You must log in or register to comment.
Thanks for the title, I think I’d never got it otherwise
This sounds like sarcasm, but the joke legitimately didn’t click for me until I scanned the title again.
It wasn’t. I legitimately wouldn’t get it otherwise. Which I also don’t necessarily see as a bad thing either in this case.
If you don’t get the Jo try this:
Citing extensive experience, anti-vaxers are hired by cherry farm as cherry pickers.
One such cherry picker was shown to pick cherries 340% faster than non-anti-vax pickers. The anti-vax cherry picking spokesman was heard to be explaining that this data proves anti-vaxers are the superior farm laborers, and expects the farm to see a correlation in overall productivity improvement across farms employing anti-vax cherry pickers.
But that’s cherry picking!
I thought it was because they were all dying and fertilizing the soil with their corpses.
deleted by creator
If you don’t get the joke: the cherry farm was planted over the graves of all the antivaxers.
I’ve never seen it as “vaccers” only “vaxxers”. Also, 2018!
What’s a vakker?
They’re vaccers because they suck.
Fuck gawd damn, I don’t know who I’m angrier at more: myself or the joke writer.
The humor lies in the dual meaning of the horticultural labor task and the selective bias fallacy having the same idiomatic phrase of “cherry picking”. And that is all there is to the humor.
Right?
Thank you for explaining. I’m embarrassed I didn’t get it on my own but I’m grateful for the help.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
For the sleepy brains and ESL-ers: It is an idiom.
I still don’t get the 340% increase in the production part though.
They’re very experienced at cherry picking, since they do it all the time. Therefore they’re able to do it better / faster than most.
Anti-vaxxers love cherry picking.
Yeah, but if your results are only a biased subset of your total gamut (vaccers + anti-vaccers) then 340% is still an astonishing result when only taking your preferred group.
It actually does build credibility that the group you’re biased towards had the most significant result.
If the total gains were 1000% including contributions from both groups, then yes I can understand the point the post is making (340 from anti-vaccers, 660 from vaccers, clear cherry-picking).
But 340 is already an incredibly high number, so it sort of weakens the post, if you catch my meaning
You are overthinking a (bad) joke
Me either, but assuming it’s a real screenshot, the date is 2018. I didn’t do much digging, but 2018 saw an increase in cherry crops according to this source https://upnorthlive.com/news/local/usda-2018-cherry-crop-production-up-from-last-year.
An overall increase of 60% is pretty big! If this specific farm had an especially bad year in 2017, a 340% increase isn’t out of the question.
It’s from an Onion-esq science blog.
Anti vaxers cherry pick information to state their claims are correct. Therefore they’re super good at it
My dumbass thought it was programming related
I thought like the cherry picker carts that help you drive around at elevated altitude
I thought they kept dying and adding nurtiants to the soil
deleted by creator
I thought the death rate among antivaxers was so high that they provide regular fertilization for the trees.
That was my thought too. Nothing like a bit of blood and bone to get plants growing. Something, something…it’s what plants crave!
There’s also a sort of second level to the joke in that reporting on the results for a single orchard is in itself cherry picking.
This picture is going to be cited by someone as actual evidence against vaccines. I guarantee it.
It’d be the same quality as their other evidence, so it might as well be funny
?
I don’t get it
It’s a joke about them being good at cherry-picking
I’ve never picked cherries but I have pruned persimmon trees and I am skeptical that anti vaxxers would excel at any kind of agricultural work
“Cherry picking” is also a form of selective arguing, where someone will laser focus on one tiny part of the data, even if the rest of it says things contrary to their point.
So, if I had data saying that 70% of people who trod on landmines died immediately, 25% experienced loss of at least one limb, 2.5% were unharmed, and 2.5% were unaccounted for, a Cherry-picker might argue that landmine hopscotch is completely safe, since only 25% of people lost a limb, and a portion of people were completely unharmed.
The picture of the orchard had fooled me.
I figured they were making hugel mounds out of the dead people and planting cherries on them.
I love stealth puns
deleted by creator
