Reliable recent statistics do not exist; however, Nigeria is divided roughly in half between 50–55% Muslims, who live mostly in the northern regions, and 35–45% Christians, who live mostly in the southern regions
You are right that the US doesn't have a monopoly on this, but they are almost certainly the front runner. There are plenty of European conservatives that donate to these "causes" and we can't forget the Catholic church that has recently compared "gender ideology" to nuclear war. Russia has also been pushing conservative and anti LGBT views, though I'm not sure how much they are involved in Africa. I'm sure there are plenty of others that I'm leaving out.
In recent history it's mostly the US. It's a big country, and a rich country. Canadian evangelicals do their part, but will always play second fiddle just on population grounds, while Europe is just less religious. (The funny thing is that as a result of their success overseas, evangelical churches around here are getting pretty brown and diverse, which was not the plan)
Obviously this whole chart is outside of the colonial era.
Guess i can't really argue wity that. What remains is the question whether the change was mainly driven by outside forces, or is mainly the result of internal pressure. We know who recently exported the most bigotry, but was it more influencial then the bigotry that was exported there earlier? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Obviously this whole chart is outside of the colonial era.
I agree 1993 was after the colonial era, but my point is that Nigeria wasn't a blank slate that was never influenced by anything before they collected the data for this chart.
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, but more familiar than most westerners.
Nigeria has a particularly rough history of religious extremism and totalitarianism. Even a lot of the indigenous beliefs were particularly intolerant (although this varied a lot, as Nigeria is an extremely diverse nation). These beliefs are rare nowadays, but still influence the culture and superstition. Adding to this, you have the influence of two abrahamic religions - in the north is a significant Islamic population, and in the south, Christianity largely imported (and enforced) by the British. I can't speak for the Islamic beleifs, but as was the case in many other places, the Christian beliefs imported and enforced were generally more conservative and extreme, and less allowed to change.
As well as this, the brutality of both regional warlords, colonization, then multiple different military dictatorships that followed, and now an ineffective government where terrorism and organized crime are common, lead many people to become more religious. Even now with a (relatively) stable and calm government, churchs and mosks are still one of the only sources for social assistance and security in communities. At the same time, the central positon of these churches leads to them being very corrupt and greedy, often being run more like a cult than a church as we tend to think of one. At the same time, in the modern world, this greed mean they also take in a lot of money from influential "Christian" organizations, for example, a lot of very rich, very political Anerican mega-churches, and will happily bend their teachings to appease wealthy donors.
All of this has led to Nigeria being effectively a perfect storm for homophobia and religious discrimination despite being (relatively) free.
I'm not sure you've understood the question, because you have (probably unintentionally) avoided answering it. Forgive me if I now over-specify.
You've presented some circumstantial evidence against religion; "religion was involved in these bad things." I am asking for the mechanism by which religion causes these bad things to happen. What is it that religion or religious practice actually does that you believe leads to these outcomes?
You weren't talking about "religions that want you dead," you were speaking very generally about the entire concept of religion. Are you trying to hint that you have a personal history that makes you biased and I'm not going to get objective reasoning out of you?
I'm not sure if you want a soundbite of me saying "yes, I'm bigoted against a country that is homophobic to the core", because I'm happily saying that, yes
Dude, you're not that special. People want me dead in the name of their religion, too. But I can still have a rational conversation about the topic. You're not even attempting to engage with the actual question that is asked and it's not clear why, but I think it's clear that you're working on your own personal issues and not really available for discussion on the topic. Maybe consider keeping your coping private, it's harmful to others.
These countries have not had the most reliable reporting on topics like these, so data quality/availability is a likely reason for their absence.
Religious fundamentalism is strongly correlated with anti LGBT sentiment (at least with Abrahamic religions), so it is fair to assume that these countries are probably not very good. It is also worth noting that most of them are like they are due to meddling (or outright coups) by western nations. Iran was fairly progressive for its day before the CIA overthrew their democratically elected government.
Even in progressive countries like norway thats one in ten people think that homosexuality is never or rarely ok. Insane. Thats so many people. Its a minority, sure, but its still common.
Unfortunately every country has their low-water-mark percentage of irredeemable bigots. Thankfully most of them tend to live out in the middle of nowhere, away from civilised people.
Here all the fuckers who want me killed¹ are christian, and it's the main vector for homophobic propaganda, still probably the main vector for transphobic.
You should modify that to "belongs to a backwards branch of a religion"
Christians in my country are mostly LBQT-friendly. (These are not the fundamentalisic US kind of christians though).
Muslims on the other hand... some serious fraction are homophobes...
Just a phase, jada-jada, while a half-in tip dip from behind is an armed break-and-enter robbery, character ass-ass-ination even, get-shot-on-the-spot crime.
My guess: Larger % of people living in city centers vs rural areas. A quick glance at population data over time seems to back that up, but you know what they say about correlation.
It's a really good question, I'm from Argentina and I don't have a solid answer. Like someone else said the colonization and history is likely to be part of the reason, but I would like to remark that Argentina has a lot more influence from Italy, Spain, Germany and France, and also Jewish ( iirc Buenos Aires used to be the city with the largest jewish population after New York in the 90's). It's a very different cultural melting pot compared to any other country in South America.
In general the culture is very much 'you do you'. People mind their own business and don't discriminate much. There is some animosity towards immigrants from some neighboring countries, but you would already know if that was your demographic. Occasionally you find some disdain towards English-speaking immigrants, but I would say that's overshadowed by admiration in general.
Overall I'd say the vibe is positive.
The main concern with Argentina isn't discrimination but economic instability, corruption, and high crime rates. Buenos Aires, its capital, is rough. If you are seriously considering it, my suggestion would be pick another province and ideally bring your own work as a freelancer or similar, because making money can be challenging.
Maybe has something to do with the type of colonisation in each country.
Argentina had its first university in 1613, while Brazil had its first in 1808. Brazil as a colonial project kept its extractivist nature for a lot longer.
It's confusing what you mean, because while "is first world" has come to mean "is a developed nation" for some reason, "used to be a first world" ambiguously summons the prior definition of the word, "an ally of the United States in the cold war." Ideally this problematic phrase should be avoided.
You're probably right, but "was a developed nation" seems confusing it it's own way, given that the definition of "developed" is pretty starkly different across times (there is no country left in the world with infant mortality as bad as best performer US in 1900, for example). In long form, it was at the same level as familiar W.E.I.R.D countries like the US, New Zealand and France, and then later fell behind.
Three worlds wasn't a great classification system when it was first devised, even. First world and second world made sense, lumping everything else into one category was pretty eurocentric and dismissive.
Hmm. The Wikipedia article mentions a French essay as the origin of the idea.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. nations either chose or didn't firmly choose a side, but lumping together all the ones that didn't choose together is categorisation. The non-aligned movement was there too but it didn't include the whole third world.
Didn't know the world excludes all of Africa except Nigeria where homophobia is still very much a thing. Hell my ex was Zulu and my current girlfriend is Kenyan. Homophobia is alive and well in everywhere that was conveniently left our? Lol
I'd be curious to see the changes. Nigeria got worse, but did the rest of the countries? Even this one has a lot where the majority are still homophobic, despite the decline.
It's the fault of missionaries, that like to spread homophpbia alongside of their "charity" actions. I'd personally would blacklist any such churches and NGOs, for "funding genocide abroad", but that would also include a pretty bad genocide happening now.
government is the issue there, not cultural attitudes
Ehh..... Not really. Homophobia is just different in East Asian cultures. A lot of Asian people don't really care if someone they don't know is gay, but are incredibly harsh towards their own family members if they come out. Pretty much all East Asia is still extremely culturally conservative and still holds onto Confucianist social values like abiding to strict social expectations.
That's a large part of it, carrying on the blood line is super important to most East Asian cultures. The other part of the equation is that their cultural ideas leave no place for queer people in their idea of modern society.
It's kinda strange, but pre-western influenced East Asia was arguably less conservative in a lot of ways when it came to sexual orientation. There were more gray places in society for nontraditional relationships like court eunuchs, harams, and other noble positions that diverged from today's cultural norms.
"Homosexuality can never... be justified." is an odd choice, but I'm sure that's what nets some positive responses in various cultures. I wonder how the reverse question would poll - "Homosexuality requires justification.".
I think the reverse is "Homosexuality can almost always or always be justified". Then as a further "If yes, does homosexuality require justification?" can be added.
The opposite to yours would be "Homosexuality doesn't require justification" which would likely have different results.
I think a direct link to the data/source should be required while posting in this community. Sure, it would reduce submissions but the quality will be much higher.
Edit: Yep, punishable by hard time in the Christian south, and death in the Muslim north. Other Christian nations down there have brought in the death penalty over time.
Yep. And subsaharan Africa is a loss, because I'm guessing it's the place bucking the trend. I wouldn't go quite as far as "selective", though, since that implies intentionality or completely different results.
I would guess that the rest of MENA looks a lot like Turkey, if you could manage to safely poll it - a starting point that's uniformly hostile, but a few people being swayed by progressive influence over time. Religious belief of the younger generations is also descending faster than anywhere else IIRC.
North Korea would also be fascinating, with a magic wand.
It's also just a global trend anecdotally, and probably based on other research that's been done. And it almost certainly does extend to MENA for reasons I mentioned. This is one of those infographics that's not really surprising.
based on non-global data carefully selected to leave out anything that doesn’t agree?
What claim exactly? Its say around the world and lists countries that span the globe. Seems accurate. Plus it represents the majority of the population.
So? You are reading things into the data and effectively turning it into a strawman. It isn't presenting an argument, it is presenting data. You are being oversensitive and inferring an argument, and then criticizing that argument, but it doesn't even exist.
Presenting data is an argument. Because you decide what data to present and how. If you leave out data that doesn't support a statement you made based on data you present, then there is an issue.
No pattern is obvious. There are no backwater countries, but otherwise most important ones are in there. You cannot plausibly cherry pick this effect while choosing so very many countries. A large part of global gdp is in there.
wtf is going on in nigeria :D
Christianity
Reliable recent statistics do not exist; however, Nigeria is divided roughly in half between 50–55% Muslims, who live mostly in the northern regions, and 35–45% Christians, who live mostly in the southern regions
I'd like to see more subsaharan Africa on the list. It's a noted shift across the region, while you can see Muslim Turkey moderating.
Fucking pedo cults, man.
My guess is the billions that the US has spent to export evangelical bigotry in Africa.
Not to disagree, but a lot of other places spent billions on exporting bigotry to Africa. Unfair to give the US all the credit.
You are right that the US doesn't have a monopoly on this, but they are almost certainly the front runner. There are plenty of European conservatives that donate to these "causes" and we can't forget the Catholic church that has recently compared "gender ideology" to nuclear war. Russia has also been pushing conservative and anti LGBT views, though I'm not sure how much they are involved in Africa. I'm sure there are plenty of others that I'm leaving out.
In recent history it's mostly the US. It's a big country, and a rich country. Canadian evangelicals do their part, but will always play second fiddle just on population grounds, while Europe is just less religious. (The funny thing is that as a result of their success overseas, evangelical churches around here are getting pretty brown and diverse, which was not the plan)
Obviously this whole chart is outside of the colonial era.
Guess i can't really argue wity that. What remains is the question whether the change was mainly driven by outside forces, or is mainly the result of internal pressure. We know who recently exported the most bigotry, but was it more influencial then the bigotry that was exported there earlier? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I agree 1993 was after the colonial era, but my point is that Nigeria wasn't a blank slate that was never influenced by anything before they collected the data for this chart.
Sure. That goes for India as well, though. This thread really seemed to be about who's gotten worse.
Specifically on this issue in this time frame.
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, but more familiar than most westerners.
Nigeria has a particularly rough history of religious extremism and totalitarianism. Even a lot of the indigenous beliefs were particularly intolerant (although this varied a lot, as Nigeria is an extremely diverse nation). These beliefs are rare nowadays, but still influence the culture and superstition. Adding to this, you have the influence of two abrahamic religions - in the north is a significant Islamic population, and in the south, Christianity largely imported (and enforced) by the British. I can't speak for the Islamic beleifs, but as was the case in many other places, the Christian beliefs imported and enforced were generally more conservative and extreme, and less allowed to change.
As well as this, the brutality of both regional warlords, colonization, then multiple different military dictatorships that followed, and now an ineffective government where terrorism and organized crime are common, lead many people to become more religious. Even now with a (relatively) stable and calm government, churchs and mosks are still one of the only sources for social assistance and security in communities. At the same time, the central positon of these churches leads to them being very corrupt and greedy, often being run more like a cult than a church as we tend to think of one. At the same time, in the modern world, this greed mean they also take in a lot of money from influential "Christian" organizations, for example, a lot of very rich, very political Anerican mega-churches, and will happily bend their teachings to appease wealthy donors.
All of this has led to Nigeria being effectively a perfect storm for homophobia and religious discrimination despite being (relatively) free.
thank you for the answer
They didn't mention the AIDs crisis. Guess what scares Nigerians and gets blamed on gay men.
Given the statistics, even gays are homophobes there
well, they are probably scared shitless if presented with the questionnaire and they prefer not to draw unwanted attention to themselves.
Not a lot of gay orgies at least
It's likely religion doing its thing again
What is the mechanism that you believe is at work? "Religion" doesn't really explain anything and comes across as possibly bigoted.
It's quite a religious country
With the two major religions both not having a great track record regarding treatment of gay people
And not liking religions that want to see one dead is not bigotry, but self preservation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nigeria
I'm not sure you've understood the question, because you have (probably unintentionally) avoided answering it. Forgive me if I now over-specify.
You've presented some circumstantial evidence against religion; "religion was involved in these bad things." I am asking for the mechanism by which religion causes these bad things to happen. What is it that religion or religious practice actually does that you believe leads to these outcomes?
You weren't talking about "religions that want you dead," you were speaking very generally about the entire concept of religion. Are you trying to hint that you have a personal history that makes you biased and I'm not going to get objective reasoning out of you?
I'm really not sure what you want as an answer.
Of course I'm biased against religions that literally see my existence as evil incarnate.
If your religious leaders are constantly going to tell you that the gays are the root of all evil, if course the homophobia will be rampant.
The country is basically split 50:50 in christianity and islam. The islamic side will just straight up kill you, while the other side will put you into prison for over a decade.
I'm not sure if you want a soundbite of me saying "yes, I'm bigoted against a country that is homophobic to the core", because I'm happily saying that, yes
Dude, you're not that special. People want me dead in the name of their religion, too. But I can still have a rational conversation about the topic. You're not even attempting to engage with the actual question that is asked and it's not clear why, but I think it's clear that you're working on your own personal issues and not really available for discussion on the topic. Maybe consider keeping your coping private, it's harmful to others.
No idea what you're on about
Maybe chill a bit and either take more or less drugs
All the Islamic countries are left off the list for some strange reason
These countries have not had the most reliable reporting on topics like these, so data quality/availability is a likely reason for their absence.
Religious fundamentalism is strongly correlated with anti LGBT sentiment (at least with Abrahamic religions), so it is fair to assume that these countries are probably not very good. It is also worth noting that most of them are like they are due to meddling (or outright coups) by western nations. Iran was fairly progressive for its day before the CIA overthrew their democratically elected government.
Turkey would like a word.
Heritage foundation.
Time travel
Even in progressive countries like norway thats one in ten people think that homosexuality is never or rarely ok. Insane. Thats so many people. Its a minority, sure, but its still common.
Unfortunately every country has their low-water-mark percentage of irredeemable bigots. Thankfully most of them tend to live out in the middle of nowhere, away from civilised people.
Problem is that those people have the internet now...
Christians aren't people.
You wish it was about religion. In Poland most of homophobes I know aren't religious in any way and Poland is/was religious country.
They hate them cuz they're different and easy to hate for laughs. "I have nothing for gays. Not even respect, hehehe" etc.
Here all the fuckers who want me killed¹ are christian, and it's the main vector for homophobic propaganda, still probably the main vector for transphobic.
¹before they meet me
You should modify that to "belongs to a backwards branch of a religion"
Christians in my country are mostly LBQT-friendly. (These are not the fundamentalisic US kind of christians though).
Muslims on the other hand... some serious fraction are homophobes...
Religion in general isn't great, but they're much less vile when they're a persecuted minority.
Eeeeeh, it's just as likely to turn them into extremist fanatics.
Which thry become if you dont step on them.
They're Christian like Trump is Christian. It's not religion driving this.
Except for Nigeria :(
Considering that the majority of countries are missing from this, i wonder how many more there are where it got worse.
I think I've made this comment before but I'm always amused at the phrasing of homosexuality being rarely justified.
So gay sex is WRONG and you'll go to HELL for your DEBAUCHE...wait 😳 he's cute! 😍 ok god will let you off this time ☺️.
it's common sense that homosexuality is acceptable when it's between two hot women /s
Or as ancient Romans and Greeks it's justified if you're fucking a guy in the ass, but not when you're taking it in the ass.
Well, between the thighs.
It is also acceptable when there are no female holes around, or when you're only gay for pay /s
Just a phase, jada-jada, while a half-in tip dip from behind is an armed break-and-enter robbery, character ass-ass-ination even, get-shot-on-the-spot crime.
Japan with the massive turnaround. Netherlands chill AF as usual.
Probably comes from legalising weed. They got better things to worry about xD
Does anyone know why Argentina was/is so progressive compared to its neighbors like Brazil and Chile?
My guess: Larger % of people living in city centers vs rural areas. A quick glance at population data over time seems to back that up, but you know what they say about correlation.
It's a really good question, I'm from Argentina and I don't have a solid answer. Like someone else said the colonization and history is likely to be part of the reason, but I would like to remark that Argentina has a lot more influence from Italy, Spain, Germany and France, and also Jewish ( iirc Buenos Aires used to be the city with the largest jewish population after New York in the 90's). It's a very different cultural melting pot compared to any other country in South America.
Interesting! How are the county's vibes regarding immigrants? Im always looking for a backup county in case my current one goes to shit again :)
In general the culture is very much 'you do you'. People mind their own business and don't discriminate much. There is some animosity towards immigrants from some neighboring countries, but you would already know if that was your demographic. Occasionally you find some disdain towards English-speaking immigrants, but I would say that's overshadowed by admiration in general.
Overall I'd say the vibe is positive.
The main concern with Argentina isn't discrimination but economic instability, corruption, and high crime rates. Buenos Aires, its capital, is rough. If you are seriously considering it, my suggestion would be pick another province and ideally bring your own work as a freelancer or similar, because making money can be challenging.
Maybe has something to do with the type of colonisation in each country. Argentina had its first university in 1613, while Brazil had its first in 1808. Brazil as a colonial project kept its extractivist nature for a lot longer.
I mean, Br and CL made a lot more progress. What gets to me is Mr Latam LGBT is behind Argentina by one measily point
Argentina used to be first world as well, for whatever that's worth.
It's confusing what you mean, because while "is first world" has come to mean "is a developed nation" for some reason, "used to be a first world" ambiguously summons the prior definition of the word, "an ally of the United States in the cold war." Ideally this problematic phrase should be avoided.
You're probably right, but "was a developed nation" seems confusing it it's own way, given that the definition of "developed" is pretty starkly different across times (there is no country left in the world with infant mortality as bad as best performer US in 1900, for example). In long form, it was at the same level as familiar W.E.I.R.D countries like the US, New Zealand and France, and then later fell behind.
Three worlds wasn't a great classification system when it was first devised, even. First world and second world made sense, lumping everything else into one category was pretty eurocentric and dismissive.
It wasn't a classification, it was a declaration. It was what side you were on in the Cold War.
Hmm. The Wikipedia article mentions a French essay as the origin of the idea.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. nations either chose or didn't firmly choose a side, but lumping together all the ones that didn't choose together is categorisation. The non-aligned movement was there too but it didn't include the whole third world.
Didn't know the world excludes all of Africa except Nigeria where homophobia is still very much a thing. Hell my ex was Zulu and my current girlfriend is Kenyan. Homophobia is alive and well in everywhere that was conveniently left our? Lol
The data appears to be very incomplete for Africa. Hit the play button, then scroll through dates.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-people-who-think-homosexuality-is-never-justified?time=1984..latest&country=PAK%7ERUS%7EUSA%7EAUS
I'd be curious to see the changes. Nigeria got worse, but did the rest of the countries? Even this one has a lot where the majority are still homophobic, despite the decline.
It's the fault of missionaries, that like to spread homophpbia alongside of their "charity" actions. I'd personally would blacklist any such churches and NGOs, for "funding genocide abroad", but that would also include a pretty bad genocide happening now.
Because black people don't have agency obviously
Sometimes black people (local blacks even) work for those missionaires, charity orgs, churches, etc.
thats great :3
now show the islamic countries😁
Icelands decline is because racist Garry has died.
Racist Gerry, who ate 80000 racists, must be considered an outlier and excluded from racism studies.
Did not expect Japan that high up, I guess the gay mangas had an effect.
Hey I'm not saying if has anything to do with the fact that manga publishers started printing futanari stories more openly in the mid 80's...
But I'm also not not saying it's related...
Surely the inverse would be true. The fact that they felt able to publish that kind of content was because of cultural shifts.
What a weird and confusing way to phrase that.
Gotta love the Dutch. <3
I didn't expect China to score well but sheesh
AFAIK the government is the issue there, not cultural attitudes. Their politicians don't use it as a weapon, but I could be wrong.
Ehh..... Not really. Homophobia is just different in East Asian cultures. A lot of Asian people don't really care if someone they don't know is gay, but are incredibly harsh towards their own family members if they come out. Pretty much all East Asia is still extremely culturally conservative and still holds onto Confucianist social values like abiding to strict social expectations.
reproduction taboos and mores? gay people can't produce children for the family?
That's a large part of it, carrying on the blood line is super important to most East Asian cultures. The other part of the equation is that their cultural ideas leave no place for queer people in their idea of modern society.
It's kinda strange, but pre-western influenced East Asia was arguably less conservative in a lot of ways when it came to sexual orientation. There were more gray places in society for nontraditional relationships like court eunuchs, harams, and other noble positions that diverged from today's cultural norms.
Good they did not include Bangladesh. It would be all Red. Peoples view did not change.
They included Nigeria instead, where it rose from 94% to 96%
Or you could be like Nigerian become slightly worse.
Suspicious absence of all MENA countries.
I want to note that Taiwan is the first Asian country in the world to legalize gay marriage.
Some of these info graphics tend to clump China with us.
"Homosexuality can never... be justified." is an odd choice, but I'm sure that's what nets some positive responses in various cultures. I wonder how the reverse question would poll - "Homosexuality requires justification.".
I think the reverse is "Homosexuality can almost always or always be justified". Then as a further "If yes, does homosexuality require justification?" can be added.
The opposite to yours would be "Homosexuality doesn't require justification" which would likely have different results.
My takeaway is that as soon as acceptance goes past 50% it really speeds up by double digits each generation.
I think a direct link to the data/source should be required while posting in this community. Sure, it would reduce submissions but the quality will be much higher.
happy to not see Greece in here
Quite a selective sample for such a big claim
I'm not quite sure how these countries were selected, but the set does touch on many regions and the very biggest ones.
Sure, but only a single African country and none from the middle east.
Well homosexuality is illegal in much of North Africa and the Middle East, so running a poll might get you in trouble
And subsaharan Africa, including Nigeria I think.
Edit: Yep, punishable by hard time in the Christian south, and death in the Muslim north. Other Christian nations down there have brought in the death penalty over time.
A reasonable point, but extremely difficult to square with the claim made by the OP. Also, the rest of Africa exists.
Yep. And subsaharan Africa is a loss, because I'm guessing it's the place bucking the trend. I wouldn't go quite as far as "selective", though, since that implies intentionality or completely different results.
I would guess that the rest of MENA looks a lot like Turkey, if you could manage to safely poll it - a starting point that's uniformly hostile, but a few people being swayed by progressive influence over time. Religious belief of the younger generations is also descending faster than anywhere else IIRC.
North Korea would also be fascinating, with a magic wand.
If you leave out data that bucks a trend you like, then you are being selective.
I don't really see evidence of either. Many minor countries elsewhere are neglected as well, and it's still a global trend.
So it's a global trend based on non-global data carefully selected to leave out anything that doesn't agree?
It's also just a global trend anecdotally, and probably based on other research that's been done. And it almost certainly does extend to MENA for reasons I mentioned. This is one of those infographics that's not really surprising.
Basically, asked and answered.
What claim exactly? Its say around the world and lists countries that span the globe. Seems accurate. Plus it represents the majority of the population.
There is one African country and nothing from the middle east.
The most populous African country by a significant margin and Turkey is often counted as middle east.
Right, but microscopic European populations are still included because they support the thesis.
Wow your argument sure keeps changing in every response. I think there is a phrase for that...
Not understanding stuff, maybe there's a term for that.
So? You are reading things into the data and effectively turning it into a strawman. It isn't presenting an argument, it is presenting data. You are being oversensitive and inferring an argument, and then criticizing that argument, but it doesn't even exist.
Presenting data is an argument. Because you decide what data to present and how. If you leave out data that doesn't support a statement you made based on data you present, then there is an issue.
There are abo 25% of countries in there and it doesn't look like doctored data and agrees with lived experience. Your claims are baseless.
Are you concerned that nothing in your reply addresses whether the countries were chosen to support a trend?
No pattern is obvious. There are no backwater countries, but otherwise most important ones are in there. You cannot plausibly cherry pick this effect while choosing so very many countries. A large part of global gdp is in there.
I can only laugh at this. "Most important countries", yes no pattern.
That happens when people cant say what they think yeah. :)
But it does feel better. Feels like progress. But may not be actual progress.
The audacity of posting a graph in here without axis labels
There are axis labels? The bottom has numbers percent, and the side is just a bar chart, it has names of countries.
No, it has numbers. you infer percent when it doesn't explicitly say it.
At the top it says 'share of people', which means the numbers are a percentage
So, not on the axis and vague enough for you to be confident in your assumption. Beautiful.
I say it's pretty damn simple to infer, and so it's a safe assumption. I'm not sure what your hangup is, other than being strict.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/19/doing-your-own-research-isnt-a-bad-thing-i-tell-my-patients-but-just-how-will-they-spot-the-fraudulent-papers