• EleventhHour
    link
    4
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    This appears to be an issue with accurate reporting. Considerations like this would make the data make a lot more sense.

    The problem is the interpretation by those running the study.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I’m not sure I am perfectly following you—what should the authors have said?

      I am definitely mistakenly misreading you here, sorry for the inconvenience!

      (significantly edited to reflect my intent; also if any others could help me out, i don’t mean to bug this person and annoy them)

      • EleventhHour
        link
        -24 months ago

        just because I had something to add doesn’t mean I missed you point.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          well i am missing your point i guess, sorry. could you rephrase what you are saying ? im quite lost

          edit: like what is “the problem” involved here? what are the journalists saying that is misleading?

          • EleventhHour
            link
            -8
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            well i am missing your point i guess

            Yes, despite it being very simple and my having explained it clearly…

            sorry

            No, being “confusing and distracting” by muddying the waters was you whole point. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith. It’s just that I called you out.

            Facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              34 months ago

              i literally don’t know what you are talking about, lol. just asking for clarification because my initial reading was clearly wrong :)

              • EleventhHour
                link
                -8
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Sealioning

                Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”,[5] and has been likened to a  denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.[8]

                Just asking questions

                Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: “🤔🤔🤔”[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one’s opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

                The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).

              • EleventhHour
                link
                -74 months ago

                Your dissembling changes nothing. It only confirms my claim that you’re arguing in bad faith.

                Thanks for that!

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -2
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  ah there’s our miscommunication! i am not arguing anything i just misunderstood at first and offered a possible solution/additional context

                  but i was wrong so i issued my apologies and asked for clarification :)

                  you stated there was something that was a problem with the reporting, and i inaccurately surmised that it had to do with trans people experiencing hate. what was it in reality?