This game's toxicity is now off the charts.

[Caurcas]

Good data tends to only have 1 objective interpretation though. If it's "open ended" it's bad data and shouldn't be used.

At least, scientifically.

Subjective data is different, but that's opinions, and not really the same thing.

For example of my point say that an objective study is conducted and finds that Lalafells make up 75% of the population of Ul'dah, but only account for 10% of crime. The objective facts are the 75% of population and the 10% is crime committed by said 75%. Interpretation is using these figures to hypothesize why and how, and ofcourse that hypothesis has to be objectively testable and verified by data to be confirmed objectively correct.

[Nethereal]

Good data tends to only have 1 objective interpretation though. If it's "open ended" it's bad data and shouldn't be used.

At least, scientifically.

Subjective data is different, but that's opinions, and not really the same thing.

Plenty of "good math" is used disingenuously by misrepresenting the sample size and just not talking about it. Even if it is brought up and disapproved people will just pretend it didn't happen or it's not real.

Science at this very moment is going backwards. If the data that is being analyzed shows results contrary to the mainstream narrative or the supreme ruler's narrative then the first thing scientist or an institution has to ask themselves isn't "Is the science right?" It's "Am I feeling lucky."

The gender earnings gap is a perfect example.

Women are paid the same(as men) but earn less than men. That simple difference in words is how science is manipulated to a fit a specific narrative.

And if they really want to manipulate data they will simply make the process of understanding how they got that data harder to interpret in their presentation of the data.
Either by poorly explaining something or purposefully over complicating the process they used.

[Awha]

Good data tends to only have 1 objective interpretation though. If it's "open ended" it's bad data and shouldn't be used.

At least, scientifically.

Subjective data is different, but that's opinions, and not really the same thing.

Even objective data can be misrepresented either by willful ignorance or malicious intent to create a narrative that supports a preconceived postion.

That is what I was getting take anti vaxxer's from an objective PoV the data supports the beneficial aspects of vaccines. Yet unfortunately as a society we are forced to lament over the fact no matter how pointless or dumb a stance may be the fact is people will have an opposing stance and just due to seer number of people that hold such a stance we have to take their perspective into account which to a degree provides some validation to their stance.

That is at the very least what I was getting at when I said depending on who you ask any group could be seen as a hate group. Even if objectively it may be false facts and logic are not the corner stones of general discourse for the general public.

[Ativan]

"Kek" comes from World of Warcraft. When a horde player says "lol" in the /say or /yell-chat then it appears as "kek" to an alliance player. It seems that the author of this article has no clue.


https://www.engadget.com/2006-08-10-...-love-you.html


Cheers

And the OK hand originated from a benign source. Meanings of words and gestures can and WILL change over time. Kek was formerly a benign word, but it has now become a neo-Nazi dog whistle.

[Shurrikhan]

And the OK hand originated from a benign source. Meanings of words and gestures can and WILL change over time. Kek was formerly a benign word, but it has now become a neo-Nazi dog whistle.

Except they don't change universally. They change among those groups that find new purposes for the word or gesture.

In a vacuum, I can't tell whether someone is a neo-Nazi based on whether they said "lol" in Orcish. I can merely assume what meaning is attached when I already know, via the person's affiliations, how they're likely to use it, or if the situation bares no other reasonable interpretation.

[Ativan]

Except they don't change universally. They change among those groups that find new purposes for the word or gesture.

In a vacuum, I can't tell whether someone is a neo-Nazi based on whether they said "lol" in Orcish. I can merely assume what meaning is attached when I already know, via the person's affiliations, how they're likely to use it, or if the situation bares no other reasonable interpretation.

What does it say about you if you're comfortable with using a word or gesture that neo-Nazis freely use all the time?

[Shurrikhan]

What does it say about you if you're comfortable with using a word or gesture that neo-Nazis freely use all the time?

What does it say about you that you'd presume something I've made no implication of?

Strawman aside, let's try out an analogous circumstance:

The word "gamer" is now used by some group of horrible people for nefarious purposes -- perhaps to refer to people who "play the game" of life without whatever black-pill BS they may have in mind, perhaps something else; it doesn't particularly matter, except in that the word is now used by a group of deservedly ill repute.

Has the word therefore been, effectively, removed from your usable vocabulary just because some group elsewhere has created new associations with/to it?

[Soge01]

Cool. Use an Antidote.