GreyEyedGhost @ GreyEyedGhost @lemmy.ca

Posts

1

Comments

1,777

Joined

2 yr. ago

InBev stock is up 1.6% over the last year. If you'd bought stocks this January, you would have made about 30% profit.

This is pretty much me. Used RIF, when it stopped working, I stopped going there regularly. Took a couple weeks to completely kick the habit, and a year of occasional use via search engines, never even bothering to log in. Now I almost never go there. I'll head there as a last resort if a search engine can't find me a useful alternative for what I'm looking for.

Breaking betteridge's law!

I ran across some Sovreign clown in my area. White van, big flags/shields, lots of text. I haven't taken the time to get all the detail because I'm worried it would cause brain damage.

I enjoyed this comment thread enough for the joke to be worth it imo.

First, I love how you got upvotes for saying, "I didn't bother even trying to find any evidence before posting." But that's not on you.

Second, murders are usually followed up on in the developed world, at least to some degree.

Here's a BBC article. 20% in the UK (I found other regions with higher amounts, but I'm okay with this one). Note also that we are talking about something that is incredibly unlikely. 30,000 deaths worldwide per year of women in relationships by their partners. Assuming half of adult women worldwide are in relationships and noting there are about 6 billion adults gives 1.5 billion women in relationships. Note that the country with the highest rate of singles for both sexes is at 25%, so this is pretty conservative. That is a 2 in a million chance per year. Assuming women are in relationships for 60 years because, why not, puts your risk at 120 in a million of being killed by a partner over your lifetime. That is about 1.2 in 10,000, which is about 10 times as likely as dying from general anesthetic.

So now that we've determined that 1.2 in 10,000 men are killing their partners, and I will happily acknowledge that domestic violence is much more prevalent as long as you acknowledge that depending on region, 40% of victims of spousal violence are men (279000÷(432000+279000)), why would we waste our time targeting men for awareness of spousal violence when most men aren't doing it and a significant part of the people who are doing it aren't men?

So we have a problem that is done by a tiny minority of one demographic, and a third as many of the population that aren't part of that demographic, yet you insist that demographic is the key factor in the problem at hand, and I'm supposed to believe I, who haven't committed this act, am a part of the problem.

If you want to keep believing that the core issue is that men (or generally people with high testosterone) tend to be more violent, is the key issue, and not that there are people of either gender who wish to treat others as objects and believe their feelings are more important than other people's well-being, well, who am I to stop you? But you might find it easier to teach people that other people have agency and as many rights as them than you will trying to teach men that being a man is a problem. And you might reach 33% more people at risk of engaging in spousal violence than if you just look at men.

As for the whataboutism, I'm speaking of spousal violence, in which you and the person in the article seem to believe only happens in one direction in any significant amount.

While studiously ignoring 25% of the problem. Gotcha.

Well, I guess if only one in four of these "always men" are women, that doesn't count.

That's a very hyperbolic statement, and studies suggest about a quarter of spousal murders are committed by women. Closer to 3 in 8 in America.

That's a good idea. So why didn't you?

Alright, that's fair. Here's a quote that kind of meets in the middle: Some people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamp post - not for illumination but for support.

He's talking about the hardware and you're talking about the software.

Absolutely. Much like Cardinal Richelieu said, anything can be twisted to your desires, but assuming the only accurate polling is complete polling is incorrect and infeasible if not impossible.

It's okay to just say you don't understand how statistics works.

A lot of people will notice when red states stop dropping other languages in schools next school year.

Some would argue the Cajun are the Quebecois who were unwilling to submit to British rule.

That feeling when LLM matches your worldview.

Also, this. (Not LLM, but still beautifully disturbing.)

There are plenty of examples to show otherwise. There's an English comedian who has made that his whole schtick. But context and role are important. I'm guessing neither of those are relevant to this situation.

If you haven't seen her other posts, I'd jump on her profile and read it. There are 7 more of these out there!