A third response is still valid, though. That concept is the cornerstone of everything from data science to regular science. Removing something as sensitive as a poll from it’s context is to remove all meaning from it, but again, he was indeed hugely popular. Even the gallup polls at the time support this. I’m really lost as to what you’re getting at.
I feel like you might be casting your own conceptions as to the basis of my motivations, and they’re a little unfair - if you mean that their point is “martin luther king’s popularity fell between 1965 and 1966” then sure, that’s supported by the above gallup poll. But that’s trivially true, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the use of optics by social movements, and also has nothing to do with how hugely popular king was at the time (which is also supported by the same gallup poll).
I have no idea what their point is, though. They’ve been trying to, idk, entrap me into saying king wasn’t popular? Which patently wasn’t true, even according to their own sources. So… what? What’re they even trying to argue, because this feels very much like they’re just trying to ‘win’ based on a semantic argument I’ve never ascribed to, after entrenching themselves in a position that the other person never set out or has interest in discussing .
A third response is still valid, though. That concept is the cornerstone of everything from data science to regular science. Removing something as sensitive as a poll from it’s context is to remove all meaning from it, but again, he was indeed hugely popular. Even the gallup polls at the time support this. I’m really lost as to what you’re getting at.
2011 is after MLK’s time FYI
Again, yes? I’m not sure how embedding the image changes it’s meaning, but I’m still quite curious as to what your point is.
favorable 33
unfavorable 63
mhhhh
So instead of elaborating… you’re just going to meme? I mean sure go ahead, it just feels kinda, idk, pointless. ba-dum tss.
What do numbers mean anyways?
That’s what I’ve been repeatedly asking you.
Seems to mean that he wasn’t favorable at all.
Wait hangon, is this all because you’re interpreting positive approval of a contentious political figure from 1/3 of a population as not popular?
You know what it is, you just don’t have a response so you’re playing dumb.
I feel like you might be casting your own conceptions as to the basis of my motivations, and they’re a little unfair - if you mean that their point is “martin luther king’s popularity fell between 1965 and 1966” then sure, that’s supported by the above gallup poll. But that’s trivially true, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the use of optics by social movements, and also has nothing to do with how hugely popular king was at the time (which is also supported by the same gallup poll).
I have no idea what their point is, though. They’ve been trying to, idk, entrap me into saying king wasn’t popular? Which patently wasn’t true, even according to their own sources. So… what? What’re they even trying to argue, because this feels very much like they’re just trying to ‘win’ based on a semantic argument I’ve never ascribed to, after entrenching themselves in a position that the other person never set out or has interest in discussing .
Spare me the wall of bullshit. You know what they meant, you don’t have a response, and you’re playing dumb.
Bud that is barely two paragraphs, and I substantively respond to both you and them in it.