728
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
728 points (90.5% liked)
People Twitter
5283 readers
2114 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It is irrelevant because it would also be true if there were millions of anti-abortion people and just 100 pro-abortion people from some tiny sect that happens to be anti-abortion. Or, if the number was 80% instead of 79% it could also just be 5 people, 4 of which were men. The relevant number is how most men and how most women feel about this, not if the people who feel a certain way about it are mostly men or mostly women.
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.