More dataisdepressing than dataisbeautiful
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
643 points (94.2% liked)
Data Is Beautiful
6846 readers
1 users here now
A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz
(under new moderation as of 2024-01, please let me know if there are any changes you want to see!)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is so back asswards it is genuinely astounding.
Men are 75% of suicides under patriarchy.
Damn I wonder how someone could conclude that patriarchy hurts the majority of men.
Yep. Toxic masculinity wants us to work ourselves to death without complaining to anyone. So our mental health is in the fucking toilet. If you're not working enough, you're not providing and you're not a real man. If you do work enough but show any emotion that's not a "manly" emotion (anything involving tears outside of a funeral or during Old Yeller or anything that's too excited) then you're not a real man.
I could write a whole dissertation on how young men get sucked into that whole toxic ideology due to the promises of being able to have a family and a house. And it's all a fucking lie.
Male suicide is getting worse every year the patriarchy is getting destroyed more every year, im simply pointing out the correlation is backward sof what u claim.
The data correlates exactly the wrong way for this to be true.
Correlation does not equal causation.
I would point to the economic disparity that is widening in virtually every advanced economy as a much more relevant driver of male suicide.
Exactly but causation does not come without correlation. Causation is a subset of correlation.
Economic disparity should be effecting the genders equally unless you are saying women are doing better financially.
Maybe do some research about statistical concepts before spouting what sounds good to you. Causation can absolutely 'come' without correlation.
You are a great example of someone not understanding that things are complex so you reach for tabloid explanations because they are comfortable and simple.
Name a counter example
I refuse to engage in bad faith argument and school yard insults.
Statistics isn't defined by examples. Educate yourself, this is a very well known and understood concept. Staying in ignorance is your choice.
Instead of baseless bad faith arguments you could have provided a single counter example. You chose to insult me and call me ignorant instead of proving me wrong. Prove me wrong prove your intellectual superiority yoy claim to have.
I don't need to prove you wrong with examples, you are wrong, it's very well documented and widely understood. If you choose to not believe it and can't be bothered to research it yourself then you have chosen to stay ignorant, and wrong, which is your right.
Its ok to admit that your wrong im not gonna judge you. I just want you to think about it for a second if something is causational we can say a causes b. If this is the case then most cases of a will result in b, thus a correlates with b.
We can apply a proof by contradiction say we have a causes b but a does not correlate with b. Then in this case we are saying if there is a it causes b it is thus a contradiction to say that a and b do not correlate as that would require that we have a without b but if a causes b this is impossible.
I gave you ample oppertunity to do some research and realise that you have a surface level understanding or logic, mathematics, and statistics without me needing to prove your complete lack of understanding.
Please educate yourself before you speak and if u must speak without doing so be willing when proven wrong to admit it without insulting people like a child having a tantrum.