Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, it's a cynical question No. The cynicism is the insistence that it doesn't matter. > ...which derails the conversation If the answer were "There has been a decrease in the total number of activists, therefore the record is worse that the absolute numbers imply" would you make this accusation? No. No you would not. You would insist, correctly, that it was very relevant. You would rightly look with suspicion upon…
No I would not make the argument in reverse as you suggested. Not in this context. This is atypical murder. The proliferation of murder is the only metric that matters. This is not your average crime context. It's more or less legitimate businesses/corporations stepping out of legitimate methods. Any murder in this context is noteworthy, an increase points at a catastrophic development of uncontained corporate power.…
And I especially don't appreciate some of the histrionics of the "Don't question the accuracy!!" side.
Headline: "There is a 50% increase in the child-crushing rate!" Me: "There's nothing in the article that tells us how many children are being crushed, exactly. Is this a big problem? Small problem?" You: "You monster! Children are being crushed! Stop quibbling about how many! Even One. Single. Child. is too many!!"