TL DR An Amerikkkan liberal sent me this meme after I sent him an awesome marxist meme that made him SEETHE. He coped by sending me this poop.
Thoughts?
TL DR An Amerikkkan liberal sent me this meme after I sent him an awesome marxist meme that made him SEETHE. He coped by sending me this poop.
Thoughts?
Look at the note below it, it’s not actually measuring direct life expectancy, but the average lifespan of an infant if mortality rates didn’t change throughout their entire life. Which is obviously not how anything in the real world works. This isn’t even cherry picking data, it’s just redefining things until it matches their preconcieved objective. If the life expectancy did increase, they would use that, they wouldn’t do this weaselly shit. I would also look up these three sources as well, and contrast them with other sources, odds are good that at least one just made shit up and don’t actually cite censuses or population records or anything.
And of course, there were a lot more countries in the USSR than these 6. They’re ignoring the other countries in the USSR, because their life expectancy did decrease.
And finally, life expectancy doesn’t tell the full story either. I’d much rather live till 60 in a socialist state where I don’t have to worry about homelessness and poverty than 80 in a capitalist one where I slave away until the day I die because I would be homeless on the streets if I didn’t.
No, they are entirely ignoring the USSR. None of these countries were part of the USSR.
Oh yep, right. I used USSR when I should’ve used the Eastern bloc. I always do that. :S
Thank you for your thoughts! This will actually help me if this liberal within discord that I am currently in throws up this data again.
After doing some searching, it appears that period life expectancy is a perfectly reasonable metric for life expectancy. It looks to be a clever way of capturing a sort of “instantaneous” life expectancy for a given year. In a given year, you can track how many people of each age range die, but that only tells you death rates, not life expectancy. And you can’t just average the ages of everyone living because you don’t know when they’ll die. So what they do is they take the death rates for age ranges within a given year and they calculate the expected value of an infant’s death age, assuming that infant would live through the same death rates that were tracked that year. In my opinion, this seems like a natural choice.
That said, there’s definitely other bullshittery going on.
Ah, thank you, interesting to learn. It just sounded like the usual scummy way they redefine all their terms so they can get the results they want. I should’ve investigated further, thanks for that.