|
|
|
|
|
by aliasxneo
19 days ago
|
|
Well, that presents a problem when the news organizations that did investigate are just outright dismissed. The Times did a FOI request and are the ones who published the 12,183 figure which ultimately demonstrated the massive increase year over year. The fact that there were signed petitions, two reports from supposably untrustworthy news organizations (that I could fine, there's probably more), and that it's been discussed at the national level multiple times, will either convince someone that it's 100% fabricated if they lean one way politically or that it's true if they lean the other way. More and more I've found that it has nothing to do with data anymore. People will just ignore whatever isn't suitable to their beliefs. |
|
I am not leaning one way or the other 100%, as indicated in my earlier reply. You are just reading what you want to read
I agree when there is not precise data available, inferences can be made from other data, but you must not state things like "statistically less likely to get arrested for a social media post in the US than the UK" when you don't have the actual, relevant statistics.
If you wish to argue with statistics, you must present them. And they will be cross examined, as is right and proper.