[two characters are talking]
Vaccines have saved millions of lives you know
[a blue character points at them proudly]
Heh, look at those idiots over there, they believe in the most obvious propaganda
[the blue character is shown doing various faces]
Anyway, did you know communism killed 100 million people?
I’ve seen that 20% of the people commit 80% of the crime
Our military keeps the world a safer place
Everyone starts with opportunities, you have to earn your place in society, work harder
[sixteen variations of the blue character are shown on a multicolored grid]
Crime is out of control and keeps getting worse
Men are natural leaders, women’s nature is to nurture
Billionaires create jobs
Poor people just keep making bad decisions in life
Migrants are taking our jobs
Socialism is when we all share the same paycheck
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear
If minimum wages go up, everyone will get fired, it’s math
We brought modernity to the countries we colonized
The wage gap is a myth you’re just looking at it wrong
Immigration mathematically causes crime
Developing countries are poor because of corruption
We are the good guys
If workers were worth more, they would be paid more
Universal healthcare is communism
Patriotism means supporting the troops
[a large drawing of a serious Garfield is surrounded by the infinitely repeating phrase]
YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE TO PROPAGANDA
is this some moron trying to pretend that communism didn’t kill people en mass? while it’s good to be cautious of propaganda, replacing it with the tankie one is probably not the goal.
i see no reason why pareto principle should not apply to crime ( edit: indeed it does - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12171674/ ).
and that is just line one of the “argument” and we are already into stupid territory…
No, but the idiots who spout bullshit about communism killing millions of people never talk about all of the people capitalism killed, and it’s at least a magnitude more when you consider the people who are murdered for profit or left to die because there was no profit to be had.
communism did kill millions of people. people aware of that fact are not idiots, they are the people who paid attention in school. capitalism also does have problems, but these problems does not change the fact that communism did kill millions of people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
thank you for playing, better luck next time 😂
It’s only whataboutism if I’m using one to defend the other, instead of just challenging D students to understand that their main mode of arguing against communism is a double edged sword that cuts harder against capitalism than it does against communism.
The problem is you are holding communism to a standard you’re refusing to hold capitalism to. And until you do that, the 100 MilLiOn people claim is meaningless and worthy of mockery, given it’s an attack on a political ideology that only exists to strawman the ideology.
if course, such a thing as millions of dead can’t stand in the way of building communist heaven.
No surprise you cut out the next bit:
Strawmen are all you have, which is blindingly obvious. Or you could prove me wrong and explain to me how the “communism deaths” are in any way relevant without including that of capitalism.
We both know you can’t. So I’ll continue
What bothers me is that your source literally says “pareto in prison” and that “20% of inmates were responsible for approximately 90% of all rule violations”. So these are already people who did a crime and are in prison. This is not the same as" 20% of the general population commit 80% of all crimes". I don’t even think the pareto ratio thingy sounds implausible, its just that “crime” is a broad word where also a lot of bullshit must be included for this like driving without a ticket on the train or parking your car in a no-no zone or speeding. Otherwise we would have 20% of the population who are thieves, murderers and rapist which we obviously don’t have.
of course it is not, i am not (and no one sane is) saying it is and if that is someone’s interpretation, that is just misunderstanding of what pareto principle is. it just speaks about distribution inside of the subset.
so inside of the subset of criminals, there will be 20% of them responsible for majority of all the individual crimes.
or i believe it is quite likely (although i don’t have data for that on hand), that you could find that 20% of criminals are responsible for 80% of monetary damage caused by the crime. these are the white collar criminals, who will often escape the punishment, because it is easier to lock up the bottom 80% who can’t afford expensive layers. but the fact that someone sees this as injustice (and i do agree it is) is not a reason to reject some mathematical principal, who just describes it without passing any judgement.
lot of bullshit does not have to be included for this. the rule just makes a prediction about distribution in the specific set, no matter how you define it. it will be true on the set of murderers, it will be true on the set of people with speeding tickets and it will be true on set of people riding a train without a ticket.
the pareto rule doesn’t say how many people in the population have ever ridden without a ticket.
but if you take a set of people who ever did, they will follow roughly the same pattern.
there will be group who does that on a daily basis and these will have many individual transgressions on their account and there will be these who has done that occasionally, every once in a while.
and the rule isn’t specifically about crime.
example from another field: for the isp (internet service provider), 20% of their customers will be responsible for 80% of the total traffic in the network. you don’t have to wonder whether it seems plausible, this is empirically proven fact.
it doesn’t say everyone (or 20% of all people) in their area of operation is their customer. it doesn’t even say 20% of people in that area uses internet at all.
but their customers will follow that pattern. the isp could even decide (if the law permits) to just let these customers go and make their life easier. the profit vs expenses ratio will increase. of course, the rest of the customers they keep will still follow the same pattern, so they can repeat this process until they are left with no customers at all.
The 100 million figure is anti-communist propaganda, which includes death from ww2 Russian front as well as other crappy takes.
The Pareto principle does not apply to crime, it’s pretty obvious or you would have more than 20% criminals in the general population.
and that is just line one of the “argument” and we are already into stupid territory…
Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot. I’m a demsoc myself, but I’m not letting that one slide. Sure, one could argue that Holodomor or The Great Leap Forward were mostly just authoritariant projects, and that the actual communism was never attempted, but still - if you’re really just gonna call these unspeakable tragedies “crappy takes”, then sincerely - **Fuck. You. **
right, it is a filthy lie, communists never murdered anyone, the world is actually full of happy communist states, where people are trying to immigrate to in order to achieve the ultimate happiness, we just don’t know it, because of the evil propaganda… do i get that correctly? 😂
that is… not how math works. this you?
spoiler
Not what I said.
Literally, 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of the people. Like, literally, you can neither read nor do math.
oh sorry. i sort of implied from your propaganda accusation. so i assume there is some middle ground in between, some number of people that you consider acceptable to murder in order to build your communist heaven? what number is that? it wasn’t hundred million, it was just fifty, and that is totally fine?
and now, as a homework, you can think about:
You are the one making propaganda accusations.
~60.
No. I never said anything like that either.
But blatantly promoting or defending lies which seems to be your pastime is not fine either.
And now, as a homework, you can learn to read and count. Start easy, like
See the letters, they are different. Means they are different words with different meanings.
you are trying hard to fight against a number, when it is clear to anyone with two brain cells that the number will never be accurate and will always be open to disputes. but the point is it is a big fucking number and whether it is 100 and 60m dead is not really different for establishing that communism is fucking criminal ideology.
the letters are indeed different, good job! i’ll skip over that part where you finally understood and are trying to pretend like you are lecturing me. whatever you need to keep your face.
so now, since you finally understand that these two statements (20% of criminals vs 20% of people) are not the same, you are getting closer to understanding why this original statement of yours makes no sense:
next step in your education, if you are willing, is to go read what pareto principle is, and think about how it relates to question at hand. if you get stuck anywhere, feel free to ask!
Nest step in your education, learn to use a dictionary.
people /pē′pəl/ noun
yes, people and general population can be used somewhat interchangeably (if that is what you are trying to get to). good job, keep going!
now you really need to go to read on the pareto principle, you can’t move ahead without understanding it.
Media literacy award
do i understand correctly you have no rebuttal, so you are trying some childish non-answer?
You’re not “owed” a reply. Nobody is ever “owed” a reply. Sometimes people don’t want to engage with a comment and that’s fine. In my case, the reason is not “having no rebuttal”, but rather finding your method of communication repulsive to engage with.
I have two minutes to waste while my food cooks so I’ll engage briefly.
First off, the only “childish” interaction here is you calling me a tankie, stupid, childish, instead of just asking questions like a regular adult capable of human to human communications.
Regarding the 100 million figure: it comes from The Black Book of Communism, a slop book that was written for Maurice Papon’s trial (a nazi war criminal responsible for deporting my family to death camps), who used it as defense to say “sure we killed people but communism was worse”. This book uses ridiculous figures such as nazis killed by the USSR during WW2, soviet soldiers who died fighting nazis, an estimate of children not born due to the one child policy, among many other absurdities, to reach its 100 million tally. It’s still to this day being quoted by politicians and media personalities in my country to support the rapidly rising far right against the regular social democratic left. You don’t have to be a “tankie” (which I’m not despite your assumption) to realize red scares are propaganda and have consequences.
As for the pareto crime figure… you live in a society in which loitering in the wrong place, jaywalking, stealing 3€ of goods from a supermarket can constitute a crime, but regular white collar crime gets solved in private and doesn’t even go to trial, while most rapes aren’t even reported to the police out of fear. We don’t have accurate crime stats, and drawing conclusions from current crime stats is akin to drawing conclusions about “here’s who the state considers to be undesirables” (poor people end up being over represented for a reason). 80/20, 13/90, and other similar “crime rate figures” have become racist / white supremacist dogwhistles.
yeah, if you try to smuggle pro-communist propaganda into neutral comic forum, i am. and the fact you tried to downplay it means you are well aware of that.
i am not expert on this specific book and i am sure it is not easy task to come up with final figure, as any regime murdering people en mass is usually not keeping very good evidence. i am also sure that some numbers may be disputed, which is still not reason to try to dismiss it as you do. you know why?
because it is not about specific number. i don’t care whether the “real number” (if there could be such thing) is 50 or 150 million. the fact is, that communists MURDERED people, and a lot of them. the fact that nazis also murdered people is irrelevant to that point. the fact that some politician somewhere is supporting modern-day nazis is irrelevant to that point.
other people do have families escorted to similar camps by communist criminals
you are using the same excuse, just in the reverse direction.
let me be clear here, while propaganda does indeed have consequences, YOU DO HAVE TO BE EITHER TANKIE, OR AN IDIOT, to try to downplay the fact that communists murdered people en mass by calling it “red scare”.
yes, that is a problem worth solving, but it doesn’t in any way explain why pareto principle should not apply so some specific subsets of criminals.
it applies to a subset of criminals who are incarcerated and it is documented and i am pretty sure it applies to subset of white collar criminals as well.
i am not sure about rape, since it is a specific crime in that it doesn’t scale very well - you can, fortunately, only rape one person at a time, so it is probably not possible for 20% of perpetrators to be responsible for 80% of rapes, but i am really guessing here.
and most importantly, i am not really sure why this bothers you or the author of the comic. the pareto principle used in this way doesn’t specifically accuse poor people, or people of color, which are over represented in the prison population, of anything. it is a general mathematical principle describing distribution of data in a set.
if anything, i am quite sure that it would hold (if we had a chance to test it on real data) and say that 20% of the thieves are responsible for 80% of the total damage caused.
and the fact that these 20% will be white collar criminals and are unfortunately far more likely to get away without punishment, while we only locked the bottom 80%, is completely different societal problem (worth solving), but i am not sure where author of the comic sees the social or inequality issue in the simple and well tested mathematical principal that he feels to label it as “propaganda”
The problem is not that authoritarian regimes that mark themselves as communist cause a lot of deaths trough Missmanagement and suppression (great famine was mostly Missmanagement). Its how and by whom these numbers are used. When far right politicians call general health programs communism (which its not) and then cite that number (which had already been explained to be much lower), that is weaponizing it in a harmful way to suppress some potentially useful policy. This is what the other commentor was saying with “red scare”.
I also think they communism killed x number of people is also bullshit because what do you even call communism? States like Russia under stalin or Mao China were closer to authoritarian regimes than communism as defined by Marx.
Further I think that this number doesn’t make much sense at all since it also lacks any context to make it useful.
no, i am pretty sure that the problem is that communism kills people en mass. it is important to understand it when some uneducated moron dreams about communism and tries to explain that 100m of dead is propaganda, it was aKsHhuuuALly juSt 60…
the fact that somewhere else is some nazi moron is also a problem, but it is not a defense for a communism.
well of course we are talking about every attempt at practical realization of communism in human history. no one cares about a fictional dream in a book. fictional dream in a book does not kill people, all the practical attempts at bringing it to life does.
Nah you’re just as insufferable as I thought, I’m good.
Many more interesting things to do in life that argue with this brainrotten aggro take.
The comic was about you I guess.
what a surprise that you, once again, can’t formulate an answer, that was totally unexpected 😂
👍
I’m not the kind of person that gets ragebaited that easily.
Have fun, bye.
i accept your surrender. bye.
Then stop arguing like you know shit
that is the only thing from the whole post you are able to argue with? well congratulations… 😂
guess what, people can be aware of immoral foundation and crimes of communism without having read every single existing book on the subject.
wtf is happening here, is jlai.lu new hexbear, or what?
Your attitude is as shitty as your reasoning.
Can’t argue with stupid, mate.