Yeah, but if your results are only a biased subset of your total gamut (vaccers + anti-vaccers) then 340% is still an astonishing result when only taking your preferred group.
It actually does build credibility that the group you’re biased towards had the most significant result.
If the total gains were 1000% including contributions from both groups, then yes I can understand the point the post is making (340 from anti-vaccers, 660 from vaccers, clear cherry-picking).
But 340 is already an incredibly high number, so it sort of weakens the post, if you catch my meaning
tetris11@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Yeah, but if your results are only a biased subset of your total gamut (vaccers + anti-vaccers) then 340% is still an astonishing result when only taking your preferred group.
It actually does build credibility that the group you’re biased towards had the most significant result.
If the total gains were 1000% including contributions from both groups, then yes I can understand the point the post is making (340 from anti-vaccers, 660 from vaccers, clear cherry-picking).
But 340 is already an incredibly high number, so it sort of weakens the post, if you catch my meaning
criticon@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
You are overthinking a (bad) joke