you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 44 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The choice of regions feels cherry-picked to inflate the blue area on the map. Why else would they include Mongolia, or include only the least-dense regions of the US and Russia while excluding the major population centers?

While South Africa certainly has a lot of murders, both absolute and per capita, this map could easily be draw with a lot less blue on it.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    For real, they picked the most barren places on earth (except Europe). Most of the land mass of Canada, Australia, and Greenland are deserted. Midwest US is all farmland. No one lives in Siberia

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Yes, I'm pretty sure that's the whole point. I'm guessing they could pick one or two Central American or other African countries and get the same balance.

    Also, picking on SA specifically smacks of the whole apartheid hangover thing that's going on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Like, comparing it to China or India?

    Comparing absolute numbers in a statistic like this is particularly egregious. At least make it per-capita. May as well compare the number of murders per year in the continental US to the number of murders per year in the entire polar regions. Shock, horror, American so violent!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    For example, using absolute numbers from Wikipedia...
    South Africa: 27,272
    Haiti + Philippines + Ecuador: 28,509

    That map would look very different.

    You're right that using absolute numbers in the first place is bad practice.

  • source
  • parent