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 🙂