Uh, no that’s not what it’s saying. It’s railing against the top 1% of people that have huge capital. People who have webcams/cameras etc. are contained in the 99% of Americans. They aren’t the “average” of the 99%. Each is one of the 99% who do not have huge capital and together they make up the 99%. In other words, in order for you to have a problem with their claims, you need to show that someone who says “We are the 99%” is actually part of the top 1%.
If you prefer, they could say “I am one of the 99%,” but that’s not as catchy.
paper-machine was pointing out that those who post on that blog come from a particular subset of the “99% movement”, and so only looking at people from that blog will skew your judgement of the entire mass of people.
Were you disagreeing that making inferences about a movement based on one blog constitutes availability bias?
Uh, no that’s not what it’s saying. It’s railing against the top 1% of people that have huge capital. People who have webcams/cameras etc. are contained in the 99% of Americans. They aren’t the “average” of the 99%. Each is one of the 99% who do not have huge capital and together they make up the 99%. In other words, in order for you to have a problem with their claims, you need to show that someone who says “We are the 99%” is actually part of the top 1%.
If you prefer, they could say “I am one of the 99%,” but that’s not as catchy.
I have no idea what you’re responding to here.
paper-machine was pointing out that those who post on that blog come from a particular subset of the “99% movement”, and so only looking at people from that blog will skew your judgement of the entire mass of people.
Were you disagreeing that making inferences about a movement based on one blog constitutes availability bias?
Oh, reading through it again, I just seemed to misunderstand both people.