2·
1 year agoA map like that isn’t really reflective of any substance. Do you know what most maps of the US look like when defining political opinions by states? It’s a sea of red. But it clearly doesn’t tell a valid picture of popular support. And I’m not even arguing that makes any particular opinion more valid or not, all I’m saying is that its very easily misleading depending on what narrative you want to sell.
https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/E7LSY66ODVCFHEVJ7TTGJKPHSU.jpg
Clearly the vast majority of the country supported Trump based on that map…Except that’s not true.
Are you being inflammatory and intentionally framing my post to make it seem like I made statements that I didn’t make? What I refuted is that posting a simple map that appears to tell a definitive story isn’t actually very substantial because there are many ways in which it can be misleading.
Let’s first address the most obvious error in your comment. You said that I claimed “majority of the world support trump with that map”, and my comment clearly says “country”, not world.
My point is that placing colors on a map can mean anything depending on how you frame the context or what you understand about what geographically is being depicted in the map. I used a map of the US as an example of how colors on a map can be misleading. The vast majority of that map is red, which would lead you to believe that in a lens where red/blue represent two different political parties, would have you believe the red party has drastically more support than the blue party.
Now that is one way that a map with simplistic information shown can be misleading, but there are other ways to use them to be misleading. For example, the very map that Dessalines posts, why is it that nearly all the Western countries are unified in a certain perspective of China? Are you going to say because of US influence? It would be fair to refute that a bunch of independent developed Western nations have each come to a similar conclusion about China if you claimed that there was a lack of independence to them coming to that conclusion. At the same time, couldn’t that argument also be made about China and other nations within the sphere of influence of China?
Also you’re using a fallacious defense that Muslim countries are somehow more authoritative in source because the alleged victims of abuse are Muslim, as though no collective of people have ever hurt people that have identified similarly of that collective before. Wasn’t there violence between different denominations of Christians? Isn’t there violence between different beliefs among Muslims? There’s a laundry list of abuses humans have committed against each other and against people that identify similar to each other, and it’s often because there ends up being a deep difference of opinion on specific issues. So generalizing that all Muslim countries will support all Muslims in all cases is bigotry on your part.