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.

Don't go on Twitter... that actively funds musk.

Go everywhere but Twitter.

Do keep calling it Twitter though.

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.

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”

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:

1. You don't understand how stats work and why your number is irrelevant to the convo. Or
2. You do know how they work, and thus are being actively disingenuous.

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.

Important context/rebuttal:

https://www.cupw.ca/en/negotiations-weekend-update

No, not really.

That logic only holds if american consumers have infinite money, which they dont. You cant just raise the prices indefinitely, eventually people just cant afford to buy the product so they dont buy it at all.

So it hurts everyone, the actual outcome is the product straight up just vaporizes off the proverbial shelves, you're supply dries up.

For canada this heavily includes:

• Automobiles, enjoy going back to having year long + waits for getting your car you wanna buy
• oil, gas prices will skyrocket because the US has its own supply, so people will still buy it but yeah, prices will just go sky high
• Machinery, including construction equipment, refinery equipment, turbines, etc etc. So this will result in massively hiked up city level taxes as your local power plants, processing plants, etc find their repairs skyrocket in costs. Also potentially a lot of refineries and plants will no longer be able to afford operating costs so they'll just shut down, so unemployment will skyrocket
• Medication, Im sure you see where that one ends up going...
• Aircraft and Spacecraft

I don't know how the US thinks this isn't just shuffling money around as the primary money for this is from federal spending, so they're literally just imposing tariffs on themselves, which is pretty stupid. Par for the course though.

completely incoherent Just because you dont understand the difference between discrete statistics vs historical doesnt mean its incoherent.

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.

You do know some jobs can't be done remote right?

It's possible the two people are the two with jobs that require some potential in person intervention (IT being the main case)

If something physically fails, you can't exactly fix that remotely.

The fact only 2 people remained says to me they prolly had that sort of job, or, some people genuinely prefer working in the office.

Sounds crazy but some people don't have a comfortable set up at home and find it easier to focus in the office. I've had data where construction was right outside my window at home so yeah, I went into work to have some quiet.

Most of the time I prefer WFH, for sure.

But to pretend that literally everyone can always wfh, and always wants to, is silly and you've gone too far off the other end.

And the statement at the top implies the two people chose not to take PTO anyways. Maybe they wanted to save their PTO for christmas/new years.

Stop being so judgy lol

Ah I see, right so the key in your date is it's historical.

It's not a 60% victimization rate in discrete circumstances. It's a victimization rate hysterically.

Which is critical because there's an enormous difference between "60% of women are being victimized actively" vs "60% 9f women are reporting having been victimized at some point historically"

The difference is such:

Let's do the usual poisoned m&ms in a bowl analogy.

If 1% of m&ms are poisoned, but you grab 100 m&ms and eat them, your odds of getting poisoned are waaay higher than 1%, it's now 63%!

So on a discrete measure of "what percent of women are actively living in a victimizing situation right now" it will be fairly low, I don't know if we have that data.

But a woman moves through numerous situations in her life. She likely lives with many people, goes to many jobs, interacts with many strangers.

So while one discrete dice roll can have extremely low odds of a bad outcome, naturally living life inherently means you will roll that dice hundreds of times.

Inversely, when talking about "are women currently safe in their homes?" That's a discrete statistic, not historical.

It's like comparing eating a handful of the m&ms vs eating only 1 m&m, the numbers are wildly different and if you try and present one as the other, you will come across as disingenuous.

When discussing mortality rates, that's a discrete event, moat people typically only die once.

You either are, or are not, dead.

So when discussing whats most likely to kill you, you look at the discrete numbers and it's objectively fact that the discrete odds of being murdered are incredibly low compared to dying pretty much any other way.

While bring harassed historically is high, the odds a woman's current living situation right now is one of violence is much lower than 60%

Because if it was 60%, then the odds of being historically a victim of any type of violence would be pretty much 100%.

But the fact that number is 60% means the discrete number is, eyeballing it with rough numbers, going to be in the single digits.

There are communities of women where the victimization rate is over 60%.

I'm going to need to see some sources on that, that sounds incredibly high.

These trends are pretty consistent anywhere you look em up.

Homicide is quite rare overall, people due to all sorts of shit, amd very rarely is it homicide.

It's usually heart disease, or cancer, or covid.

And outside diseases, it's usually accidents at home, at work, or on the road.

And outside accidents (and overdoses), it's usually suicide far more often than homicide. (You could classify that as disease again though, depression can be extremely lethal)

Only after all of that do you start talking about homicide, which is the very tiny fraction of deaths left over.

Go look at the obituaries evey single week in your local city, then compare it to how many homicides there were.

My city of about 1 million population averages only 35 homicides per year.

Meanwhile thousands of people are dying per year to illness, accidents, etc.

You are extremely out of touch if you think homicide is the largest threat to women, lol.

Cars alone beat homicide like 3:1

No one said that doesnt happen.

But the article is trying to frame homicide at home as the leading danger to women. It's pretty demonstratebly not, it's a small minority of causes for injury and death amongst women.

Accidents are substantially more common as a source of danger for women, by an enormous margin, both in lethal and non lethal cases.

Literally anyone who has ever worked in an ER can attest to the fact that the vast vast majority of injuries are accident related.

Women should be a fuck tonne more concerned about the shitty products ordered from China that can genuinely kill them (lithium batteries, tools, healthy and beauty products, electronics, etc), as well as practicing proper safety precautions when doing tasks (PPE, having a spotter, avoiding lifting too much weight, etc).

That shit is enormously more dangerous than domestic violence, in terms of pure statistics, by an enormous margin.

Ah, fuck, yeah that'd be it wouldn't it.

The leasing non-disease causes for death in women are:

1. Falling (primarily elderly women)
2. Unintentional poisoning (primarily middle aged women)
3. Car accidents (primarily younger women)
4. Suicide
5. Homicide at 5th place

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5683079/

And thats ignoring, of course, all the actual leading causes of death which are various diseases, primarily heart diseases of course, and COVID.

Mind you that still does indicate that home is where most people die, but it's not homicide you should be worried about.

It's your stairs and... garden, I guess? I have no idea why unintentional poisoning is so high, does food poisoning count? It must. (Edit: drug overdoses, whoops)

So I guess what ladies should really be wary of is their stairs, ladders, and those leftovers that you're not sure about from the weekend.

Just as an example, for every 1 homicide victims in women aged 20-39, there were (in the same group):

• 4.5 unintentional poisoning deaths (drug overdoses)
• 2.7 traffic accident deaths
• 2.1 suicides

And among women aged 70+ years, there were no homicides in the data, but over 60% of injury related deaths were caused by falling. Just... Falling. Not homicide, just "mum had a fall yesterday and had to see the doctor"

I suppose that really drives home how important building codes are and stuff like life alert, for old folks...

If you account for the actual leading causes of death though, where you really outta be wary of are fast food chains, public transit, and low ventilation workspaces with sneezy coworkers. That's what'll actually be most likely to kill you...

I guess with skip the dishes being a thing though, that's still home being the most "dangerous" place anyways, /shrug

I just assumed the fact that black men get charged with worse penalties on average was well known enough and common knowledge I wouldnt have to sit and gather papers on it.

https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/64/5/1189/7612940

I mean there's an entulire Wikipedia page with many sources for it, take your pick.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_disparity

The fact that black men make up a disproportionate amount of perpetrators and victims of violence is also extremely well established, because you know... gangs exist

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251877/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-race-ethnicity-and-gender/

In Canada our Indeginious communities have a similiar trend: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510015601

While simultaneously it's also pretty well known that gangs trend to being familial in nature. I hope you won't ask for me to find papers demonstrating how often gang violence tends to be "in family", I don't know how easy that will be to find, but it should be pretty common knowledge that gangs typically revolve around family blood ties.

As a result of all three of these facts, it's extremely easy to see how a considerable chunk of what would be classifiable as male on male domestic violence instead gets classified as non-domestic gang related activity.

Which will make up a non-trivial chunk of that gap you are seeing, very possibly swinging it the opposite direction.

I'd be extremely surprised if men aren't the actual disproportionate victims of domestic violence once you remove racial/cultural biases out. I expect an enormous amount of domestic violence is categorized as non-domestic.

Literally anyone who has paid attention to the news over the past several years should be starkly aware of how intense these biases play out when it comes to cops knocking on doors of domestic violence events, and how way to often it turns into a "justified homicide"

It should be noted most models of cars have high-vis parts on them, usually on the rear, that work the same way.

Consider the following:

A lot of reports of domestic violence for male on male violence is reported as non domestic instead, which contributes to a portion of the perceived gap.

The gap is likely smaller than you think. Its even distinctly likely men are in reality the victims more often (like every other category of violence), but it just doesn't get categorized as domestic because sexism.

Especially since a lot of the victims are often black, which even further biases against them for a domestic incident to get escalated to non domestic (carrying heavier sentences)

It's well known that black men tend to convicted with far heavier sentences than any other demographic for the same crimes.

The victims also are primarily men.

Men vs men violence makes up more of the graph then all other pairings combined

Men are the primary victims and offenders of violence, by an incredibly large margin.

Of the 12,996 murder victims in 2010 for which supplemental data were received, most (77.4 percent) were male.

Men are twice to four times as likely to be the victim of murder

But yeah no, it's women that for sure are the "disproportionately affected victims"

It's a lot of bullshit, women are slightly more victims than men, maybe, in specifically domestic violence. And even then the gap is incredibly small.

Meanwhile men are substantially more likely to be the victim in every other category, and those categories dwarf domestic violence by such a huge amount.

But articles will skim over that as a non issue, and will spend paragraphs talking about how women are the real victims here

When the "disproportion" is only 60% vs 40%, that's a fairly small gap, only a 10% shift.

Enough to be within the realm that it's more likely to just be a reporting problem to swing the other way.

Meanwhile in reality gay men have at times been disproportionately affected by aids on the scale of hundreds to thousands of times worse than other demographics.

So yeah, no, a 10% shift off bias is not actually terribly huge.

Especially when in the same paragraph they acknowledge a 30% shift bias for men in general, and didn't remark on that at all.

To call "50% more likely" a huge issue in one sentence and then skim over "300% more likely as not being noteworthy is fucked up

But no one bats an eye at this because that violence is normalized.

The problem is when articles literally phrase it as if the minority portion of the violence is the majority.

When you do that, you now are minimizing a lot of shit and you've failed.