this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

El Chisme

442 readers
3 users here now

Place for posting about the dumb shit public figures say.

Rules:

Rule 1: The subject of a post must be a public person.

Rule 2: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 3: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 4: No sectarianism.

Rule 5: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 6: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 7: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 8: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
 

https://xcancel.com/BretDevereaux/status/1896592119093240204

What's that famous quote about statistics? Oh, yeah I think it's "statistics are completely truthful measures of objective reality and can't be easily warped to suit a narrative."

I'm a fan of Devereaux's ancient history blog A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry. But any time he comments on contemporary history and events its always stuff like this. It always leads to the conclusion that the post-WWII US-led liberal world order is the best thing to ever happen.

Also I'm pretty sure he is about 40, which means he was born a mere forty years removed from the most destructive conflict in human history. Even if this graph, and the statement that he is replying to, are correct and the last 80 years are the safest years in human history I think it's a little early to be counting your chickens.

Does it really count as a long peace just because post-WWII conflicts haven't had a comparable death toll? What about the various campaigns of ethnic cleansing and displacement and other assorted horrors that this graph conveniently doesn't include? Also fails to account for the fact that at no other time in history has the very real possibility of nuclear apocalypse hung over all our heads. Is that peace?

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I guess 100K dying in war per year is just acceptable to this dork because you can barely see it on the graph.

Seems like Iraq 2 isn't included at all for some odd reasons. Maybe it is only soldiers killed by the other soldiers or something dumb like that.

e: just saw the faint text explaining "death of combatants due to fighting" so civilian deaths are completely excluded jfc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Yeah, this doesn't include civilian deaths. It's total horseshit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Advanced graph showing: in gaza, isntreal not doing anything

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Graph only goes back to 1900.

Only counting combatants.

Acting like the World War numbers are representative of wars throughout history instead of wars so abnormally large we called them World Wars.