hakase

Yes, I understand that, which was why in the comment I linked to I was careful to be much more precise, including both the numbers of male victims with male perpetrators (which according to the CDC was low enough in 2011 to be statistically insignificant) and the number of male victims with female perpetrators.

And this is still very much a spinjob. The tone of their comment is chiding and patronizing while acting like they're just "correcting the record", minimizing and undermining the CDC numbers I'm quoting as much as they can even as they arrive at a more imprecise number only slightly lower than mine.

If you'd like an actual breakdown of the numbers, please refer to the comment I linked to above, which goes into much more detail with the numbers from the CDC report.

Wow, what a spinjob, all to conclude that the number is ackshually just 34% instead of 40% when you use the CDC's lifetime data instead of their year-over-year data like I did in my calculation. This is to be compared, of course, to all of the "95% of rapists are men" signs and infodocs drawing from the CDC's incredibly misleading "rape" figures, but it doesn't sound like you'd be quite as concerned about that much more prevalent, much more inaccurate, and much more damaging discrepancy.

Anyhow, based directly on the CDC's year over year data from the three years they've released the report, as I detailed in my other comment, yes, 40% of rapists are women, and I think it's pretty disgusting how much effort you were willing to go through to wiggle out of so few percent, all just to minimize male victims of rape as much as you can.

Here's everyone's daily reminder that, in the US at least, 40% of rapists are women, and fully half of rape victims are men.

The irony of this comment being posted in this thread is palpable.

Thanks for the good-faith discussion. :)

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like in that case the "Visit Mexico!" ads I saw when I was growing up in the US would be Mexican propaganda then, correct? Since they're advancing a specific political cause, namely increasing tourist revenue and the government's share of that revenue.

In that case, an ad saying "hey, don't try to get into our country illegally because we'll arrest and deport you" feels much less like propaganda to me than "hey, come visit our country so we can get your money!" does.

Edit: So, (aside from the comment that mentioned that this may be a mistranslation), if what you say about the situation is correct, to me it's starting to sound like this might just be the Mexican government being intentionally incendiary and a bit hyperbolic in their language because they're pissy about the US government going over their head and speaking directly to their people, which may be due to the (accurate or not) perception that the Mexican government isn't doing enough to prevent illegal immigration. In that case, it seems like my original comment implying that this isn't really propaganda is still mostly accurate.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense, thanks for the explanation. It definitely feels discriminatory. That's a terrible translation if this is the case.

This is an example of folk etymology. The original word was Spanish cucaracha, but English speakers couldn't make anything meaningful of that when they borrowed it into English, and so they folk etymologized it into cock "male chicken" and roach "a type of fish", that sounds similar enough to cucaracha to be reasonable.

The same thing happened to Cayo Hueso "Bone Key" as "Key West", for example.

c/badlinguistics