That sounds high enough it's systematic,
and I'll be brave and suggest I'd suspect most of the other half might have been made because someone thought someone might make a complaint
is there some sort of belief, or actually truth in the system of complaints, that if they do it first then the complaint won't hold as much weight/risk?
So where did their figures come from? Is this another 'accidental' (not) copying of a fake / deliberately miscalculated stat then cited as much as they can until it becomes a truism - just like the FND '10%' one?
Will someone finally call out 'research' that is 'propaganda' when it either has no reserch, has no quality of methodology, or [deliberately] contains errors or misleads in the abstract vs what is in the results etc.
And are then used to undermine actual factual statistics.
"pathologises disagreement" is a polite term for something that I do think starts to need its own criminal code to be honest in future. Isn't it just about power? and someone having created a situation where it can be misappropriated?
