Reading a chart and understanding it are different things, a further different thing is understanding what it means in context.

This is a good book for learning the ins and outs of how to understanding statistical data in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

It does come at it through the lens of intentionally deceptive practices but It’s a good general introduction as well.

Great argument there. Replace what I say with whatever you think it says and go on from there.

I mean, yes… that is what i did… i explained as i did it.

Should I just do the same with yours and we’ll see what kind of nonsense comes out? I’m sure that would be in your interpretation of “good faith”.

Was this a preface to actually doing this? is there a part of the text missing ?

TL;DR;

It’s weird to be upset at people for having personal boundaries/morals/ethics.

Using “purity test” like a pejorative, because using a more accurate term makes your argument sound bad, is a bad faith approach.

You say “purity tests” like it’s some sovcit term imbued with magical powers, like DEI or woke.

Headcanon replace it with “personal ethics and morals” and you might see how some of those arguments are really just people having boundaries.

An example of what i mean.

This is the biggest issue with niche communities: purity tests.

They can’t unite under one goal and have productive discussions. They are more focused on being correct (their interpretation of correct) and shutting out the incorrect than getting closer to a goal. Sometimes incorrect can be as little as choosing the wrong utility and other times it can be much bigger but they all spark the same amount of ire.

vs

This is the biggest issue with niche communities: personal ethics and morals.

They can’t unite under one goal and have productive discussions. They are more focused on being correct (their interpretation of correct) and shutting out the incorrect than getting closer to a goal. Sometimes incorrect can be as little as choosing the wrong utility and other times it can be much bigger but they all spark the same amount of ire.

See how the rest of that statement sounds without the bad faith, magic-word interpretation ?

I’m not expecting any good faith arguments in response, so don’t worry, this was a just-in-case kind of thing.

Is this situation relevant to that example? Are the people in question changed since the time in which the accusations were made?

Rebranding personal ethics and morals as “a purity test” is disingenuous at best.

If you’re going to take umbridge with someone’s approach at least do it directly instead of this backhanded high horse bullshit.