re: #134 Nyet

It doesn’t really have to be precise math, like 50/50.

If A is 30% good at something very bad, and B is 60% good at something very bad, then mathematically B is twice as worse, but there is also another way of seeing it: beyond some tolerance point they’re just “bad” and it doesn’t matter all that much whether beyond that point A is better or worse than B.

Okay, well, to me that’s not what ‘just as bad’ means, that seems to be your own private definition of it. I think you’ll find that most people think that ‘just as bad’ means ‘roughly equally bad’, not ‘past some point of bad tolerance’.

There’s lots of ways you could say what I think you want to say, or at least attempt to achieve what you want to achieve, without tripping over semantics.

Personally, my bugbear is anti-scientific thinking on the left, and abuse of statistics, which happens all the time. When I see it, my response is “It doesn’t matter how much the ‘right’ does it, we need to be better than that, we need to be totally intolerant of that sort of shit on our own side and correct it whenever it’s there”.

To mock Fox News for fucking up in a fake way distracts from pointing out the real ways that Fox News fucks up and so it’s really, really dumb. That fox might fuck up the graphic of an actor really isn’t a big deal, I wouldn’t think badly of them for doing so anyway.