Doesn’t apply to my case

Really? Anecdotal evidence, in a scientific setting, is described as

casual observations/indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis

This study is about the general trends of people judging others with tattoos incorrectly. It doesn’t mean everyone, always, judges people incorrectly.

It also states that context matters for how accurately you judge someone. The gun, money, and the public information of his terrible actions, all change how you assess them and how accurate your assessment is.

So in your case, yes, if you judged him as a rapist because he had a birthday tattoo, you were correct. But that is anecdotal evidence. And context based.

Unless you’re implying everyone with a birthday tattoo is also a sexual assaulter/rapist, which is certainly a take, then it is anecdotal and doesn’t go against the studys findings.

Have you heard of the phrase anecdotal evidence?

It’s not about their case for being there. It’s about their desire to be distinct from them. Harder to “other” and genocide your own people.

I just have memories of the early days of genetic sequencing research breakthroughs and the Israeli government started to order it’s scientists to sequence the Israeli and Palestinian DNA to “prove” their difference… only to very quickly learn they were almost identical, stop the program, and try and stop people from talking about it.

Without looking at the sources, I’m going to assume it’s because, genetically speaking, Palestinians and Israelis are almost identical.

Edit - yep… That’s the kicker.

Februay feels weird to say