Judge what? All the article did was link a report with statistics showing that the violence during Black Lives Matters demonstrations was nowhere near as prevalent or widespread as both the media and professional talking heads have claimed.
It's neither making a claim related to the total costs of damage incurred nor 'pretending' that 7% isn't anything to see here. Neither your point nor the article's findings are mutually exclusive to each other, and it is not helpful to the conversation to conflate the findings with an unwarranted conclusion that was never asserted.
The whole article reeks of bias on how they present the data
Even if we are to take the claim that only 7% of BLM protests are violent, IMO it only tells part of the story. I'd be interested to see the statistics, if any, regarding those who are apologists for such destructive/threatening behavior but do/did not directly participate.
No, it isn't, nor does it suggest anything about whether my post had commentary - much less try to 'mislead' people into thinking that something they can scroll up to see is suddenly not there.
So the riots weren’t that big of deal?No, it isn't, nor does it suggest anything about whether my post had commentary - much less try to 'mislead' people into thinking that something they can scroll up to see is suddenly not there.
Hell, I don't even have those editing privileges.
It focuses on the fact that you asked about how to judge 'something' that was 'brought up a couple of weeks ago when that was published' in terms of 'figurative cost in votes going to Trump or actual cost of over a billion dollars'.
Unless a claim in my commentary directly prompted that question in those metrics, there is no basis to construe my pointing out the disparity between your question and the actual claims in the article as an intentional bait-and-switch, since there is no advantage to be gained for me by doing it.
This being the case, what you did may be the actual misleading element in this discussion, since you're purposely shifting attention towards a less relevant element of the post that ultimately holds no bearing to the original point.
Or, as some prefer, a classic red herring.
You were vague. I made the same assumption that @compforce did.
"Studies" showing how "peaceful" the riots are are proof the unrest is hurting democrats and helping Trump.No, it isn't, nor does it suggest anything about whether my post had commentary - much less try to 'mislead' people into thinking that something they can scroll up to see is suddenly not there.
Hell, I don't even have those editing privileges.
It focuses on the fact that you asked about how to judge 'something' that was 'brought up a couple of weeks ago when that was published' in terms of 'figurative cost in votes going to Trump or actual cost of over a billion dollars'.
Unless a claim in my commentary directly prompted that question in those metrics, there is no basis to construe my pointing out the disparity between your question and the actual claims in the article as an intentional bait-and-switch, since there is no advantage to be gained for me by doing it.
This being the case, what you did may be the actual misleading element in this discussion, since you're purposely shifting attention towards a less relevant element of the post that ultimately holds no bearing to the original point.
Or, as some prefer, a classic red herring.
