| But the statement being replied to was > Imagine being called a minority in a place you are the majority which implies that only the area of Tibet is being discussed. And > Tibetan people represent 0.4% of the Chinese population implies that all of China is being discussed. So there's a disconnect there. The comment about Native Americans was presumably being read in the context of "Native Americans in the Unites States", which is a context where they are, indeed, a minority. I expect the original comment about Native Americans was made in the sense of "like how the US treated Native Americans", not "the facts presented (majority, living there for a long time) also apply to the Native Americans". Whereas the reply to that comment was, I assume, made based on the second interpretation. So not dense or intentional, just a different understanding of what was being said, because of ambiguity. And, because people like to feel superior and assume everyone interprets everything the same way they do even when ambiguous, the poor responder got a bunch of down votes lumped on them. |