rounding that number down, because on some days that number is 2. So they’re suggesting that on any given day between 800,000 and 1.6 million Americans get shot, or that every single person in the country gets shot every 13 months or so.

If they’re going to use a number that wildly inaccurate then I immediately assume that every other number in the statement is equally inaccurate, even if that’s not actually the case.

[–] Denvil@lemmy.one 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Shot does not mean killed. Of the 327 average daily people shot, 210 survive. I will however admit that 1 in 400 people being shot a day does not represent the same ratio as the 327 out of the 330,000,000 a day at all.

Also birthrate

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Pedantry is a great distraction when you don't want to address problems.

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Very true, which is why it's important not to give easy fuel for pedantry like this gun stat does. It undermines the entire point if the numbers aren't at least close to the real statistics.

[–] Staple_Diet@aussie.zone 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Not to detract from the overall message, buuuut....

48,313 gun deaths in US in 2021.

333,000,000 people in US

On those rates 0.05 people in a room of 400 would be shot per year, so 1 person per 20 years.

It'd 1 person every 2 years in a room of 4,000.

Also those mental health numbers are off given the lifetime prevalence of most disorders being around 5%.

2/400 (0.5%) of the population identifying as trans would be 1,665,000 people - which may be plausible but idk, I generally work on the figure of ~4% of any population being LBGTQI.

Poverty numbers are probably bang on.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"shot" does not mean "killed".

What I can find is roughly 315 people getting shot every day in the US. Out of 333m, that's roughly 1 in 1m daily. In a room of 400 that's 1 per 6.8 years.

[–] Staple_Diet@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good point. Still, though your numbers get to a similarly outlandish time period.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

absolutely, it's 3 times more, but still 3 orders of magnitude short.

[–] celeste@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where did you get the 4% being LGBTQI number from?

[–] Staple_Diet@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] celeste@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's from 2014 and only accounts for Australia, not any population also the survwy points out that among indigenous and Islander populations in Australia there aee more same sex couples.

Pls be more careful which such generalised statements and wether your source is reliable/saying what you want it to say. Also Wikipedia is not a good source to refer to.

[–] Staple_Diet@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Wikipedia is only a source of concern if the primary sources it cites are unreliable, in the linked article they refer to ABS data which is the most accurate population data for that country. No LGBT question was asked in the more recent Australian census. The ~4% of population being homosexual was a talking point during our same sex marriage plebiscite, hence why I use it.

However, in recent US census data 3.3% of the population respond as being Lesbian or Gay, with 4.4% bisexual https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/11/census-bureau-survey-explores-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity.html. It'd be interesting to see how that percentage progresses as majority of positive respondents were in younger generations, while I doubt any will go from identifying as gay to then straight, we may see a decline in those who identify as bisexual as they age...but who knows.

Regardless, returning to the OC, the figures for trans were all around the 0.6 mark in most sources I saw, so the 2/400 in the OC is accurate.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I did the fact checks with references on everything else in another comment. NIH numbers actually made mental illness worse, but must keep in mind the lack of "serious" in OPs definition. Other stats were spot on. Where did you get these numbers? I couldn't find anything I trusted on non-fatal gunshots.

(Note: just realized you found the same number I did for deaths vs gunshots)

[–] Staple_Diet@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You misinterpreted the NIH numbers. It isn't 57% of 400 are untreated, but rather 57% of ~90 (NIH state 1 in 6/ 22.8% love with AMI). In any case though that ~90 figure relates to AMI which is a broad definition and includes very mild cases, whereas my numbers were related to SMI - which tends to be 5% (as supported by your NIH source). Having worked in the field, untreated schizophrenia is a lot more serious than untreated GAD or ADHD.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Only 15-20% of single GSWs are lethal. The post doesn't say "shot and killed", just shot

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Fact time. You don't always die when shot, and the US is a baby factory. I can't find good stats on non-lethal gunshot, so I'll do the rest.

Verdict: Pretty accurate.

  • 8.4% without health insurance (33 in 400)
  • 11.5% poverty rate (46 in 400)
  • 20% adults below literacy level 1 (80 in 400)
  • 57% mental illness untreated (228 in 400) (requires math from NIH source)

References:

[–] failor@iusearchlinux.fyi 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There's a new person thrown into the room each time someone is shot.

That should fix the analogy?

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

No the rate is still too high, unless one of the people in the room is a serial killer but frankly that'd skew the untreated mental illness score pretty badly by giving everyone PTSD

[–] onevia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Youre probably just trolling to troll, but

  1. Being shot doesn't mean being killed
  2. Why do you assume the population doesn't change? Ya know people can make babies right? We're actually pretty good at it. Probably too good at it.
  3. Also, not the fucking point.
[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. Yes, but the average person doesn't get shot once every 400 days
  2. It's reasonable to assume any new arrivals also get shot on 0.25% of days
  3. It's not the point, but frankly your point is more of a rounded curve than a point because anyone who doesn't support trans rights is going to call BS on your numbers immediately so you're just posturing, and why make up numbers to do that when you're not actually having to convince anyone?

I really don't get why people with all sorts of beliefs lie to people with the same beliefs to convince them they have the right beliefs... It's a waste of time, why not actually go out and make a difference if you support human rights and have enough time to make posts to your echo chamber about it?

[–] onevia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. No, the average person doesn't get shot once every 400 days. That's not the statistic. It's 1 person in 400 getting shot. Number of days is not being factored.

  2. Again, you're looking at the wrong variable. It's not about how many days. This is a snapshot (of what I assume is population of the US) brought down from millions to hundreds of people. Roughly 400 million people brought down to 400. The whole point is to help people conceptualize just how absurd it is to target such a small minority. Smaller numbers are easier for people to conceptualize percentages.

  3. Sure, the numbers need to be rounded off in order to bring them down to easier to understand figures. I'm not saying they're perfectly accurate, but they're close enough to accurate to get the point across. Pointing out how the hypothetical situation doesn't use exact figures of people distracts from the ultimate message. Which is your point I'm assuming. Just because these numbers are rounded, doesn't mean they're inaccurate.

I agree with your last point. Lying doesn't get anyone anywhere, especially when trying to appeal to "the other side" because that will be pointed out and then the argument (whether valid or not) is put into question.

But this post is about a hypothetical situation with rounded statistics to emphasize the general absurdity of targeting trans folk as "the problem with this country." When there are actual and bigger issues we as a whole face. Like gun violence, terrible healthcare infrastructure, and mental illness.

Arguing about pedantics just obscures any actual criticism and distracts from the message. And who says this doesn't make a difference? This is how issues in society gets resolved. By talking through them and bringing attention to them. So yeah - this helps the cause of human rights because it's about bringing awareness and different perspectives into the conversation.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

1:

everyday, at least 1 person is shot

Remove everyday and maybe, but that everyday means you're wrong on point 1

2: not contesting this - I agree

  1. Rounding 0.00... to 1 acheives nothing

At the end of the day I'm just saying it's a useless post as it's not really achieving anything, but I'm not saying you couldn't make something good using the same premise