4 ms·
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 o
by 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 agoI 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 agoTo 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.