You're viewing a single thread.
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?
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
Hyperbole and hypotheticals aren't "making up statistics"
It doesn't seem like this post was meant to be hyperbolic though? Hyperbole doesn't work well in the context of numbers. If someone said 1 in 100 people drive a Toyota, how would I differentiate that from being an actual figure or hyperbole? It's not obvious unless you look into it. Likewise, if someone told me that 1 in 400 people in the US get shot every day I'd struggle to tell if that's true or not, given how much I hear about gun crime over there.
This post is quite clearly framed in a way that sounds like fact.
"Say you're in a room"
It's literally at the start of the post. Anyone who has eyes and can read now understands this is hypothetical
If you think that's fact, maybe you should reconsider your perception of self intelligence
I don't think the personal attack is really necessary. I do legitimately want a discussion about this, but people are getting the impression that I want to distract from the point of the post, which I promise you is not my intention. I apologise if anything I've said has come across that way. I shall leave things here.
That's fair, I am sorry for the language, I deleted my comment
Thank you, appreciate it
Im pretty sure those users a legitimately, unironically autistic.
Not being abelist, just trying to prevent others from taking this argument for more than it is: someone incapable of thinking outside explicit literals.
Lol fair enough, I can understand why you'd think that.
I'm quite capable of thinking figuratively. But in the way that this post is framed, I'm pretty sure any layperson would take the figures as being based on some actual statistics. It's deceptive, and I don't think that's a good look if anyone were to look into this in any detail. If you're going to make an analogy, make it actually analogous. And if you want to use hyperbole, use it in a way that's clear (i.e. by not mixing in numbers)
That's not how autism works, and saying you're not being ableist doesn't actually mean you're not being ableist, as you've demonstrated here.
(and before you even try, because I'm not coming back to debate this, I am autistic, and those assholes are just being deliberately obtuse and pedantic, throwing autistic people under the bus to defend them is gross. And if you are autistic too and think that means you can't be ableist, let me introduce you to lateral and internalised ableism which are what your reply would be if not "run of the mill" ableism)..
now how autism works
I have aspergers, I was in special ed for two years in elementary school because I was disruptive to class. I have met hundreds if others on the spectrum in my life.
I can tell you that this is exactly how many people with autism approach situations.
What makes you say myself and the other poster are being 'deliberately obtuse and pedantic'? It's pretty hurtful and that is not my intention in the slightest. I'm not trying to undermine the argument made by the post, I just think it's a valid concern when the figures don't add up and it's worth discussing.
presents misinformation
"Oh you aren't supposed to take the statistics I listed literally! That's on you for thinking that the data i presented is accurate"
What a dumb post lmao
"Say you're in a room"
Okay this means it's not presenting itself as factual information, chud
It's funny how all the other statistics are accurate. The "say you're in a room" is meant to contextualize those statistics. I can't tell if you actually don't understand that or are just pretending to be stupid.
"Misinformation is justified when I do it"
It's not misinformation if the post starts off as a hypothetical
Some people like you aren't capable of thinking much further than your face though
It says at the end "That is what is happening right now" so no, it's not entirely hypothetical. Considering some of the statistics are accurate, I'd say it's pretty clear that they just got some facts wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 4,947,342.562 kinds of people in the world: those who obsess over needless numeral exactitude when faced with a rhetorical argument, and those who don't.
Permanently Deleted
Hyperbole and hypotheticals aren't "outright lies"
Exact and false numbers given as proportions aren't hyperbole, they're misrepresentations, ie lies.
"Say you're in a room"
It's literally at the start of the post. Anyone who has eyes and can read now understands this is hypothetical
it's a mix of correct and incorrect statistics. There is no reason to believe that they weren't attempting to be accurate. You are just justifying misinformation because it aligns with your beliefs. Kind of gross to see
It's a hypothetical. Not misinformation. It's a hypothetical argument meant to make a philosophical point, not to be a case study on sociological statistics
You fucking dipshits getting hung up on the wrong thing means you don't have enough brain cells to process the argument at hand.
What's the point of a hypothetical with made up statistics? Why are some of the statistics accurate if its all hypothetical? It literally says at the end "This is what is happening right now"
Also calm down, I can feel your rage from here. Learn to disagree without sperging out
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?
And that makes it okay for you to do it?
I used it as an example and put it in quotes…
I’m literally calling people out for using it incorrectly.
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.
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
Pedantry is a great distraction when you don't want to address problems.
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.
Good point
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.
"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.
Good point. Still, though your numbers get to a similarly outlandish time period.
absolutely, it's 3 times more, but still 3 orders of magnitude short.
Where did you get the 4% being LGBTQI number from?
For Australia it's around 3-4% LGBT.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Edit: my gunshot source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Funnilly enough, if 2 people were shot a day in OP's scenario, one of those would statistically be a suicide.
Only 15-20% of single GSWs are lethal. The post doesn't say "shot and killed", just shot
That's still a crazy stat. That's something like 830k people in the US being shot every day. Almost the whole population getting shot in a year. They must've misplaced a few decimals doing the math
Good point.
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:
I guess hyperbole isn't your thing
There's a new person thrown into the room each time someone is shot.
That should fix the analogy?
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
Youre probably just trolling to troll, but
- Being shot doesn't mean being killed
- 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.
- Also, not the fucking point.
- Yes, but the average person doesn't get shot once every 400 days
- It's reasonable to assume any new arrivals also get shot on 0.25% of days
- 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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
- 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
-
Fair point. I did not realize the "everyday" aspect in the original post. You're right that it's a gross over estimation (see point 3) but it still doesn't mean the average person gets shot every 400 days. It's a statistical percentage which doesn't account for birth rates or repeat shootings (although I'm sure those are more rare) and other external factors
-
Cool beans
-
After looking at the statistics the CDC puts out on daily shootings (roughly 327 are shot each day out of 400 million) this data point is grossly exaggerated at best. I agree that it doesn't make sense to round up to 1 person is shot a day when it equates to roughly 0.0000008%.
I still feel like the original post is not "useless" as it sparks conversation (as our replies have shown) and although it has an inaccurate data point, it doesn't negate the rest of the message.
As a member of the trans community, I don't think the original message should be discounted or ignored for having an exaggerated statistic (honestly it's just a lie in this case) because the original message still rings true.
-
-