People Twitter

Okay, so women asking about their husbands baptizing them is right there in the top 5 suggestions beginning with that phrase.

Think for a moment about how many women you really think are actually googling that, and that'll give you an idea of how many women are actually googling this.

It really doesn't take a very high absolute number of people to make a Google search trend, especially when it's a search based on a headline that went viral during an election season.

you're incredibly partisan

Stating a fact that favors one group over another isn't what it means to be partisan.

feeling-driven

I have never taken a stance here that was rooted in "feelings". I make a very active effort to draw my conclusions based on the evidence I have access to, and failing that, clear, consistent logic.

Show me where I've ever done otherwise, if you can.

pretty rude to people who criticise guess what? No, not science, not facts, not rationality, but Donald Trump

Who the target of a lie is does not affect my willingness to correct the lie. That's called having values, instead of a political team. That's what it means to be objective.

There is a lot of justified criticism to be levied against Trump, based on facts of what he's actually done. But there is also a lot of bullshit that's swallowed whole by people who don't care what's true, but will just accept, without scrutiny, anything claimed about him that's negative.

When I know something is inaccurate, I will say so. Who or what is inaccurate about, is irrelevant, to me. I'd just as quickly debunk bullshit about Harris, or anyone else if I saw it.

the fact that it makes you cross that lots of women are checking that their husbands can't find out how they voted, or even that Google thought they might, and that you're calling people names for thinking it might be happening, doesn't particularly convince me that this is not happening.

Pff, it doesn't make me cross, I'm simply bringing some facts to a table that's gone off the deep end with alarmism, clearly because they don't understand how trending algorithms work.

This is a manifestation of the exact same phenomenon as people thinking, for example, that there is more violent crime now than there was 50 years ago, based on the fact that they are exposed to so much more crime reporting now via the Internet than ever before. I'm the guy who's coming along saying "actually, all the evidence shows violent crime is way down now compared to then, your recency and exposure biases are just tricking you into thinking differently."

You're shooting the messenger trying to clue you in to the fact that your assumptions are clouding your judgement, nothing more.