5 ms·

If someone can choose negative things one says, it means that they said negative things that outweigh the good ones. It doesn't take many negative things someti

If someone can choose negative things one says, it means that they said negative things that outweigh the good ones. It doesn't take many negative things sometimes (often just 1) to be enough to outrage people. No one is going to ignore the negative things because he also happened to say good things (subjectively of course). You seem to be saying that they're cherry picking the negative things which means they can't be 'unfounded claims' like you say later.

jamesrcole 8y ago
> If someone can choose negative things one says, it means that they said negative things that outweigh the good ones No it doesn't. Why do you think it means the negatives must outweigh the positives?
- hnmonkey 8y ago
  Because this isn't a zero-sum game. If you say 9,999 good things on the internet and 1 offensive thing people aren't going to say 'oh... but he said 9,999 good ones so we should ignore the one that we find offensive'.
  - jamesrcole 8y ago
    Your first comment was about a person's negative statement outweighing their positive ones, but this attempt to clarify doesn't address that at all, and instead focuses solely on others' perceptions of that person. Which are you talking about? Or if you're claiming they're linked, what is the link?
    - hnmonkey 8y ago
      The link is a perception one. To people who view those original statements as negative ones they're not going to care about anything positive and the positive ones won't minimize the negatives ones for them usually. Therefore, if there are negative statements generally some people will find that they outweigh any positives said. I assumed the link was pretty obvious... to paint a vivid picture if you have a person or group that says nice things most of the time about puppy dogs but just once says some hateful nazi rhetoric, someone out there will find that the negative outweighs the positive and won't care that there are positive statements. Edit - I probably should've qualified my statement in my original post to better state that position. I can see now that it seems my statement is an absolute for all people. Not my intent.
      - jamesrcole 8y ago
        I understand the perception thing. But your original comment said nothing about perception, and presented it as a truth about the person and their comments (one that would be true independent of anybody else's perceptions of it). So, to clarify, you're saying these perceptions aren't necessarily true? If so, I'd suggest that your original comment comes across as saying something very different.
      - justicezyx 8y ago
        To state myself clearly: I am disturbed by the line of thinking of basing conclusion on media reports. I do not say negative outweighs positive or vise versa. That's not my point. My ultimate point is that a person is complex. If you want to base your perception on media reports, that's clearly lazy and manipulated. To know a person, you need to see the whole picture. Then if you want to claim that a person's repetitive attacks from media is because that person is problematic, that's disturbing.

jamesrcole 8y ago

> If someone can choose negative things one says, it means that they said negative things that outweigh the good ones No it doesn't. Why do you think it means the negatives must outweigh the positives?

hnmonkey 8y ago
Because this isn't a zero-sum game. If you say 9,999 good things on the internet and 1 offensive thing people aren't going to say 'oh... but he said 9,999 good ones so we should ignore the one that we find offensive'.
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  Your first comment was about a person's negative statement outweighing their positive ones, but this attempt to clarify doesn't address that at all, and instead focuses solely on others' perceptions of that person. Which are you talking about? Or if you're claiming they're linked, what is the link?
  - hnmonkey 8y ago
    The link is a perception one. To people who view those original statements as negative ones they're not going to care about anything positive and the positive ones won't minimize the negatives ones for them usually. Therefore, if there are negative statements generally some people will find that they outweigh any positives said. I assumed the link was pretty obvious... to paint a vivid picture if you have a person or group that says nice things most of the time about puppy dogs but just once says some hateful nazi rhetoric, someone out there will find that the negative outweighs the positive and won't care that there are positive statements. Edit - I probably should've qualified my statement in my original post to better state that position. I can see now that it seems my statement is an absolute for all people. Not my intent.
    - jamesrcole 8y ago
      I understand the perception thing. But your original comment said nothing about perception, and presented it as a truth about the person and their comments (one that would be true independent of anybody else's perceptions of it). So, to clarify, you're saying these perceptions aren't necessarily true? If so, I'd suggest that your original comment comes across as saying something very different.
    - justicezyx 8y ago
      To state myself clearly: I am disturbed by the line of thinking of basing conclusion on media reports. I do not say negative outweighs positive or vise versa. That's not my point. My ultimate point is that a person is complex. If you want to base your perception on media reports, that's clearly lazy and manipulated. To know a person, you need to see the whole picture. Then if you want to claim that a person's repetitive attacks from media is because that person is problematic, that's disturbing.