Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- statistics [2026/05/11 12:43] – created ultracomfy
+++ statistics [2026/05/11 20:36] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 An easy way to lie about this is to use the raw number for shock factor. If a town of 10,000 gets 10,000 immigrants, it's now a town of 20,000. Do you see how this gives opportunity to lie about the numbers? It's so simple you'll even remember the necessary maths from school. Twice as much crime! The number of break-ins are going through the roof! 50% of our crime is committed by migrants! And that, even though migrants are actually committing the appropriate amount of crime and nothing about our statistics has actually changed. Using absolute numbers when relative numbers are more appropriate is a classic way to lie with statistics.
-===== Crime: Relative =====
+===== Crime: Relative Numbers =====
+<WRAP column right 25%>
+{{ ::crime_change_infographic.png?nolink |}}\\
+Look at this, left extremism is much worse than right extremism.
+</WRAP>
 But, fear not, it works the other way around as well! Today is May 11, 2026 and I just stumbled over a fresh-off-the-press example of relative numbers being used to distort reality when using the absolute numbers was more appropriate. One of Germany's conservative parties is currently trying to make cooperation with the far right Nazi party palatable, and they do that with the standard method of pointing fingers at "the left". So, the infographic goes as follows:
 "Change of extremist crime in Bavaria:", followed by a bar graph: "Islamism +6.5%", "Right wing extremism +24.8%" and "Left wing extremism +135.7%"; "Source: Federal Office of the Protection of the Constitution 2025". Hmmm, I bet the constitution protection office wouldn't sign off on this static as such, but putting their name there anyway lends these numbers crecedence.
-If you're not prepared, what follows from this statistic would be that //the real problem// is left wing extremism. They're going completely out of control! Well, no, they're not going out of control. I find this chart to be weak in general because even with at least a little bit of life experience you'd recognize that the normal growth numbers for public policy things like crime generally moves in comparatively small numbers. If your numbers explode like this, this would typically raise questions about your methodology or your interpretation. For endemic types of crime, +6.5% is a natural amount of growth. Even when prompted due to certain events (like right now the Israel - Palestine situation) you can have spikes, but 135.7% is basically a number you just do not see. The reason for this is that left wing crime is not (or at least used to be) not endemic. Even the +24.8% for right wing extremism could be within the margin for endemic right wing extremism, the reason we have such an explosive development in left wing extremism is because it is/was NOT endemic. It basically wasn't a thing before and it's now because of Israel - Palestine that we see movement on that front. And of course, if there's only been very little of a thing before, spikes like these can easily happen when a conflict like that reaches a melting point.
+If you're not prepared, what follows from this statistic would be that left wing extremism is much worse than right wing extremism. They're completely out of control!\\
+Well, no, they're not going out of control. I find this chart to be weak in general because even with at least a little bit of life experience you'd recognize that the normal growth numbers for public policy things like crime generally moves in comparatively small numbers. If your numbers explode like this, this would typically raise questions about your methodology or your interpretation. For endemic types of crime, +6.5% is a natural amount of growth. Even when prompted due to certain events (like right now the Israel - Palestine situation) you can have spikes, but 135.7% is basically a number you just do not see. The reason for this is that left wing crime is not (or at least used to be) not endemic. Even the +24.8% for right wing extremism could be within the margin for endemic right wing extremism, the reason we have such an explosive development in left wing extremism is because it is/was NOT endemic. It basically wasn't a thing before and it's now because of Israel - Palestine that we see movement on that front. And of course, if there's only been very little of a thing before, spikes like these can easily happen when a conflict like that reaches a melting point. That's why spikes like 135.7% are //possible//, but then obviously don't say very much.
+This graphic is a very smart use of relative numbers to distort the perception of the actual reality that was measured. The actual rates are still lying underneath. Left wing extremism used to be not represented, //now// there are roughly as many left wing extremist cases as there are right wing extremist cases (per capita). One other things this graph fails to mention is the type of crime typically committed. Right wing extremism is often targeted at individuals and frequently sees bodily injury. Left wing extremism expresses itself in vandalism and the destruction of property, //not// people (mostly((Yeah I know, that poor health insurance fucker from the United States. This graph talks about Germany though. And also the guy killed people himself, whether gun or flick of the pen doesn't matter. Doesn't justify it, but it's more compliated than just "libevil". If you think crime against migrants is at least understandable because they make the country worse, then you should understand crime against pen killers as well, whether you agree with it or not.))).
+----
+===== Climate Change: Absolute Numbers =====
+What's the point in reducing our carbon footprint if China is so selfish? There is a very common graph (which I will show further below) that is used to give the impression that China creates so much emissions that other countries can't do anything about climate change, even if they wanted to. Part of the argument here is that China creates more emissions than other nations. And while it is true that China has the largest share of global emissions, there is often the implication that China is a particularly dirty nation. However, that isn't true. As usual, the graph being used to this end shows absolute numbers, which is misleading. There are reasons for why the absolute numbers are the way they are, and it's not that China is particularly selfish. The reason for these absolute numbers is that China hosts more than a third of the world's population. More civies means more consumption means more emissions. Additionally, China also hosts the world's largest industry. Most of our stuff comes from there because it is cheaper to import from China than to manufacture locally. China doesn't just produce for itself, it produces most things for most of the world.
-This graphic is a very smart use of relative numbers to create a perception of "rabid" left wing extremism that hides the actual rates lying underneath. Left wing extremism used to be not represented, //now// there are roughly as many left wing extremist cases as there are right wing extremist cases (per capita). One other things this graph fails to mention is the type of crime typically committed. Right wing extremism is often targeted at individuals and frequently sees bodily injury. Left wing extremism expresses itself in vandalism and the destruction of property, //not// people (mostly((Yeah I know, that poor health insurance fucker from the United States. This graph talks about Germany though. And also the guy killed people himself, whether gun or flick of the pen doesn't matter. Doesn't justify it, but it's more compliated than just "libevil". If you think crime against migrants is at least understandable because they make the country worse, then you should understand crime against pen killers as well, whether you agree with it or not.))).
+Contrast and compare the graph being used maliciously on the left with the graph that accounts for per capita and trade on the right.
-===== Climate Change: Absolute =====
+<WRAP group>
-Another graphic I stumbled over is the amount of CO2 emissions per country. If you understood the situation with crime, this one should be pretty easy to read as well. The argument here is that there is no point in western countries to go carbon neutral if China won't. Well, no, these are absolute numbers. China hosts more than a third of the world's population. More civies means more consumption means more emissions. Additionally, China also hosts the world's largest industry. Most of our stuff comes from there because it is cheaper to import from China than to manufacture locally. China doesn't just produce for itself, it produces most things for most of the world. So, more industry means more emissions. If you adjust this graph for per capita and trade, this is the result.
+<WRAP column half centeralign>
+{{ ::total_co2_emissions_per_country.png?nolink&0x500 |}}\\
+Yes, China has high total emissions...
+</WRAP>
+<WRAP column half centeralign>
+{{ ::per_capita_consumption_based_co2_emissions.png?nolink&0x500 |}}\\
+...but the reality is that China is no worse than most other countries.
+</WRAP>
+</WRAP>
 This is not to exculpate China from its increased responsibility in getting to net zero. If all our emissions are imported, it is still China from which these emissions are imported. However, it means there are things we can do about this. The simplest solution would be to stop importing. A more involved solution could be some kind of treaty with China wherein we pay more to China for our imports but China uses the extra money to go to net zero. There are all kinds of possible ideas here. But as far as these statistics are concerned and the way they are used to lie about our reality, it is wrong that we can't do anything about China's emissions, or that China isn't doing anything about its emissions. They're not just releasing uncontrolled amounts of CO2. The reality of China's emissions is that they are roughly on par with the rest of the developed world (except for Australia).