Setting aside that historically male dominated fields make more money than felmale dominated fields do…

In the states, I have noticed, the wage gap isnt so much woman/man as it is parents/non parents. the default parent is getting called out of work for the sick child, for said childs dr appointments, for said childs half days and vacations. The default parent is usually, still today, a woman. So while the starting wage for a guy and a lady may be the same, overtime, a mother (or yes some fathers) with a child she is the default for, is going to miss work time, she may be passed up for promotion or other projects, a manager may overlook her because she has parental responsiblities. That last part, men in the same role will often be promoted if he has a family, and its the opposite for mothers.

Also

girls got bigger raises simply for being attractive girls

imagine not being a conventional attractive woman. There are tons of capable, confident young women who old pervy managers just dont find hot. There is a coffee shop near me, known to only hire “attractive” young women. I didnt even bother to apply knowing this, when I have hella exp. working in coffee shops. I got fired from planet fitness, the only job ive ever been fired from, excuse me, “let go”, and it was because of how I looked. (mind you I was fit, but I have boxy shoulders, had short hair, and didnt fit this dudes republican barbie aethstetic.)

So that swings a lotta ways man.

Not what I said.

oh sorry. i sort of implied from your propaganda accusation. so i assume there is some middle ground in between, some number of people that you consider acceptable to murder in order to build your communist heaven? what number is that? it wasn’t hundred million, it was just fifty, and that is totally fine?

Literally, 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of the people.

it’s pretty obvious or you would have more than 20% criminals in the general population.

and now, as a homework, you can think about:

1. what is the difference between these two statements?
2. what condition would have to be met in order for both of them to be true at the same time?
3. is such condition met?

You’re not “owed” a reply. Nobody is ever “owed” a reply

yeah, if you try to smuggle pro-communist propaganda into neutral comic forum, i am. and the fact you tried to downplay it means you are well aware of that.

This book uses ridiculous figures such as nazis killed by the USSR during WW2, soviet soldiers who died fighting nazis, an estimate of children not born due to the one child policy, among many other absurdities, to reach its 100 million tally.

i am not expert on this specific book and i am sure it is not easy task to come up with final figure, as any regime murdering people en mass is usually not keeping very good evidence. i am also sure that some numbers may be disputed, which is still not reason to try to dismiss it as you do. you know why?

because it is not about specific number. i don’t care whether the “real number” (if there could be such thing) is 50 or 150 million. the fact is, that communists MURDERED people, and a lot of them. the fact that nazis also murdered people is irrelevant to that point. the fact that some politician somewhere is supporting modern-day nazis is irrelevant to that point.

(a nazi war criminal responsible for deporting my family to death camps)

other people do have families escorted to similar camps by communist criminals

who used it as defense to say “sure we killed people but communism was worse”.

you are using the same excuse, just in the reverse direction.

You don’t have to be a “tankie” (which I’m not despite your assumption) to realize red scares are propaganda and have consequences.

let me be clear here, while propaganda does indeed have consequences, YOU DO HAVE TO BE EITHER TANKIE, OR AN IDIOT, to try to downplay the fact that communists murdered people en mass by calling it “red scare”.

you live in a society in which loitering in the wrong place, jaywalking, stealing 3€ of goods from a supermarket can constitute a crime, but regular white collar crime gets solved in private and doesn’t even go to trial, while most rapes aren’t even reported to the police out of fear.

yes, that is a problem worth solving, but it doesn’t in any way explain why pareto principle should not apply so some specific subsets of criminals.

it applies to a subset of criminals who are incarcerated and it is documented and i am pretty sure it applies to subset of white collar criminals as well.

i am not sure about rape, since it is a specific crime in that it doesn’t scale very well - you can, fortunately, only rape one person at a time, so it is probably not possible for 20% of perpetrators to be responsible for 80% of rapes, but i am really guessing here.

and most importantly, i am not really sure why this bothers you or the author of the comic. the pareto principle used in this way doesn’t specifically accuse poor people, or people of color, which are over represented in the prison population, of anything. it is a general mathematical principle describing distribution of data in a set.

if anything, i am quite sure that it would hold (if we had a chance to test it on real data) and say that 20% of the thieves are responsible for 80% of the total damage caused.

and the fact that these 20% will be white collar criminals and are unfortunately far more likely to get away without punishment, while we only locked the bottom 80%, is completely different societal problem (worth solving), but i am not sure where author of the comic sees the social or inequality issue in the simple and well tested mathematical principal that he feels to label it as “propaganda”