Hi! I’m oNevia. I love gaming, design and music. Hit me up if you wanna chat.

She/Her

  • 0 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: October 29th, 2023
  • oNevia@lemmy.blahaj.zoneto196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•Rule of 400English
    1·
    1 year ago

    1. 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

    2. Cool beans

    3. 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.

  • oNevia@lemmy.blahaj.zoneto196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•Rule of 400English
    1·
    1 year ago

    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.