The link you posted above is focused on Jihadist terrorists in the U.S.
Click the last menu link “what is the threat to United States today” for graphs etc
What is your point, Doofa?
You have posted an external party report.
Number of People Killed in Deadly Attacks in the Post-9/11 Era, by Ideology
112
Far Right Wing
107
Jihadist
17
Ideological Misogyny/Incel Ideology
12
Black Separatist/Nationalist/Supremacist
1
Far Left Wing
From link I suggested
Do you know to be bothered by the fact, they are not sharing their dataset for those graphs as an addendum to that report.
And that they don’t have an appendix explaining the definitions they used, how the incidents were coded,
Who coded them,
And who checked the coding?
And why some domestic terrorism deaths were included as datapoints, and others were not?
I clicked on the all the datapoints in the graph, to read the tool tip info that popped up.
Does it not bother you regarding reliability of their work, that the 25 2020 George Floyd riot related deaths were neither included in the 2020 numbers, nor was there any explanation given as to why none of those deaths were not included with the 2020 numbers.
How about the police who were assassinated for political reasons in 2020?
Where were those numbers?
1 Like
Perhaps you could present data that supports your thesis?
You just posted a report by a think tank, that did not do that.
I just did you a kindness, by pointing that out to you.
Perhaps you could stop posting crap links, without disclaiming carefully the limits and flaws of the writing in the links that you are posting.
Otherwise, the gullible and uneducated may mistake your indiscriminate posting of that link without careful critical analysis by your self, and disclaimer by you of that link’s limitations, as anything but noise.
You posted the link, it is should be your responsibility to do that critical analysis, and disclaim the link’s limitations.
Otherwise, you are just link posting, and that is not only not virtuous,
that is the very dynamic on social media that is making people on those platforms stupiders.
ie, sharing and reposting misinformation, or information with its needed context, and critical disclaimers.
Where’s the beef?
The former Bullshido site’s forum TOS had a rule against simple link posting without analysis.
I don’t know which mod included that rule.
But the one that did was better educated than their peers for doing so.
Blind posting of links as if they were evidence, even if they bear prestigious names, tends to make people more gullible, or more poorly informed, not less, unless the work’s limitations are carefully presented and disclaimed along with the link.
Otherwise, gullible, uneducated, or intellectually lazy people may mistake the link for evidence.
More importantly the difference between a saleperson using a study to indiscriminately make a pitch,
and a scientist presenting the same study,
is the scientist will lead, repeat in the middle, and at the end, careful and critical disclaimer of that study’s limitations, or possible gaps, or flaws.
If a “scientist” does not do that, they are wearing a different hat, than their scientist hat.
They may be wearing their salesperson hat, or entertainer hat, or drunk pub talker hat, but not their scientist hat.
You could just post corrected data and save your thumbs from the pointless walls of apologetics
It’s not pointless to me.
I am university educator and a scientist.
My whole quasi-retirement life’s mission is educating people to be able to think mathematically, and scientifically in useful ways.
And to be able to spot bullshit, including pseudo-science, being passed off as science.
Which by the way, @doofaloofa .
You are an applied scientist, yourself, every time you raise a crop of potatoes, or other such applied ag science experiments on your homestead farm.
That is why I find those topics interesting when you speak on them.
Then, considering your academic excellence, finding data to support your thesis should be easy
No?
Being that I am the teacher, in this context, how about I teach you how to do so for yourself.
As I just did above.
By making you aware, that in these type of reports, not getting the full dataset, and where it came from, and the coding parties and process, as appendices included with the report, is a red flag.
When you see that regarding a report, it’s like somebody in a polyester suit telling you that you can make an investment in an opportunity with a guaranteed above market rate return, that has never taken a loss, and never will.
Weak sauce
Put up or shut up
You goof ball.
You posted a non-peer reviewed private think tank report, that did not include the full dataset transparently, nor their coding process, thus making it impossible to validate, or replicate.
And you did not not even know to look for that kind of that thing.
I already did the room, and you, a service,
by pointing that out,
and educating you on same,
so you can be a better critical thinker,
and less gullible.
You’re welcome.
I would add, maybe next time, don’t drop garbage links,
without critical analysis of their limitations and flaws, by your person,
like a rude link litterbug.
Because that tends to make the stupid people, stupider.
So post a peer reviewed study that includes a full data set that supports your thesis
That’ll shut me up
I have no desire to shut you up.
I might like it if you made better quality posts.
But, the prima posta stuff is funny,
and I enjoy your homestead farming posts.