• stillwater@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s pretty easy to be the aggressor in a situation when trying to make a point like that. What was the actual context for that point to even be raised the first place, and was it even the main point of the comment you replied to or was it nitpicking?

    • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The point was about proportional representation in media. The key word there was proportional.

      If I picked all my actors by picking names out of a hat (meaning it’s impossible to discriminate), there is a high chance that there won’t be a lot of asians in my result. But that’s not because I have anything against asians, but simply because I live in a mediterranean country, and there are far fewer asians here than you’d find in asia. So even if I ended up with 19 mediterranean people, and one asian person, that’d be a proportional representation.

      But I was the aggressor for not agreeing that “biasing the results but only if you personally don’t like them” is good proportional representation.

      And calling me the aggressor for stating an objective, undisputable mathematical fact in a relevant discussion is exactly why it’s a toxic echo chamber. The truth there is decided by majority. Not by the real world.