Yea my criticism was that you didn't read the report you cited which said the exact opposite of what you were claiming. You have reacted the exact same to me numerous times over the years on this forum including recently in this thread. I tend to treat people the way that they treat me. Golden rule and all that
No that's a pretty reasonable summary of the situation.
That's fucking rich coming from you. You seem to operate under this smug erroneous assumption that no one else sees through your charade, but you've just dropped the ball and everyone can see it.. because your assertion that the Pakistani rape gangs thing is 'nonsense' is absolute flagrant bullshit.
Beyond specific high-profile cases, the academic literature highlights significant limitations to what can be said about links between ethnicity and this form of offending. Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending.This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous
Should I cite the past posts where you claim that all measurements of the electromagnetic spectrum to analyze chemical components is entirely wrong? Or any of the others? We have quite a long history of me explaining mechanisms while citing studies and you dismissing everything because you simply "don't agree"
It's one of the ways in which we hand-waive away points that we don't have a good way to back up or conclude. Right wing folks will often use "do your own research/IYKYK" or "cope and seethe" (or other things like this). It's the biggest tell that someone doesn't actually fully know to offer a compelling defense but doesn't know how to say that, want to admit it, or thing you'll know it.
Yes because I was about to quote the report after reading it but when I came back to the thread @brokedownpalace10 had beaten me to it
So I hear you - there are things when read with a certain supposition in mind could seem like that but that's in fact my own bias at work assuming I know where the statement is coming from, and drawing a conclusion that is false. It took me not operating under the assumption that this was the case, and re-approaching what he was saying, to realize that maybe I wasn't actually giving him the benefit of the doubt. It also meant that I didn't necessarily have to agree with him, but that I didn't have to disagree with him because I assumed it was just coming from a place of malicious intent. Instead, it helped me to see that my own biases were at work in my own political views, and that I was being manipulated to ignore real legitimate things by a group with a vested interest in what narratives I was buying into.
I had given the benefit of the doubt a chance when I first joined this forum. I have since learned that it. I have learned that some other users are not willing to do the same, nor engage with evidence in good faith. In that case the best I can do is provide the evidence contrary to the claims in the thread for passersby
Honestly - once you buy into that way of thinking, you stop giving people any opportunity to evolve/change. You write them off as being 'this type of way' or simply "evil/mean/wrong" which fosters a divide in why we struggle to hear anyone's views that we might not understand, and learn, from.
I give every new person that I meet the benefit of the doubt, but I would be foolish to continue that with people who I have learned to operate in bad faith
www.bbc.com
And I'd say you'd be foolish NOT to with people you've interacted with. What if they gave you a bad first impression for some reason that had nothing to do with why you came to disbelieve them.
You were making the claim that it was a real issue, simply because it was being reported on by a major outlet. That claim was false, a major outlet reporting on a rich nutcase making an absurd claim is not evidence for the claim. You then cited the report as if it substantiated the absurd claim so I read the report, which you very obviously did not, and I suggested you read it so you might modify your opinion on the reporting. Instead of simply reading the report you have chosen to dance around the issue
I don't give people only a single chance, this learning happens over many interactions over many months to years. Yes I do take into account possible mental status, economic status, and the cultural and material reality of the person I am engaging with. I tend not to make snap judgements on whether a person is engaging in good faith or not because you can't make that judgment over only a few interactions with limited knowledge
In the end, it sucks to be the person who is in the spotlight, having to defend statements that are pages and pages old. Unfortunately, you are someone that likes to invite it a bit because you immediately write off people who you don't agree with. In general, we get along because I often agree with you and as such, don't often take on perspectives that you disagree with. @-=SS=- on the other hand.... not someone you're going to have a lot of baseline commonality with, but he's a really fucking thoughtful person when he's discussing things. You'd probably learn a lot if you gave him more of a chance, even if you don't change your beliefs to line up with his.You were making the claim that it was a real issue, simply because it was being reported on by a major outlet. That claim was false, a major outlet reporting on a rich nutcase making an absurd claim is not evidence for the claim. You then cited the report as if it substantiated the absurd claim so I read the report, which you very obviously did not, and I suggested you read it so you might modify your opinion on the reporting. Instead of simply reading the report you have chosen to dance around the issue
