this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
1605 points (100.0% liked)
196
16279 readers
2220 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh no I see the point, but I'm hardly going to believe a point that's surrounded by obvious mistakes or embellishments
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 🤷
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of distracting from the actual topic by needlessly fixating on an only tangentially relevant detail? Yeah, I'm kooky like that.
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.
As I said before, being more exact would invite MORE distracting arguments about it, not fewer.
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.
It was told just fine. You're actively obscuring the salient point with your pedantry.
Ok my friend. If I have distracted from the message, that is genuinely not my intention. I'll leave things here.
Fair. Have a nice day 🙂
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
Burning Man called. They want their gigantic strawman back.
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
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.
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.
Why are you using 'autistic' as an insulting word?
Because that’s literally what people are doing for anyone calling this out
why does that make it fine to use as an insult?
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.
You can’t say they’re just rounding up when they randomly decided to choose 400 as the starting point…
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.
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.