this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
1250 points (96.7% liked)
Flippanarchy
1632 readers
400 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
One in 400 people is shot every day? Yeah I’m gonna call BS on this one.
Maybe it's just one guy getting shot so often it's not even newsworthy anymore.
Gunshot Gary keeps shooting himself in the leg to build up an immunity.
Brett from Archer?
The room is located in a school
If I did the math right, for one person to be shot per day, we're starting with a population of 10,440,000, not 400.
I worked the math out to be one person out of 400 shot to death either by murder or suicide every 17.12 years. Definitely not every 21 days, but it is still actually crazy when you think about just how few 400 people is.
That sounds about right. About 1 in 87 will die from suicide in general. 1 in 57 will OD. 1 in 6 from heart disease; 1 in 7 from cancer.
1 in 156 will kill themselves with a gun. 1 in 238 will be killed with a gun. (This includes FAFO deaths that could be prevented if people understood that a lethal threat justifies a lethal response.)
I don't think it was trying to be factual, but more trying to make a point.
It’s not 3 times lower than that. It’s about 1 in a million, not 1 in 400. That’s 3 orders of magnitude less than the post claims. This is so hilariously wrong it undermines the credibility of the post.
Which is sad because all these points are really important things to draw attention to.
Over what time frame? Did you include gun facilitated suicides? And in general getting shot, doesn't mean getting killed.
Yes, I included suicides and non-fatal injuries, and I used the same “daily” timeframe as the original post.
You’re focusing on the wrong part of the post. The point of the post is that despite all of these horrible (and for a lack of a better word, fixable) things going on in the world right now, people are wrongly focusing on trans people as a problem.
Also, there is such a thing as hyperbole, and it doesn’t mean that the point is invalid; instead it’s used to emphasize the point.
If someone can’t make an argument factually, they should not present it as if it’s actual science. This is not hyperbole, it’s lying.
Posts like this damage the message because it gives the right ammunition to say that we are liars.
Much better to be scientifically rigorous.
Not everything needs to meet scientific rigor. If that were the case, you would’ve provided me with at least three scientific studies demonstrating your side of the argument. But you didn’t, because it’s wholly unnecessary for a normal conversation.
"Being blatantly wrong is fine, as long as you have good intentions."
The average person in the USA only makes $140 per year. Well, it's not really that bad, but it draws attention to wage inequity in the USA.
No, not everything needs scientific rigor, but it’s a false equivalence to suggest we should tolerate blatant misinformation.
If that’s the hill you want to die on, that’s your prerogative, and I won’t fault you for it. I do disagree with you, but I also appreciate your time discussing this with me and challenging my assertions.
Indeed, it’s always nice having reasonable discussions online!
We can at least agree on that. 🙌 😊
Unfortunately since it's relying on numbers to make it's point it would hit a lot harder if it was factual....
The point being that math is hard, and doesn't care about feelings?