top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 169 points 1 year ago (12 children)

% per 100k? This person is making a valid point, but it's undermined somewhat by the fact they've clearly fucked up something.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 119 points 1 year ago* (7 children)
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That's what I figured they meant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Yeah, but those other stats are raw numbers. Okay, we have a higher number of unhoused people and food-insecure people, but we also have a higher number of people, period. If you wanna make a point, it has to be per capita. I like how the first stat got this right, but the others did not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Eh, the population difference is less than one order of magnitude and the difference in homelessness is two orders of magnitude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's not about that, it's about "% per 100k" making no sense as a unit. It's either just %, or an absolute number per 100k. Mixing both together like this makes it seem like you've clearly messed something up and don't quite understand what you're actually talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Literally 5.7 per 100 per 100,000.

    Neither had cake nor ate it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • As soon as you get to the "per 100" part you can stop. After that, it doesn't matter if it's per 100,000, per 8,759,016, or per 10.

    So the fact that they mixed up something so basic makes you question the number entirely. Their point is valid, but undermined by their lack of basic math skills.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 61 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    07%

    This is why punctuation is important.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Never mind that, what does "07% per 100K" even mean? As far as I can tell that evaluates to 0.0000007 or 7 per 10 million

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    a simple math says: 0.7/100*100 000 = 0.7 * 1 000 = 700 so, 700 on 100k people

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    the f*ck are you talking about, it's simple reduction
    I can't belive there adults that can't pass second grade math

    If you need I can draw it for you like you do it in kindergarten

    0.7% can be written as 0.7/100 or 7/1 000 and you can then do one of following:

    (0.7/100)100 000 = 0.7(100 000/100) = 700
    or
    (7/1 000)100 000 = 7(100 000/1 000) = 700

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Not even sure what year this is from cause the murder rate in Japan is .23% per 100,000 as of 2022.

    Interestingly the United States is at 5.7% per 100,000 as of 2023.

    Relevant Wikipedia article:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    And as of 2022 it looks like the Christian population of Japan has declined to around .96% of the total population.

    Edit: That Wikipedia article may have been written by ChatGPT cause the actual total number of homicides in all of Japan in 2022 was 853.

    NonWikipedia source:

    https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h01860/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    As the other guy mentioned, 0.23% per 100,000 doesn't make sense. That's like saying 0.23 murders per 100 (cent) per 100,000. One of those per Xs is redundant.

    The Wikipedia page linked says Japan has a murder rate of 0.233 per 100,000 residents. If this made sense as a percent, it would mean a percentage of 0.000233%. But this statistic wouldnt work as a since a "percentage" implies a fraction of a whole, for example 50% of a population is born male.

    The original statistic under discussion says that there are "X number of murder cases per 100,000 people living in country", rather than "Y% of the country's population is murder victims", which wouldn't make sense anyway since the dead aren't part of the population; i.e. you wouldn't see a statistic like "20% of the population is dead" but rather "20% of the population died", and "90% of the deaths were by murder" rather than "18% of the population is murder victims".

    Thank you for attending my TED talk.

    Edit: formatting

    Edit: 0.233 murders per 100,000 residents (in 2022) = 126,146,099 (pop of Japan as per the 2020 census) x 0.233 ÷ 100,000 = 294 murders total. The wiki page says the actual count is 289, so the error is probably due the drop in population since the 2020 census.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The same table on the Wiki page says that the actual count was 289 murders in 2022. Japan had a population of over 126 million in 2020. If we used your formula, that would mean there were over 289,000 murders in Japan between 2021 and 2022. See below:

    230 per 100,000 = 126,146,099 x 230 ÷ 100,000 = 290,136 murders total.

    Whereas, 0.233 per 100,000 = 126,146,099 x 0.233 ÷ 100,000 = 294 murders total.

    2+2=4, simple maths. But 290k murders per year would explain the population drop, lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 112 points 1 year ago (32 children)

    Fuck proselytizing religions. No, I won't join your stupid fucking cult. Fuck right off.

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Do you want to talk about Satan?

    We enjoy sex, responsible drug use and rock and roll.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    We dont need to improve the world, we just need to get you to say you to validate our taste in shitty fiction. That's more important.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Wait, wait, wait.

    Talk all the shit you want about how people twist the meanings of the book/religion, there are some very good stories in the Bible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • but the stories! The poetry!

    They're not that good, though. Some of them sorta stand up as mediocre. Compare them to an anthology by, like, le'guinn, known more as a novelist who could maintain consistent characters plot themes and tone for the length of a fucking novel. You know who fucking wins.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 31 points 1 year ago (20 children)
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Naw, my religion is cool. I'm a Satanist. We accept reality as revealed by science.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 1 year ago (14 children)
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Many, if not most, modern satanists are atheistic satanists. Satan is merely a convenient bit of Judeo-Christian mythology/imagery used to irritate Christians.

    While I hesitate to recommend The Satanic Temple due to the actions of one of the founders, their "7 Fundamental Tenets" are a pretty great basis for an atheistic worldview.

    Edit: normally, I'd link some resources, but it's late, I'm on mobile, and search engines exist, so... Sorry, not sorry.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I'm a Satanist. We accept reality as revealed by science.

    His response answered your question. Science doesn't believe in Satan, thus he himself doesn't believe Satan exists. For the record, most Satanists don't actually believe in anything "supernatural". Read more about Satanism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism#Contemporary_tendencies_and_groups

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Sort of.

    The satanic Temple chose their name because of the literal meaning of the word "Satan", which may be the name of the big bad from religious types but actually means "adversary" when directly translated from Hebrew.

    Atheists can take all forms, and by no means do I assume what any individual believes, but by the very definition, atheists can be extremely passive in their belief, or more accurately, non-belief. The atheists I know are usually very live and let live, after a while because they realize that arguing the point with religious folks usually doesn't get you anywhere.

    TST is dedicated to the fair use and representation of religions in society. They're obviously based in the USA where there is a separation of church and state, at least, there's supposed to be. So the state cannot show favoritism to any religion, but they often do. Usually with monuments like a depiction of the ten commandments placed on city owned land. This is a real and fairly recent issue that TST got involved on. They asked that a statue of Baphomet be placed on the same city owned land, forcing the city into a position of either allowing the statue to be placed along side the very Christian ten commandments, or admit that they are favoring Christianity, which they basically cannot do because it's a violation of their station.

    Satanists are a bit more active, by default, than atheists. Not to say atheists are inactive or lazy, it's just that Satanists have a very specific target.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Look, I actually kind of agree. And this is why I will never call myself a Satanist.

    However, I think it's foolish to ignore the work that the TST does in fighting for the separation of religion and government.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    That's a controversial take.

    As far as I'm concerned, TST is only a "religion" on the books as a basic requirement for them to insert themselves into all of the places that religion, specifically Christianity, is inserted into by government, so they can demonstrate the hypocrisy of the "leadership" that was elected.

    Also, having a belief that there isn't anything in the great beyond, is still a belief. You can have a belief without denying reality/Science. None of these things are mutually exclusive. I'm saddened that you don't seem to believe that.

    At the end of the day, I see anyone identifying as a satanist under TST to be doing advocacy work on behalf of nonbelievers, since most governments would rather deny all religious symbols/rituals/information from government than allow "Satanists" a platform. Their actions unilaterally has eliminated, mitigated, or otherwise diminished the involvement of any one particular sky daddy from government. It's a worthwhile thing to be done.

    You're entitled to an opinion, even if everyone else disagrees, so think whatever you want. I don't agree that you can't be agnostic/atheist and be a part of a "religion". You absolutely can.

    Even the lack of a belief is, in and of itself, a belief.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You know, you can just say "supernaturalism" instead of "religion". The two are not synonymous. You can have religion without supernaturalism, such as non-theistic Satanism and some forms of Buddhism. You can have supernaturalism without religion, which describes many New-Agers. I'm sure you've heard people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious", and that's what they mean by that. There are people who believe in souls and reincarnation and stuff like that, but they don't have a religion built around it.

    In the case of non-theistic Satanism, there is a moral code, a set of beliefs, and a community of people with shared values, as well as holidays and rituals. Just nothing supernatural.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Being a Satanist while identifying as an atheist is often associated with a specific philosophical stance rather than a belief in a literal Satan or supernatural entities. In this context, Satanism can be seen as a symbolic representation of individualism, self-empowerment, and rebellion against traditional religious norms. Here are some key points to consider:

    • Atheistic Satanism: Many atheistic Satanists do not believe in a literal Satan but use the figure as a symbol of freedom, personal responsibility, and the questioning of authority.
    • Moral Framework: For these individuals, Satanism can serve as a moral compass that emphasizes personal ethics, critical thinking, and the pursuit of knowledge. It often promotes values such as individualism, self-determination, and hedonism, but within a framework that encourages personal responsibility.
    • Philosophical Approach: This form of Satanism is more about philosophy and lifestyle than theology. It focuses on human experience and the material world rather than spiritual or supernatural beliefs.
    • Cultural Critique: Atheistic Satanism can also be a critique of organized religion, particularly Christianity, and may advocate for secularism and the separation of church and state.

    In summary, being a Satanist while being an atheist often reflects a philosophical and ethical stance rather than a theological one, emphasizing personal empowerment and a rejection of traditional religious dogma.

    TL;DR Atheism simply means you don't believe in a god. It makes no other claims. Satanism encompasses more than that simple perspective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's pretty commendable that you're trying to educate that person. I wouldn't have even bothered since it's clear that they're asking questions in bad faith.

    Paraphrasing it:

    So you believe in Satan? That's stupid.

    And

    So you're atheist? With useless extra steps, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I can't recall who said this, but they noted that the purpose of engaging in debate is not necessarily to persuade or educate the opponent, but rather to provide insights for the audience, who may have similar questions and can benefit from the discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [+] 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Hey, we at least tried to convert them, but nobody congratulates Portugal for that. 😔 😭

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    If anyone's interested in that time period, James Clavell's excellent Shogun novel is set a few decades into the process. (Before the shogunate rose into power, banned Christianity and massacred tens of thousands of Christian converts 😐)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    To be fair there is also the suicide rate.

    Also what the fuck were they expecting, Japan to be some Christian paradise?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    First time I've actually taken the time to look it up. People talk about Japans high suicide rate but apparently it's not that much higher than the United States? So less murder, more food availability and just a slightly higher suicide rate?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    When people don't have murder, homeless, ramped theft, they need some boogie man metric for the crier to report on.

    And for Japan, the marginally higher suicide rate along with low population growth are it.

    Of course the low rate of Christianity as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Some people are shockingly stupid, even though I've spent my entire life finding out how stupid people can be.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I worked in retail for a decade, and have been in IT for past 12 years. Mostly help desk. Mostly medical.

    The advanced degrees these people have is astounding, but the lack of common sense is terrifying.

    Like, these people are cutting into other people to fix shit? They can't tie their own shoes, and the concept of a power button on a computer is too much.

    This is the same person. Hopefully he has retired or died by now, cause those were his only real choices at that age.

    Seriously, his assistant tied his shoes for him. She probably had advanced degrees of her own. And she had to tie an old man's shoes on the daily.

    Maybe there something to have such a laser focus like medicine specialties really does rob people of their common sense.

    Tie? Shoe? No, but that artery is about to retract or some shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    I have the exact same experience. I explain health benefits to people for multiple different companies across the US. The number of airline pilots who see a 'forgot username or password?' button and just don't know what that means, or type their username in the password field and vice versa, even though they're clearly labeled, is insane.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Maybe he had back arthritis or similar conditions? If he was an old surgeon I'm sure 8+ hours a day bent over wasn't kind to the core muscles and skeleton. As for intelligence, nobody is all knowing. Everyone has specialized knowledge, and few try to learn outside their interests. But yeah, learning basic pc skills is kinda important.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Also in IT. Complained last week about a guy who is a lawyer who was befuddled by needing to reset his password for an online service. Dude! How can you not have this skill by now?!

    I was utterly forlorn. And a bit angry.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    From my experience, doctors tend to despise IT.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    From my experience, anyone that works with doctors despise them, so that road certainly goes both ways.

    Also, from my experience, they tend to love when you pick up the phone at 4am, remote into their machine, and just fix their problem so they can get back to work.

    Day shift people suck anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 51 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I just woke up, but I don't think the unit should be percentage per 100k people. Otherwise, I agree with the statement though.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes am I unaware of a strange way of displaying these metrics or did they just add the % sign for no reason?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›