• Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Hey, I think his point is rather simple and don’t require much mental gymnastics, if you are a little generous in reading it by ignoring how it is phrased.

    His thought process is,

    You saw the meme and there is no comment or expression by you towards how they knew men voted for trump. You seemingly just accepted it but when I express the 52% statement, you correctly doubted my words and expressed interest in how people would know. Why did the potentially photoshopped screenshot from some random news channel with similar information, didn’t trigger the same response in you?

    Ofc it is flawed to assume that you weren’t wondering about that when looking at the meme. For all everyone else knows, you saw me as someone who could tell you as I was presenting similar information. So their hostility wasn’t proper. But the core of the question might be interesting for yourself, which is why I try to communicate it better.

    If you weren’t wondering about the method of obtaining the data in the meme, you might want to reflect on why.

    • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      16 minutes ago

      If you weren’t wondering about the method of obtaining the data in the meme, you might want to reflect on why.

      Literally what started this chain of replies, me asking how one gets these numbers. I learned how Americans come to these numbers now, I just feel there’s some hostility in some of the replies simply for not knowing how something works but wanting to learn. It was simply the comment where I again saw someone mention numbers and now I really wanted to know where the numbers originated. I could have asked the same question in a top comment but I think the place where I asked is kinda irrelevant.