Tim stop! I already voted for you, I can’t vote any harder!!!

Do Jet Grind Radio next and I’ll steal the election for you!

You think he ever gets tired of being right all the time?

sniff

They already do Hideo, they already do.

“Alright boys, I want you to break into that warehouse and steal all the cheddar!”

“On it Boss!”

A few hours later

“What do you mean you stole 22 tonnes of cheese!? I meant the money you numbskulls!”

“But Boss, I can feel my skull just fine?”

“Aaarrrgggg!!!”

Lemmy user TachyonTele SLAMS news outlets for their unwanted hyperbole!!!

So we should start telling our family and friends good stories about being able to change your mind based on evidence and facts

hmmm… that’s a good point.

Oh, wait a minute, no it’s not! Knowing the demographics of a group is extremely relevant.

Would you say it’s irrelevant if 79% of people who got a specific disease were men, just because less than 0.01% of the population ever got the disease?

What about if 79% of a prison population was of a certain ethnicity, even though only 1 out of 100 people were incarcerated?

What about if 98% of school shooters were men, even if they are only a tiny fraction of the population?

Obviously not, these are key data sets to understanding the underlying causes. Sure, it helps to know how those stats compare to the general makeup of the population, and understanding what percentage of a population is effected is another useful piece of data depending on the questions you want answered. But to write off the makeup of a group as irrelevant is… dumb.

For half a second there, I was like “yeah, so glad Lemmy is more rational than that site”.

Few comments later, folks be talking about “Ukranian Nazis”…

Irrelevant to what? It’s fair to say she is clearly Pro-Choice, so understanding the demographics of those who are anti-choice is very relevant. Especially if your point is that “since 4 out of 5 people opposed to abortion rights are men, who will not be directly affected by these laws, their opinion is functionally irrelevant”.

Or are you just upset that this fails to acknowledge that just because men are more likely to be anti-abortion then women, that does not mean that men are likely to be anti-abortion in general? Because I would argue the latter is irrelevant to the fact that the majority of people who are against abortion rights will never be directly affected by it.

Well, assuming the 79% statistic is accurate, you could start from that discrepancy and extrapolate from there?

Okay, maybe it’s not so black and white… But she definitely contributed.