Not really, you simply asserted
such a difference. And frankly its not nearly as different as you would wish....a distinction with very little difference,,,and again
another reason why legit studies have very specific rules and guidelines.
And there are still several issues:
-If the play meets none of the qualifiers of a legit study how can one possibly trust the conclusions...you BTW can't.
-How about the inherent flaws with projecting its conclusions onto a larger populations--as I mentioned, just because I might be able to "provoke" you into violence--using paid actors and a script---does not mean that I can then project your response onto all gay men living in Boston.
"Its an example of both"
But in that case only one
side was sold. Nobody bothered to highlight the much more common
acts of tolerence and actual defense
of Muslims---by a factor of 2-3xs
I might add.
In your own profession if you had a treatment that was 2-3xs more effective
wouldn't that kinda be the point of the discussion?
"I have been the victem of discrimnation"
So have I.
Its why I don't excuse it and why when people step up against it
its well worth pointing out.
"He didn't say that the whole USA was bad and rascist"
He didn't have to--that is the narrative
--he and the person that helped design the play, simply assumed
that intolerence would be the norm and when the results didn't match
the narrative, but instead went the other way with some force, he failed to highlight that and instead still
spun it as intolerence.
Lets not forget that is how its being used/characterized on the website from which it came.
Again, if you were to run a study and the results came back 2-3xs in the negative for your assumptions---you would be laughed out of your profession if you failed to report exactly that.
(and BTW if your going to argue that jounalism does not have such tough requirements---that simply another reason not to trust its conclusions.
Sorry I did not mean to be obtuse---to me the real story here is that most of the people in the play were not only very tolerent but aggressivly so---willing to confront
the intolerent.......the story, in keeping with the car anology is not that Bently and Fords are different
--the story here is that people did not respond as John Q and the person that designed the play assumed they would---again in context with the car analogy---you would expect that a person when offered a Bentley in trade for their Ford would take it---2-3xs more people refusing to take such a trade would be news.