But we live in a world where it's very very unlikely that they would have tested the product exclusively on non-white people, which is the point of my post. The circumstances simply would not have arose.
65.4% of the country is white folks. Therefore, the odds make it highly probable one of them would happen to be in the testing pool.
So, if you take my example of 2 people, the odds of you picking two white people at random is 42.7%.
You are ascribing racism to probability and a poor QA process.
But we live in a world where it's very very unlikely that they would have tested the product exclusively on non-white people, which is the point of my post. Incorrect. Less than a third of the population is white. Only in countries where the white people are in the majority, is that statement true. China and India alone (which make up a third of the world's population) are both likely to test products on purely non-whites. That is not counting the entire continent of Africa, the rest of Asia, or South America.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
Re: No offense but...
on 2009-12-22 10:50 pm (UTC)65.4% of the country is white folks. Therefore, the odds make it highly probable one of them would happen to be in the testing pool.
So, if you take my example of 2 people, the odds of you picking two white people at random is 42.7%.
You are ascribing racism to probability and a poor QA process.
But we live in a world where it's very very unlikely that they would have tested the product exclusively on non-white people, which is the point of my post.
Incorrect. Less than a third of the population is white. Only in countries where the white people are in the majority, is that statement true. China and India alone (which make up a third of the world's population) are both likely to test products on purely non-whites. That is not counting the entire continent of Africa, the rest of Asia, or South America.