i really don’t care if it’s a misleading or misquoted stat.
I’m frankly not surprised. Decent, honest people do, though, hence my effort to reveal that it is, in fact, a bogus stat, so that said people will know to disregard both it, and those like you, who continue to spread it in the name of their narrative despite knowing it’s bogus.
People who care more about maintaining and propagating their biases/prejudices than about being honest and truthful, are abhorrent scum, and don’t belong in civilized society.
Like I said, I’m gonna be that person.
don’t belong in civilized society.
It’s not like we’re ever going to reach that civilized society with the way everything is sliding to the right. It’s also not like they don’t already plan on removing me, so feel free to remove me once you have your civilized society, until then I’ll be here.
The main problem though is this falls into the paradox of tolerance. Essentially, one group has been found to manipulate stats. However, the focus is on the other group’s manipulation rather than accuracy across the board. This ends up working as a form of oppression through bias enforcement of the social contract. Not saying you are going that, just pointing out a possible bases for the other person’s comments.
The main problem though is this falls into the paradox of tolerance.
lmao, no it fucking doesn’t. If you want to make an assertion, any assertion, and back it up with evidence, that evidence should be, well, not bullshit.
That’s all there is to it.
And if your assertion is actually correct, but X amount of attention is taken away from it because you’re spreading bullshit in support of it, that’s your own damn fault. If you’re right, you don’t have to lie to prove it.
Hmm, maybe you are right. However, Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a biologist and mathematician who was considered the “Father of modern genetics”. However, he lied about his findings. We now know his numbers were fudged (sometimes heavily so) to create statistical findings that matched his assertions. This was likely done because there were other factors at play that he did not have enough information to know, but did not want to have the lingeriering unknowns destroy his support for genetics. And this is one of the reasons we now understand genetics.
If your argument is right, are you saying he was wrong? If so, how do you think the situation should have been handled? Further, why did the stratagy work so well? Are you suggesting this is an effective but immortal strategy? Was the father of genetics and a Catholic friar immortal?
