I'm sure it's a very depressing beat, but needs to be publicized that the biggest threats are coming from "inside the house".

Other sites doing similar work:

https://churchwatchcentral.com

https://www.reddit.com/r/NotADragQueen/

https://www.tiktok.com/discover/republicans-list-of-pedos


Behind every authoritarian group, you will find such abuse.

Thanks for the links!

post mug shots, arrest reports. never seems to run out of material.
youth pastor seems to be the golden ticket for pedos, followed by the rest of the clergy, followed by cops.

i’ve read that the tv show ‘to catch a predator’, which i never watched but get the drift, was cancelled cuz they kept catching cops.
no idea if that’s true, but it wouldnt surprise me 1 bit.

These exposes help counter the growth of the religious right in their efforts to take over schools. They should be NOT be allowed in any schools!

or whatever that rule is for pedos.
abbott wants to use clergy as hs counselors!

anything other than crimes are rampant in America against children..Guns included.

This person doesn't even kind of pretend an unbiased statistic-based investigation.

I knew it was wrong at a glance, because there have been cases I've read about that aren't reflected there.

At a glance it's wrong. So as far as statistically useful, it isn't.

Politically useful, well, I think that's very much the point.

Caring about crimes against children is a good thing. Caring only if it's politically useful is less so. It's a look. I'll give it that.

It feels ugly only to care if you can wield it in a political argument. Other people's suffering shouldn't be your social media prop.

Edit: Imagine if someone on the Right did similar, and their "data" started with "Every morning, I check Libs of TikTok" and see if you still feel like that is totally scientific, you guys.

What is the declared political affiliation that is identifiable, where are the known cases, what are the known occupations. Sure, the data is presented in a certain way, but it doesn’t negate that numbers.

While I don’t exactly disagree here, your argument “cases I’ve read about” isn’t exactly science either

When your data collection begins lopsided, the results end up being lopsided.

Garbage in, garbage out.

The only purpose in my noting my anecdotal knowledge is that it betrays just how much the "researcher" is limiting what data they're collecting. There have been some prominent cases circulated on the Right that never made it into this person's data.

Which means this person really isn't looking. It's a giant spreadsheet of "Confirmation Bias. How To Use Numbers to Get the Narrative You Want"

Which, whatever. But then people replying with, "It's good to have facts" is just facepalm.

She is specifically looking for sex crimes against children committed by Transgender individuals. She herself is a transgender woman. So, sure that is the bias you are seeing. Out of curiosity, did you go through the data?

And I've seen this sentiment on DU. Where someone will say, "Almost all mass shootings are by white people."

People really honestly believe this. It's said allllllll the time here. However, it's untrue. It's closer to a smidge over 50%.

However, if you're only getting curated information that is far likelier to report white shooters and discuss them, you're going to get that impression. Over time, that filtering leads to a false belief. But, hey, you see it with your own eyes. It must be true!

It's like watching ancient people figure out astronomy. It's there. They see the stars. They're going to use their point of reference to find patterns. Their point of reference is the stars circle the earth. That's what they see. Must be true. If you start from a place of limited information, your conclusions won't be sound.

This person is going about data collection in such a way as to rely on heavily biased online media reports and webcrawlers.

It's literally garbage from a data standpoint. She admits it herself. "Those non-media reported cases will, therefore, not be reflected in the data." And she relies on people sending her reports. Guess who's likely to even know about her, much less send her reports?

If it's not reported, it didn't happen. Her data collection is heavily tilted to see a specific kind of information.

That's not how statistics work if you want good, objective data on a topic.

Which isn’t exactly right. I can tell you she follows the data closely and then breaks it’s it down by category on a weekly basis. Her original point was, even when allowing for population adjustments, Transgender people are not committing sex crimes against children. Or very, very few. Now, this is true.
The next question is, if it’s not Transgender people, who is? That’s where it gets interesting. Anyway

My main point is, if there is really a concern about sex crimes against children, including sex trafficking, why does the RW consistently target Trans folk and drag queens?

I'm sorry, it is. Basic sampling errors. A failure of Statistics 101.

If people want to believe it or use it, fine. There's nothing I can say to dissuade when people are dug in. It becomes not about mathematics, but belief. And I can't argue someone if they want to have a belief over mathematical sciences.

So there's no point in arguing that portion anymore. At that point, we might as well throw Bibles at each other. Or Shel Silverstein, because that's what I have on hand at the moment. It's like using spectral evidence in court. Interesting exercise, but the decision to burn has been made.

The RW targets people because it's easy to target the vulnerable. We don't need bad numbers to know that. And we know, without these terrible numbers, that most crimes of this nature fall within friends and family groups, then religious and education groups. Any group that has a lot of open access to children tends to attract the kind of person for whom that's a bonus.

I could ask you the same question. Why do we highlight certain groups and ignore others? Yeah, there are religious folks out there who do these kinds of things. There are also a lot of teachers out there. I don't see those stories everywhere, do you? Kind of weird, isn't it? Even by those numbers on that website, educators are up there on the list. Do you think, perhaps, we're highlighting a much more ideologically friendly violator while remaining quiet on groups that we see as politically within our tent? And isn't that what Republicans are doing? (Although, I'd argue theirs is much worse)

I remember last January or so, Chicago Public Schools released a comprehensive report that was crazy interesting to read. I wasn't looking for it, it just kind of fell in my lap from a good friend who taught in the schools. It was published in the Sun-Times, I believe. I posted it on DU.

Guess how many bites that got? Go on, guess. A whole major school system is messy about child molestation and how it's handled. That's gotta be interesting, no?

Apparently not that interesting. Honestly, it's not that weird to me when belief and narrative rest at the center of deciding what knowledge is useful to disseminate.

It's important to have all knowledge, not just comfortable knowledge. Otherwise, it's not really knowledge at all.

This is tallying up biased anecdotes, not gathering real statistics.

While I don't doubt priests and pastors and the Republicans who doing the most foaming at the mouth about "grooming" are the biggest culprits, not trans people and drag queens, that's just my sense of the situation, it's not hard data. This web site certainly isn't the answer for getting hard data.

Is the trans/drag/LGBTQ issue a distraction from republican/conservative/Christian values/morals?

Yes!

Republican Sexual Predators, Abusers, and Enablers

https://www.dailykos.com/blogs/CajsaLilliehook
-----------------

Former Youth Ministry Volunteer Gets Life In Prison For Child Rapes

https://www.joemygod.com/?s=youth

projection is a fullproof indicator when it comes to rethugs.