I don't understand how you arrived at your conclusion.
"I chose slight right wing bias... It seemed mildly biased towards his innocence."
Don't mean to pick on anyone in particular, but I came to this conclusion because people have been picking sides on where they stand in this case based on where they are on the left|right of American politics. Innocence is associated with right-wing, and that is something I have gathered from Americans. From this forum even. Guilty is associated with left-wing. Both sides appear absolutely ignorant. I set about to change that a bit I guess? You know, there is only value lost with ignorance so I'm just happy throwing out the truth there and letting people come to sensible conclusions. And now that I think about, for the right reasons too. What is the value of being right if you're only right on a chance? Sure it's there, but it doesn't have the same weight.
As far as I can tell you started by assuming that your OP is perfectly unbiased and that anyone who disagrees with that must be deciding the case based on their politics.
2. When I started this thread I had hoped someone would watch the trial fully and give literally all of the information necessary to understanding every aspect of the trial. When I created the poll, I was hoping someone would call me out for making it political instead of a measure of how well I portrayed the facts. I had originally wished to just give what I had about the trial and leave, but I consider the amusement from this experiment well worth continuing my suffering.
Then you put in lots of options to make it less likely that people would pick neutral.
3. It was a clear scale of 1 to 5 to 9 when I made it. I wanted the full array of options so I could more accurately see how strongly people felt about the trial, if doing so somehow reduced the chance of "true neutral" being picked than I've made the poor assumption that people aren't random number generators and they actually read what was written and made an at least somewhat informed decision.
Then you arbitrarily assigned a random timezone to American users in order to try and prove that they are more "biased" (I really can't see why it turning 1PM in part of the US suddenly makes it America time).
I actually didn't know what I was doing when I made the poll other than that it was an interesting experiment. I originally intended it to just be a scale of 1-5 of impartiality with no mention of political spectrum. I merely kept tabs on the poll using posts to make sure that I didn't even get to see the results until I was satisfied with the total number of votes, and I saw that although the votes were pretty consistent on average towards the end there were some oddities. I was quite surprised by the results myself. 1PM onwards is the time where most of the Americans have free time, and not only that - it's the time where the rest of the world either sleeps, eats or works. This correlates with general activity of world populaces; there is a very different internet atmosphere to 1PM, 1 Bong, 1 in the Arvo etc.
Then you decided to ignore the extremes of your survey as jokes because they don't fit your hypothesis (only you seem to decide that actually those votes were serious later in one of your conclusions?).
Not jokes. I just don't know quite exactly what the poll results at the extremes truly means, and I had originally created them to catch out joke results as is so often the norm on this forum [it's considered common etiquette to provide a 3rd nonsensical option, which I think is rather unusual and nice, and I also expected at least one or two people to just pick the extremes for the sake of it]. But of course, when the extreme right option held a decent sized group yet there were no votes for the middle ground in between the central votes and the extreme on the right, I didn't know what to make of it. It's a peculiar group who I don't think can easily be explained with just one explanation, I do think there are a host of people within that group who will have picked that option for different reasons.
Basically, it seems that you started with a politically motivated conclusion and massaged your poll and data to arrive at it.
Lastly you shouldn't start your vote percentages at the origin, it doesn't really make much sense when you're using percentages.
I didn't expect there to be such focus on the graph, as much as I now wish, it wasn't the primary purpose of the thread. I suppose there are a few things I could have done better with it, but as Lagslayer put it, it was an amusing thing happening on the side. I don't see where I have massaged it, and it was most definitely not politically motivated nor did I form any conclusion before I had the data nor did I form one that was not suggested by the data.
You are assuming that people are angry about the verdict based on politics.
Nope. I'm saying it's highly likely the country that divides everything into politics has now delved deeper in their madness to extending politics to the courtroom. Eh, whatever the truth is all that matters is we all love each other in the end. And I guess that's what the problem is, people keep bringing up some sort of persecution of the single entity that is the "blacks," and how Trayvon shows black people can now be shot whenever they bash someone's head into the concrete and this is grounds for... Attacking white and hispanic people somehow? It's like you've forgotten that people are individuals who aren't ruled by their race and that you're only dividing your country for the sake of dividing it.
People were angry, long, long before the verdict. It's the corrupt process that is the problem. Your summery of the events barely touches on that.
Because I have heard little of it, my summary of events was not a summary of events it was a summary of the trial. An unbiased summary of events prior to the shooting would be nice if you could make it, impartial being of course a dictation of the facts from primary sources.
Plenty of time to talk about Trayvon Martin being a thug.
[Clarification here that I have only been posting facts from the trial, with specific attention to clarifications on where the media has been not so truthful in their representation of characters as would be fit for news].
To be honest, I'm not sure where I really gave any effort to show Trayvon Martin as a thug, the phone evidence already did that and I only had to repost pictures. It's not even relevant where it's concerned, a thug or a saint has no place straddling someone's chest slamming their head into the concrete. Truth be told, I don't care much about painting characters, and I didn't until someone started going on about how the photos released by the defence were fakes and it's been debunked a billion times or something.
No time to talk about how blacks were considered to racist to be on the jury
I didn't hear anything about this in the jury selection and the jury was selected by both prosecution and defense. It just seems more likely they couldn't find any black person who hadn't already heard about this and felt no need to prolong the trial searching for one, as they valued race to be worthless in this trial.
and the part of Zimmerman's history that was excluded from the trial.
Because it was an irrelevant part of his history that the judge considered rather mundane. He and his girlfriend got into some spat and the girlfriend wanted George to never be near her again. George wanted her to never be near him again. The judge agreed to both!
George wasn't exactly losing streetfights to his ex before Trayvon jumped him, that would be the issue. If you want to talk corruption of the judicial system, there actually were laws broken. It was all done by the prosecution.
But protesting the lack of a fair process is considered left wing even though last I checked everyone supports a fair justice system.
Mainiac, you do have to take into account I'm not vested in your political system at all on any level. I just honestly love America, and am both intrigued and disturbed by how some of you guys casually toy with other people's lives on someone else's orders. I guess maybe on a subconscious level as well, I am perplexed at why a lot of the people here are against the values I'd expect them to have. That was an observation, my hypothesis is that this is the result of partisanship, and now it's a rather entertaining theory. And if you do represent the majority of progressives [if this poll is indicative of anything you don't], then I have literally no shits to give about what you consider a fair justice system, because all you've done is come here in this thread, make a bunch of ignorant repeated statements and you've shown you have no shits to give about justice and just want to see this man in prison. Maybe you could do what palsch did and actually outline your beliefs, explanations of why you have them and what you think would have actually been fair?
Poll
Author
Topic: George Zimmerman verdict and THINGS (Read 17205 times)