News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Understanding the difference between "whats the chance I get poisoned if I eat one M&M from the bowl" vs "whats the chance I get poisoned if I eat an entire handful" is something you should've learned in high school.
Representing one of those odds as the other is disingenuous, and will not win people over to your side, because people can usually intuitively tell the difference usually and go "that doesnt seem right..."
Which, in turn, is why shit like trump getting elected happens. The pattern of vastly over-inflating numbers to make shitty clickbait when the original meaningful numbers were already a big enough deal anyways has heavily polarized the landscape.
As long as people keep doing stupid shit like that, it's going to do the exact opposite of what you want. Instead of drawing people to any good causes it pushes them away, because they then just assume its all bullshit.
If you don't understand the vast difference between a discussion on discrete statistical odds vs cumulative odds, you probably shouldn't be trying to weigh in because all you are doing is just muddying the waters with bad numbers that aren't actually relevant to the core of the discussion, which just pisses people off and makes them turtle up more.
I get where you are coming from, but you just need to wrap your head around the fact the numbers you brought up have no bearing on anything I was talking about, they arent necessarily wrong, but they're just not relevant to what I was discussing, so it just came across as rude or uninformed at best, disingenuous at worst.
No, I know what you're saying about discrete numbers and historical ones. I never once tried to represent anything as a discrete number, by nature of the subject matter this conversation cannot be about discrete numbers because again BEING A VICTIM DOES NOT STOP WHEN INDIVIDUAL ACTS OF ABUSE ARE NO LONGER OCCURRING.
What is incoherent is someone being like "here's factual data showing 60% of women have been sexually assaulted" and your response is "okay but 60% of women are not ACTIVELY being sexually assaulted". I can understand why the specific phrase "victimization rate" could come off as confusing? But even in the context of discrete vs historical there are some figures supporting a discrete interpretation of this. Like from previous figures I've given 61% of women reporting unwanted sexual behaviors by men between the ages of 15 and 24. That would indicate that yes at present somewhere around 60% of women in that age demographic have recently experienced gender based sexual violence.
This is also not about winning anyone over to a cause. This is a statement of fact, the extent to which women are abused by men. To the point that the majority of women are victims of gender based violence from men.
You entirely skipped over the first part of my last message as well. A discrete number would be entirely unhelpful in assessing the extent to which women are being victimized by men because women are not all being victimized at the same time and women do not stop being victims once they aren't being actively victimized.
What part about this do you not understand. It's not complicated.
There's a huge difference in "how many people have had their home burn down" vs "how many homes are at risk of burning down right now" and the latter was what was being originally discussed
They are entirely different conversations.
When the current actuall convo is about "what's the risk of your house burning down right now" and the answer is "quite low", but then you butt in and go "nuh uh, like 60% of people have had a house burn down in the past" you sound ridiculous.
You in that moment demonstrate either:
Either way, go figure yourself out. Your numbers aren't relevant here, go either find the numbers that are relevant, or at least stop muddling the waters with bad math.
Omg are you seriously coming here to talk over me while I'm spreading awareness about how prolific gender based violence against women is? Who tf are you? We aren't in a fucking stats classroom or whatever you think this is. The absolute and utter detachment you seem to have towards a subject like systemic violence against women is honestly insane. There exists no rule stating that I can't bring up another data set in a discussion on violence against women. Literally not one human being has ever said that. It is also absolutely relevant data to the topic at hand. And then people like you wonder why we feel like men don't care about how we are bring abused. You'd rather pedantically talk over me about the classification of data sets then actually meaningfully engage with the fact that women are so likely to be physically or sexually abused by men that 60% of women in a specific age range of 15 to 24 have experienced that. Which is saying nothing of girls under 15 and women 25 and over.
If 60% of the population of women will be sexually or physically abused by male intimate partners then OVER HALF of women are victims of intimate partner violence. That is the takeaway. If you have no interest in talking about this, then go do something else with your time.
You interjected in the discussion with non-relevant stats, and are now getting mad when called out on it.
Your stats you are presenting aren't relevant to the post I made. Deal with it and go throw a tantrum somewhere else. I posted first, you are trying to talk over me
Go find an echo chamber to complain to instead of cluttering up discussions with irrelevance and throwing tantrums while people are trying to talk about the actual facts that are relevant.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Yeah youre right a post about femicide by intimate partners has no connection with rates of intimate partner violence.
I also didnt respond to your fucking post with those stats I was responding to another commenter. Everything else I said stands.
Historical odds of experiencing violence in the past has no relevance to discrete odds of danger now, correct.
Glad you finally figured it out.
Having experienced food poisoning 5 years ago has zero relevance to the question of "is this current dish I am about to eat safe?"
The latter is the discussion you are insisting on butting in on and trying to steer the convo towards the former.
No one gives a shit about your food poisoning from 5 years ago Karen, we are discussing if this dish right now is poisoned or not.