Those weren't the numbers I've seen, but I'm also talking about all violent crime, including all instances of domestic battery and robbery with force.
It's far more likely that violence is coming from your partner than it is from outside your home, which is why cops spend so much time trying to investigate spouses and ex-boyfriends in regards to violent crime.
No.... you're doing the exact opposite of that. You're taking a ser of numbers where only one matters, the one that's fraudulent, and then claiming the catagory says something.
Those weren't the numbers I've seen, but I'm also talking about all violent crime, including all instances of domestic battery and robbery with force.
It's far more likely that violence is coming from your partner than it is from outside your home, which is why cops spend so much time trying to investigate spouses and ex-boyfriends in regards to violent crime.
If youre unironically counting domestic violence in that figure, which is what moves the needle, youre lombotomized
It's as if I'm explicitly using a highly generalized and reductive approach to make a decision.
No.... you're doing the exact opposite of that. You're taking a ser of numbers where only one matters, the one that's fraudulent, and then claiming the catagory says something.
That's quite litterly the opposite of reductive.
No, I'm not doing that at all. Again, I'm doing the opposite of that, which is reductivity.
I'm analyzing the numbers off of one axis: sex.
You would prefer I analyze them solely off of one other axis: race
My point is to show you that one-axis analysis is stupid.