It was a cover for gross incompetence in their medical sector, that somehow worked out.
She was a Minister for Women. Those people are the worst of humanity.
Lovely. Journalism was fucked even before the "better halves" got involved. That's the one good thing I can say about them. They aren't the exact cause of that.
I've seen those articles. They always use percentages instead of raw data. It's a clever way to trick people. "there was a 600% rise in trans men" - it was probably 1 to 7.
I think the entire G7 are puppets of the same ideology.
I've seen those articles. They always use percentages instead of raw data. It's a clever way to trick people. "there was a 600% rise in trans men" - it was probably 1 to 7.
Are you going to be reasonable for a change, or do you need to be repeatedly mocked for making this absurd claim?
It was a cover for gross incompetence in their medical sector, that somehow worked out.
She was a Minister for Women. Those people are the worst of humanity.
Lovely. Journalism was fucked even before the "better halves" got involved. That's the one good thing I can say about them. They aren't the exact cause of that.
I've seen those articles. They always use percentages instead of raw data. It's a clever way to trick people. "there was a 600% rise in trans men" - it was probably 1 to 7.
I think the entire G7 are puppets of the same ideology.
Are you going to be reasonable for a change, or do you need to be repeatedly mocked for making this absurd claim?
Why do they use percentages if they aren't working with tiny numbers?