I’d agree, except do we really want to emphasize the least engaged citizens for jury duty? That’s still someone’s freedom on the line, and while for some select few people finding a chance to vote is extremely difficult due to registration fuckery in Republican states, with the rise of early voting and vote by mail, the primary demographic of non-voting adults is people who are apathetic or intentionally ignorant to the political process. My fear is: “This is a waste of my time, and 30 days isn’t that long; just send them to jail.” And there won’t be anyone who cares strongly enough to object because the jury is packed with these apathetic citizens. To clarify, I see this as more of a problem with small-fry misdemeanor or less serious felony cases, not like murder or rape trials. But that’s most trials.

You could argue that politically engaged Republicans can be much, much worse on a jury, that this could help them develop a sense of engagement with politics, and that they might care if they can see their choice directly affecting someone else, but it seems sketchy.

That’s all their brand-new account has been doing. Honestly can’t make heads or tails of it, except that it’s spammy as hell.

The problem is when articles literally phrase it as if the minority portion of the violence is the majority.

This is just a lie; the article does no such thing and even expressly emphasizes the exact opposite.

It goes beep boop, boo-boo bop.

Okay, I understand the sentiment behind this comment (and I didn’t downvote you), because men’s issues are often underrepresented or even ignored (see: rape) in key areas, but consider this (to clarify, this is fake data meant to mirror this article): two UN agencies come out and say that this year, 50,000 gay men have died from AIDS, 2,000 more than last year. AIDS deaths are on the rise. The report notes that even though non-gay men tend to be more affected by chronic illness overall, gay men are disproportionately affected by AIDS.

Or maybe there’s a report about how people in South America disproportionately die to a specific kind of insect-transmitted disease, and the UN creates a report on it. They note the vast majority of insect-borne illness deaths are from malaria in Africa, but that this specific disease most affects people in South America.

Would you be here standing up on a podium decrying that the announcement focuses on gay people? Or that it focuses on South America? The point of this finding is that there’s an area where someone is disproportionately affected, and unlike just “homicide”, a lot more can be done in the short-term to prevent domestic violence.

As another comment noted, this is whataboutism. I don’t think it’s being done in bad faith, but it’s still whataboutism.