2 ms·
They're being skeptical of a report that is built on a single account of anonymous hearsay.
by cholantesh 4y ago
They're being skeptical of a report that is built on a single account of anonymous hearsay.
- fluoridation 4y agoIt's an article in a newspaper (not The Daily Mail, the Argentinian one) that gives the full name of the person the article is about. It's neither anonymous nor hearsay.
- dahart 4y agoI responded to the Daily Mail link. The two articles are not the same at all. The Daily Mail’s report is both reported by an anonymous “relative”, and as such is in fact hearsay. Furthermore, both articles acknowledge that 1) Sergia has not requested retirement benefits, 2) This causes fear because nobody else has done it yet 3) Sergia completely denies the unsubstantiated accusation that she changed her gender for retirement reasons. There is zero evidence presented in either article that Sergia’s claims are untrue. Why are you choosing to believe an accusation despite the lack of evidence? And why do you think it’s okay to dox someone publicly before anything has even happened, regardless of their motivation? The title and the content of the Daily Mail article is pure speculation, not bona fide news in any way, shape or form. You are free to defend sleazy tabloid reporting as news, but that’s on you, not me. And why does this matter, even if it is true? This one single report doesn’t represent a pattern, and doesn’t prove anything about anyone else. If the best we can do is report on one exaggerated case from South America, that tends to support the idea above that this is largely fear and a talking point, and not a statistical reality.