this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
110 points (99.1% liked)

Slop.

552 readers
328 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Fascism is a death cult, example number 9999999999.

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 43 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Reminder that if you're not masking, you're contributing to their agenda of eugenics.

[–] miz@hexbear.net 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

this graph is showing a 16% increase but the Y axis is scaled in a way that makes it look like the number tripled

[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

How would you prefer it? Most graphs surrounding this data all look the same; years of yoyo-ing around a flat, maybe even slightly dropping average and then a rapid increase around January 2021.

Edit: fixed some awful grammar.😅

[–] dil@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Generally, having the Y axis start at 0 gives a better sense of the magnitude of a change relative to the previous value.

The graph you showed isn't dishonest, but at a glance doesn't give an intuitive understanding of the how significant the increase is. It would be nice if the graph provided a visual answer to "what is the percentage increase vs pre covid?" As it stands, I need to do the math myself :(

E.g. if the exact same graph had the Y axis from 5,000 to 5,100 (instead of 5,000 to 8,500), it would still show an increase, but a significantly less severe one. By starting the Y axis at 0, the change is put into context much more intuitively.

[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The graph you showed isn't dishonest, but at a glance doesn't give an intuitive understanding of the how significant the increase is.

That's because that's not what the graph is originally for. The graph is being repurposed from Labor and Census statistics unrelated to covid.

Also, I really don't agree with you on starting with zero. That's exactly how I would present it if I was trying to downplay it. I would take advantage of the fact that we live in a eugenic social murdering society that doesn't give a shit about 30 million disabled and would swamp that additional 5 million in a tiny little uptick at the top right corner to let people continue not giving a shit.

edit: Also, wtf. How is the percentage change relevant to the argument being made? is an additional 50 million disabled since 2020 okay if it's only an increase of .2%?

[–] dil@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Woah there, I'm just trying to answer your question, not attack you or try to downplay the severity of the situation. It's strictly about how data is presented.

Graphs with a Y axis that don't start at zero is a common gripe for anyone presenting any graph, not just this.

The reason it is done is to make changes look more dramatic (stock market CRASHES with a graph showing a huge-looking decrease... of 0.5%).

Wanting graphs to start at zero is just about trying to remove spin from data presentation.

[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Except the zero is irrelevant because the purpose of both graphs is to display a shift in the ongoing trend. Have you even visualized what the graph you're asking for what would look like? Literally 80% whitespace.

[–] dil@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Correct. Some folks, myself and miz included, would prefer that.

[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] dil@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Clearly, we just had two different interactions.

My perspective is that you asked a question (how would you prefer it?) and I answered your question.

It seems like you didn't like that. Why?

[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because you've ignored every criticism of why that preference is irrelevant to conversation at hand. I did not make my original comment with the intention of debating graph aesthetics, I did so to remind people that they are taking part in a mass disabling event by people who are openly trading in eugenics rhetoric. Much of that rhetoric being directed towards the people of this very community, which is largely not showing solidarity with the other people who are victims of said rhetoric and their associated policies.

[–] dil@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I can definitely acknowledge that graph aesthetics aren't as important as the real-world implications of the underlying data. I did not start the thread about graph aesthetics, though.

You asked miz about their graph aesthetic preference, and I answered bc it's a common preference. I assumed that you were asking because you wanted to learn, and I answered in good faith. If you didn't want to talk about it, just don't ask questions about it?

I ignored your criticisms because I don't really care about other people's graph aesthetic preferences, because it's not important and they're my preferences.

If you had said "what flavor ice cream do you prefer?" and I said "many people prefer chocolate because ", it would weird if you got upset and said "actually vanilla is better because and also why are we even talking about ice cream preferences it's not important".

At any point, you could have said "I think this representation is appropriate, given the severity of the situation, but I understand the other perspective." and that would have been the end of the conversation.

[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago

Disengaging.

[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 31 points 2 months ago
[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 29 points 2 months ago

“I’d rather die than beeee told what to doooooooooooo!”

Grow the fuck up.

[–] BelieveRevolt@hexbear.net 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Cernovich? There's a guy I haven't heard of in years.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 17 points 2 months ago

i am also disappointed to hear he's still alive

[–] chirospasm@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 months ago

The cognitive dissonance is real.

[–] sweatersocialist@hexbear.net 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

am i understanding their point of view?

they’re saying lockdowns during covid are the same thing as deporting someone working on a literal cure for cancer?

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 20 points 2 months ago

Cernovich is a far-right crank. He likely thinks that COVID lockdowns and vaccinations killed millions.

[–] FourteenEyes@hexbear.net 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Mike "Totally not a pedophile" Cernovich

[–] The_Filthy_Commie@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 months ago

Mike ''Somebody forgot to increase the eye size slider'' Cernovich

[–] Fishroot@hexbear.net 11 points 2 months ago

There is only one type of person who wants to have the liberty that society offers but none of the societal obligations:

It's called a baby

[–] AlexLost@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago

Yes, asking you politely to wear a mask is the textbook definition of EVIL behaviour... So are vaccinations, do they know what that word means? Or why you might want to get one? I love that almost no one had a problem with vaccinations until we encountered a world wide epidemic. Weird, eh?!

[–] eyyImwalkin@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago

plz respond

jeb

[–] BountifulEggnog@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

It was a testing requirement you bozos