I did not argue that "hate crimes are a hoax",, the articles don't say all hate crimes are a hoax.
so if someone says that I did argue that, im supposed to take take that as what?
a mistruth? what do you call that? in Canada it's generally referred to a lie, but maybe the maple syrup is messing with our brains up here.
when you use the identity of the people who agree with you to confer authority to your opinion.
but the content of those opinions contain bad facts, is it unreasonable of me to point that out?
if someone makes references to harm, I can't question the severity or accuracy of the claims of harm?
Could you quote me where Meth said you argue that?
Because I search "hoax" for his post and got this...
1.
So you called trans people a "super minority" and cited the author of "Hate Crime Hoax"?
I don't think either of those things are particularly "nuanced."
2.
Oh, now who's "smashing strawmen?"
Killing every trans person before the age of 35? Source?
Here's what actually happened:
You did the laziest possible "research" to "just ask questions" about whether violence against trans people is overstated or, in the words of one of the people you cited, a hoax.
I should expect nothing less from a Joe Rogan fan.
I hope you'll someday muster up the courage to face Maribel and Beckett at work so you can stop badgering people online with this bad faith "anti-woke" garbage.
3.
If your first instinct is to attack the data, that could be because you're just that committed to high quality research - but, that explanation is kind of hard to take when you're out here uncritically citing someone who believes that hate crimes generally - including racist hate crimes - are a "hoax" by the left. Somehow, I doubt you took the time to double check their methods before "signal boosting" their conclusions.
4.
the "central question?" No, that's your smokescreen.
You're trying to drag the argument to a debate over a particular statistic - which I did not even cite in this topic – to distract from the broader, and undeniably valid, point that trans people, and especially Black trans people, are subject to hate crimes, suicide, and violence disproportionate to their share of the population. The links I included were all from reputable outlets, among them a list by the HRC of trans people who were murdered last year. That list alone is more than sufficient evidence to demonstrate that violence against trans people is a problem, with or without the one stat you're "just asking questions" about, and yet you've decided that it would be enjoyable to bring to the discussion an article from the equivalent of trutheagle.gun pinched out by somebody who characterizes hate crimes against trans people as a hoax.
You are simultaneously attempting to dismiss a statistic as being “unscientific” compared to medical research while attempting to substantiate your own view by plopping a few keywords into Google to see if anyone out there in the world will validate your prejudices for you. When you managed to find two, your “work” was done.
That is why I compared your “research” to that of anti-vaxxers. You weren't looking to inform yourself; you were groping around for anything that fit your preconceived argument.
Tell us: did you even read the links you posted? Were you aware that the author of one is a MAGA supporter playing Sandy Hook truther with hate crimes against trans people?
And you, of all people, have the temerity to question anyone else's sources?
1. He cities a name of a book
2. He correctly describes your issue with the supposed overstating of occurrences of hate crimes. The hoax was in reference to the author.
3 & 4. Talking about the author, and said the author's position is hate crimes against trans people are and hoax.
On 3 and 4, maybe I could see you taking issue because the author didn't say all hate crimes are a hoax. Framing it as a widespread issue is a hoax. The author also argues though that individual reports of hate crimes are false. So in a way he is calling individual occurrences hate crimes hoaxes too, but if you want to be a stickler for clarity, then ok maybe Meth should have framed those comments as he did in the 2nd example. But generally, I think he presented his criticisms in good faith.
Through this, I didn't see him claim you argued all hate crimes are a hoax. Seems to me that he is correctly pointing out how you posted the articles as a pushback against what you saw was untrue claims by progressive, that used bad statistics, but you never gave the articles you posted the same level of inspection you demand others give the progressive arguments.
I mean if you are gonna claim your own reading and researching has to lead you to understand progressive are making dubious claims, and you think others should do the same, isn't it worth inspecting some of the issues with the articles you posted. Because I could name many. Putting my political leanings aside, I have read enough economic papers that some major red flags jump out at me in the article. You don't address this, instead, you mainly present them as solid evidence, and in response to Meth pointing the issues with how you did that, you claim Meth is just trying to discredit with a logical fallacy.
So yeah, I don't think you argued hate crimes were a hoax. It would have been wrong for you to be accused of that. But I also don't think that is the issue Meth raise about your post. It is your argument progressives overstate the problem with violence against the trans community, and then you trying to back up your argument in a rather lazy way. This wouldn't be an issue by itself, but it kinda undercuts your point about progressives and their claims.
But again, can you quote where he actually said that? Maybe I missed it
Because if you are calling him a liar, it might be important to present what he actually said.
