Posting this at top level since its burried in replies:
Fact time. You don’t always die when shot, and the US is a baby factory. I can’t find good stats on non-lethal gunshot, so I’ll do the rest.
Verdict: Pretty accurate.
- 8.4% without health insurance (33 in 400)
- 11.5% poverty rate (46 in 400)
- 20% adults at or below literacy level 1 (80 in 400)
- 57% mental illness untreated (228 in 400) (requires math from NIH source)
References:
Btw your 20% figure includes those at Level 1 literacy, only 8% are below level 1 (from your source)
People with Level 1 Literacy can:
Locate one piece of information in a sports article
Locate the expiration date on a driver’s license
Total a bank deposit entry
People with Level 2 Literacy can:
Interpret appliance warranty instructions
Locate an intersection on a street map
Calculate postage and fees when using certified mail
People with Level 3 Literacy can:
Write a brief letter to explain a credit card billing error
Use a bus schedule to choose the correct bus to take to get to work on time
Determine the discount on a car insurance bill if paid in full within 15 days
People with Level 4 Literacy can:
Explain the difference between two types of benefits at work
Calculate the correct change when given prices on a menu
People with Level 5 Literacy can:
Compare and summarize different approaches lawyers use during a trial
Use information in a table to compare two credit cards and explain the differences
Compute the cost to carpet a room in a house
Here’s a good study on gunshoot statistics thay include nonletal gunshot wounds:
Which comes out to about 1/7 of a person in that room being shot per year.
Yea, if 1/400 people were shot a day, nearly everyone would have been shot by the time they were 2.
Quick Google results showed me between 15 and 20% lethality for single GSWs
That needs an addendum, otherwise it sounds like any GSW is about as lethal as covid19:
Not accounting for suicides and precision shooting, a single GSW is likely an accident, which drives the lethality down considerably. Filter out unintentional single GSWs and I bet the lethality is rather different.
This article indicates there’s no difference, in fact, and is lower than the conservative percentage I was getting earlier.
That’s good to see a lot of the statistics are close, and I appreciate the sources.
That said, for a full picture, I think you should mention that the average 20 year old doesn’t have 18 gunshot wounds (365 wounds per 400 per year, is about 9.1 wounds per person per decade, or 18.2 wounds per 20 years per person)
So I’d appreciate if you include a bullet point about that.
You didn’t fact-check how many trans people there are in the U.S.1
It looks to be between 0.5% and 1.6% of the total U.S. population (2 - 6 in 400).
References:
- https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-Pop-Update-Jun-2022.pdf
- https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/07/about-5-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-say-their-gender-is-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-birth/
Semi-related, the number of intersex people (in the literature they talk about people with “disorders of sexual development”) have also been estimated to be around 1% of the population (4 in 400), source:
https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
1 yes, the U.S. isn’t mentioned in the OP, but your sources are looking at U.S. demographics and so I will continue with the U.S.-centrism already present.
Some Thoughts (oh boy):
There is a weird logic to pointing out how few trans people there are actually are in the OP. Even if there were many more trans people, (like if there really were 1 in 5 trans people as is commonly mis-perceived), would that make the GOP’s campaign of fear-mongering and animus any more justified? I don’t think this is what Shon () was going for, but it almost seems like a consequence of how the message was written.
Maybe I’m wrong here, but does it seem like way it is written implies that the problem is not that the trans panic is unjustified in its fear of trans people, but that it is merely blown out of proportion? Maybe the angle was that even if we assume trans people are a problem, it’s still so few people it’s not worth all this panic and legislation (there are >500 anti-trans bills in the U.S. right now, over 40 of them have already passed).
Rhetorically this perspective-taking might be effective in appealing to mildly transphobic centrists or moderate conservatives who are not entirely comfortable with trans people but who might not want to be perceived as transphobic and don’t want to be associated with the rabid and vocal transphobia of the GOP.
That wedge between a more moderate closeted transphobe and a more openly transphobic right-wing one is politically useful, so I am not necessarily complaining, but there is a concern here about whether tackling transphobia is really the goal here, and if so how we should best go about that.
my favourite is how tennessee effectively made insurance more expensive for everyone because one trans child wanted to play sports with her friends in school
they basically put up a bill that banned tenncare from contracting with organizations that offer gender affirming care in any state, which is… a lot of organizations which limits the options which makes everything more expensive. at the time it was all based on a lawsuit from one 8 year old trans girl who wanted to play sports with her friends.
Those trans people better not play sports! /s
Because all the other shit is those two people’s fault somehow, obvs.
They need to make up reasons why their god is being such a piece of shit.
Holy shit the literacy rate is kinda shocking…
Do people not like to read? A quarter of the population is fucking NUTS
Some people didn’t have an opportunity to learn in the first place. Lack of education doesn’t make someone “fucking NUTS”.
I think they meant a quarter of the population being illiterate, that is, that fact that such a statistic exists, is “fucking nuts,” not the illiterate population themselves.
Well he proceeded it by saying that they don’t “like” to read, implying that this is a choice on their part.
85 is a bit high. It would be around 60, and that is the global illiteracy rate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate Still too high though.
This basically comes down to how you define literacy.
Nationally, 21% of Americans have level 1 or below literacy on the PIAAC literacy scale. That’s probably where the 85 people came from.
12% are at level 1, meaning they can only read at a basic level. 4% are functionally illiterate, and 4% had some kind of cognitive or physical handicap or language barrier that kept them from being surveyed.
About 34% of illiterate Americans were born outside the US, so they’re possibly literature in another language.
One thing I haven’t noticed anyone else mention is that the literacy data being referenced here seems to originate from the PIAAC, an organisation that I wasn’t previously familiar with. I was curious about their methodology, since I also thought the quoted rate was shocking. The thing is, according to this FAQ, they only assess in English. So the number of people who are actually illiterate is inextricable from the number of people who are literate in another language, but haven’t learned English yet.
This video is a great discussion of literacy. To put that rate into context, ‘illiterate’ often includes people that can read and write a little bit, but still struggle with some vital or everyday tasks. According to Wikipedia, 20% of US adults have a literacy level at or below level 1 which would be 80 people in this example. This report has a ton of stats and also defines each level of literacy.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I have no idea how no one has picked up on this and have all decided “Americans are dumb”.
What everyone has missed is the literacy statistic is for ENGLISH literacy. The other 20% or so are pretty much all immigrants that cannot speak English and there aren’t tens of millions of adults with the mental capacity of a rock.
I’m from Connecticut. Willimantic area, not Greenwich area, but we were still less damaged by Jim Crow and similar policies (except for redlining, that fucked everyone). I spoke to a man in 2017, who had been born in the US, seemed aware and thoughtful, and had to get his granddaughter to write down the claim number I wanted to give him, because he didn’t know his numbers or letters.
I didn’t ask, even though it was killing me with curiosity. His granddaughter probably heard the curiosity in my voice, and explained that in 1967, when he was able to leave school, the teachers didn’t care whether a black kid learned to read. They let him leave school at twelve, even though it was well after brown v the board of education. By the time he wanted to learn to read, he was older, had full time work, and it just didn’t click.
That man was underserved by his government well past the point of mistreatment, not stupid. He’s obviously only one data point, but he’s not the only black man who was treated differently in schools
Not entirely.
Only about a quarter of them were born in another country. Then you’ve got e.g. people with severe cognitive delays or some kind of physical impairment such as blindness. And there’s also people whose education system failed them.
It’s honestly a mix of things.
