Asklemmy

43340 readers

2067 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-6

What's a true fact that is so misleading it's borderline misinformation? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What would be some fact that, while true, could be told in a context or way that is misinfomating or make the other person draw incorrect conclusions?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh 100% this. The main accomplishment of Tulsa and Auburn was keeping black people impoverished, and...

“About 60 [academic] papers show that a very common result of greater inequality is more violence, usually measured by homicide rates,” says Richard Wilkinson, author of The Spirit Level and co-founder of the Equality Trust. - source

For as long as society insists on high inequality with one race forcefully held at the bottom, no rational person can expect that race to be peaceful.

It's just... I have a hard time bringing this concept to the table in a debate with people who believe "personal responsibility" can somehow magically indemnify society against its impact on people.

In fact, I am generally speechless when debating such people. It's such an alien worldview to me. How can personal responsibility actually make society irrelevant? And since when?

The kinds of people who spout the 13-50 argument basically believe NOTHING society does can increase or decrease murder (except, when convenient, being "too soft on children" or "soft on crime.")