Hexagons [e/em/eir]

  • 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 10th, 2023

help-circle
  • I wouldn’t trust that number. I tried to follow the citation trail back to its source and couldn’t find the relevant study.

    The link in the Medium post links to a terrible click bait blog post from a year ago, which then links to a website called “faunalytics”, which says of itself “faunalytics conducts research and shares knowledge to help advocates help animals effectively”. But I couldn’t find the actual study with the 9% and 3% numbers. It might be there, but I couldn’t find it.


  • So, uh, OP, did you just post a link to your own subscription required blog?

    You wrote a shitty post starting from one tiny bit of incredibly poorly sourced data and then making sweeping essentialist claims about gender. Then you posted your shitty piece here, behind a paywall!

    Are you hoping that people from here will subscribe to your medium on the basis of the three paragraphs of dogshit we can read before the paywall cuts off the rest?

    Have I mischaracterized your post in some way? Please tell me if so.










  • Hexagons [e/em/eir]@hexbear.nettoClever Comebacks@feddit.ukScrooge.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    zifnab’s comment has links to:

    • The Washington Post
    • A paper from Duke University
    • The Guardian

    These seem to me like sources that wouldn’t usually be prominent in facebook conspiracy theory groups.

    Can you please tell me what the issue is with zifnab’s comment? Why do you feel like the comment would be more at home in a facebook conspiracy theory group?