#1 ·
So, regarding this whole thread about Kamala Harris, the President of the United States, specifically her official title—because, honestly, why on earth would we use some unofficial nickname instead of just being professional here?!—you guys actually went ahead and added an option to rate her performance using a scale from zero to five?!?!?!?!?
Now, let me ask you, my dear left-wing moderators—who are so transparent it’s practically embarrassing...what exactly is a "zero" rating supposed to mean? Where, in what universe, do you even give someone a zero out of five?? Who told you, or who suggested, that adding a "zero" was a valid option?? Look, if you’re going to be biased, at least be consistent! Since you decided to invent a whole new rating below the lowest standard grade used in the United States—which is a failing 1—then fine, go all the way and add a grade ABOVE the highest one too. In the US, a 5 is excellent, right? So if you’re hell-bent on playing jokes by adding a "zero," then go ahead and throw in a "six." I think that would actually be fair. Unless, of course, you don't want people rightfully labeling you as old-school Marxists or radical socialists. Because by doing this, you've basically given everyone ammunition for those accusations. You didn't expand the scale logically; you just added a single extra notch at the bottom to screw people over, rather than adding one at the top for those who might actually want to give her a higher mark.
Alright, now I’m waiting to see what you lot have to say to this. The arguments are laid out plain as day. You’ve made a totally one-sided move that benefits EXCLUSIVELY the critics (since you gave them an extra way to tank her score). If you want to fix this blatant bias, then give the supporters the option to rate her above the maximum too.
Or, maybe the smartest thing would be to just fix this nonsense, scrap this ridiculous "zero" rating, and let us all forget about this—and I’ll be generous here—pretty pathetic attempt at being funny.
Now, let me ask you, my dear left-wing moderators—who are so transparent it’s practically embarrassing...what exactly is a "zero" rating supposed to mean? Where, in what universe, do you even give someone a zero out of five?? Who told you, or who suggested, that adding a "zero" was a valid option?? Look, if you’re going to be biased, at least be consistent! Since you decided to invent a whole new rating below the lowest standard grade used in the United States—which is a failing 1—then fine, go all the way and add a grade ABOVE the highest one too. In the US, a 5 is excellent, right? So if you’re hell-bent on playing jokes by adding a "zero," then go ahead and throw in a "six." I think that would actually be fair. Unless, of course, you don't want people rightfully labeling you as old-school Marxists or radical socialists. Because by doing this, you've basically given everyone ammunition for those accusations. You didn't expand the scale logically; you just added a single extra notch at the bottom to screw people over, rather than adding one at the top for those who might actually want to give her a higher mark.
Alright, now I’m waiting to see what you lot have to say to this. The arguments are laid out plain as day. You’ve made a totally one-sided move that benefits EXCLUSIVELY the critics (since you gave them an extra way to tank her score). If you want to fix this blatant bias, then give the supporters the option to rate her above the maximum too.
Or, maybe the smartest thing would be to just fix this nonsense, scrap this ridiculous "zero" rating, and let us all forget about this—and I’ll be generous here—pretty pathetic attempt at being funny.