Rashida Tlaib (1 Viewer)

jon_mx said:

Sounds more like you are covering your ears.  You asked "why every conservatives knows" of the squad if not for racism and I pointed out the massive publicity they have received from the media, and you blew it off as nothing.  You have no interest in a factual discussion.  You have your little hateful theory and you stick to it, damn with the facts.  ....and no, I am not from Wisconsin.

Click to expand...

Well to begin with, the articles you cited were written well after most conservatives knew and hated them. So I don't think they prove what you think they prove.

Anyway, the massive publicity they have received is largely because of the outsized attention they've received from conservatives.  Yes, I agree with you that some small portion of it has to do with mainstream media illuminating their stories as representative of a new breed of elected leaders after the 2018 elections, particularly with AOC. But that story would have faded fairly quickly had conservative media not picked up on it and seen them as foil.

I mean, look in the mirror. How much time and effort have you personally put in to taking down every last utterance from AOC?  Why? She's not running for president, or even a leadership position in the House or for the Senate any time soon. Why is she worth countless hours of your time?  Do you honestly think she says objectively silly things on Twitter and elsewhere at a greater clip than, say, Dan Crenshaw?

Just to be clear- I'm not accusing you of racial or gender-based motivation. I think you (and many others) are simply responding to conservative media demonizing these women for fun and profit.

TobiasFunke said:

But the massive publicity they have received is largely because of the outsized attention they've received from conservatives. 

Click to expand...

Absolutely absurd. They were and still are promoted by the MSM as the future of the Democratic Party.  AOC was the absolute darling of the media, a rock star.  It was not 'largely because' of conservatives.  Let's rewrite history so you can call conservatives racist.  Very classy this place is to allow this stuff.  Zero self-policing.  Zero moderation.  Nothing.  

TobiasFunke said:

13 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

2.  Mark Pocan does not say stuff like:  "Analysts need to be African Americans, not people that are not.  I think non-African Americans think African Americans all look the same."

Click to expand...

2. Way to take a quote out of context!  That was about facial recognition software analysts in Detroit, which is heavily African-American.  And  

Click to expand...

As I said earlier, context is everything.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/rashida-tlaib-detroit-facial-recognition-technology/index.html

Detroit Police chief calls Tlaib's comments 'racist' after she suggests facial recognition tech analysts should be African American

[...]

Facial recognition technology identifies people from live or recorded video or still photos, typically by comparing their facial features with those in a database of faces, such as mugshots.

The technology could help with tasks ranging from solving crime to checking student attendance at school, but critics are raising privacy issues. Artificial intelligence researchers and civil rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, are worried about accuracy and bias in facial-recognition systems.

"Our worry is that right now the dialogue is not about how really broken and inaccurate the system is," Tlaib told CNN in a phone interview.

[...]

On Twitter Wednesday night, Tlaib, who represents a district that includes parts of Detroit, shared links to studies and media reports on the technology and its errors in identifying people of different races and genders.

"The science suggests that people have difficulty identifying faces of people from other races (and) we must take it seriously," Tlaib wrote on Twitter.

She shared a New York Times report that cited a 2018 study done by Joy Buolamwini at the M.I.T. Media Lab, which found that facial analysis software has trouble identifying women of color — with error rates of up to nearly 35% for women with darker skin tones.

"At the end of the day, I was elected to serve my residents and I cannot in good conscience sit by while (Craig) shows me inaccurate facial recognition technology that's been already deployed, that run the risk of false arrests and over policing, and I wanted to have a real dialogue with him," Tlaib told CNN, adding she hopes Detroit Police will read the studies. 

[...] 

The reason for my analogy to David Duke was precisely the above.  No matter how clearly racists the stuff they say may be, there are people on their side who will defend it.  

jon_mx said:

Absolutely absurd. They were and still are promoted by the MSM as the future of the Democratic Party.  AOC was the absolute darling of the media, a rock star.  It was not 'largely because' of conservatives.  Let's rewrite history so you can call conservatives racist.  Very classy this place is to allow this stuff.  Zero self-policing.  Zero moderation.  Nothing.  

Click to expand...

Oh good lord.

I'll ask one question and then be done:  Do you honestly think the amount of attention and criticism leveled at AOC but also Tlaib and Omar (by any measure less culturally relevant) is warranted by their political and cultural stature independent of conservative efforts to highlight and vilify them? ie do you think they'd be just as prominent even if conservatives didn't focus so intently on them?

If your answer is yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

If the answer is no then you at least partially agree with me, and our only disagreement is over apportioning responsibility.

Either way I think we can move on. Or at least I will.

jon_mx said:

Absolutely absurd. They were and still are promoted by the MSM as the future of the Democratic Party.  AOC was the absolute darling of the media, a rock star.  It was not 'largely because' of conservatives.  Let's rewrite history so you can call conservatives racist.  Very classy this place is to allow this stuff.  Zero self-policing.  Zero moderation.  Nothing.  

Click to expand...

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/436466-new-poll-more-americans-think-ocasio-cortez-is-bad-for-the

GOP-leaning respondents were much more likely than independents and Democrats to have an opinion of Ocasio-Cortez. Only 28 percent of Republican respondents said they had no opinion of her, compared to 42 percent of Democrats and 48 percent of independents who said the same.

fatguyinalittlecoat said:

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/436466-new-poll-more-americans-think-ocasio-cortez-is-bad-for-the

GOP-leaning respondents were much more likely than independents and Democrats to have an opinion of Ocasio-Cortez. Only 28 percent of Republican respondents said they had no opinion of her, compared to 42 percent of Democrats and 48 percent of independents who said the same.

Click to expand...

Republicans have an opinion because of their extreme big government agenda, which is the polar opposite of conservatism, they promote make developing an opinion of them quite simple.  Democrats are conflicted because they may be put off by their over the top rhetoric, but in general at least partially support the positions they promote.  So they really don't want to say favorable or unfavorable, it is more neutral.  I really don't believe it is because conservatives are much more informed about who the squad is.  They have been widely featured everywhere.

jon_mx said:

Republicans have an opinion because of their extreme big government agenda, which is the polar opposite of conservatism, they promote make developing an opinion of them quite simple.  Democrats are conflicted because they may be put off by their over the top rhetoric, but in general at least partially support the positions they promote.  So they really don't want to say favorable or unfavorable, it is more neutral.  I really don't believe it is because conservatives are much more informed about who the squad is.  They have been widely featured everywhere.

Click to expand...

This is really stretching it. 

Fatguy gave you empirical evidence that conservatives are much more likely to have an opinion on these women than Dems and independents. That's the facts.  Your post is a baseless partisan scramble to retrofit your argument to data which otherwise clearly disproves your argument.

Here's more data disproving your argument:
 

Between January 3 and July 20, Ocasio-Cortez has been mentioned at least 1,325 times on Fox News, according to data from the Internet Archive's database of television news closed captioning text.

The database ingests all of the words that are uttered on a variety of TV sources, including cable news channels.

The data is incomplete because it does not include nicknames, like AOC, or other shorthand references to the names of individuals. But it provides a rough yardstick for how much airtime and attention is spent on various topics.

During the same time period, Ocasio-Cortez was mentioned at least 465 times on MSNBC and 464 times on CNN.

Omar's name has been invoked at least 405 times on Fox this year, compared with 230 times on CNN and 177 times on MSNBC.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who wields far more power than any individual congresswoman — has been mentioned at least 2,418 times on Fox, 2,068 times on MSNBC, and 1,957 times on CNN.

There are logical reasons why freshmen congresswomen, representing an insurgent wing of the party, have been getting an outsized amount of attention.

But the attention has been coming from Fox News at a far greater level than CNN or MSNBC.

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

The reason for my analogy to David Duke was precisely the above.  No matter how clearly racists the stuff they say may be, there are people on their side who will defend it.  

Click to expand...

A quote was given of Tlaib's that was misleading IMO because it was taken out of context. She has referenced studies, including one which found that facial analysis software has trouble identifying people of color, specifically with error rates of up to nearly 35% for women with darker skin tones. Pointing out accuracy and bias in facial-recognition systems is not in itself racist.

TobiasFunke said:

wait a second ... aren't you from Wisconsin?

Click to expand...

That's me!

I still had to google him, lol. I know every other one of the "people also searched for" but somehow had no idea who he was. 

Weird how this conversation came to a sudden end when empirical evidence that the right is obsessed with Tlaib, Omar and AOC was introduced.

Anyway, I was just thinking about how weird it is that defenders and supporters of Donald frigging Trump and his party feigned concern about accuracy in politicians' tweets and we somehow went four pages without noting the obvious bad faith and hypocrisy.

jon_mx said:

If a politician blamed a crime on illegal immigrants or a Muslim and then it ended up being a white citizen, it would be a story.  False accusations are not honest mistakes.  They are a sign of hatred and bigotry.

Click to expand...

Like this, for example.  This got "likes" from six different Trump supporters.  I guess all of them think Donald Trump is a hateful bigot?

TobiasFunke said:

Weird how this conversation came to a sudden end when empirical evidence that the right is obsessed with Tlaib, Omar and AOC was introduced.

Anyway, I was just thinking about how weird it is that defenders and supporters of Donald frigging Trump and his party feigned concern about accuracy in politicians' tweets and we somehow went four pages without noting the obvious bad faith and hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with their race or skin color.  Their ideas are ignorant and not plausible.  Same goes for Warren and Sanders.

TobiasFunke said:

Like this, for example.  This got "likes" from six different Trump supporters.  I guess all of them think Donald Trump is a hateful bigot?

Click to expand...

That is the problem with hanging your hat on the number of likes any post receives in this forum (as some do here IMO). Six likes might have several different reasons, such as complete agreement, partial agreement, partial agreement and disagreement or the person has no strong opinion on it, bit found it humorous, interesting or informative.  

And likes can have a Rorschach quality to them, with people reading into them what they want. I have several people jump to conclusions and accuse me of some outrageous beliefs or opinions based on a like of a several paragraph post that covered multiple issues.  

TobiasFunke said:

Like this, for example.  This got "likes" from six different Trump supporters.  I guess all of them think Donald Trump is a hateful bigot?

Click to expand...

Trump and the Squad are similar animals with their rhetoric.  Trump is routinely horrible.  

TobiasFunke said:

Weird how this conversation came to a sudden end when empirical evidence that the right is obsessed with Tlaib, Omar and AOC was introduced.

Anyway, I was just thinking about how weird it is that defenders and supporters of Donald frigging Trump and his party feigned concern about accuracy in politicians' tweets and we somehow went four pages without noting the obvious bad faith and hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Isnt this thread largely about how the media shielded Tlaib when she said something dumb? 

Sounds like you may have presented some data in support of that. 

Will have to look into it. 

jon_mx said:

Trump and the Squad are similar animals with their rhetoric.  Trump is routinely horrible.  

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know you aren't a Trump guy, and I applaud you for not being inconsistent here.

I was more interested in the six Trump supporters who liked your comment stating "[f]alse accusations are not honest mistakes.  They are a sign of hatred and bigotry" in light of stuff like that anti-Muslim propaganda video Trump retweeted (or the dozens of other false accusations he's made on twitter). Sure seems like an admission by them that Trump shows "signs of hatred and bigotry"

TobiasFunke said:

Weird how this conversation came to a sudden end when empirical evidence that the right is obsessed with Tlaib, Omar and AOC was introduced.

Anyway, I was just thinking about how weird it is that defenders and supporters of Donald frigging Trump and his party feigned concern about accuracy in politicians' tweets and we somehow went four pages without noting the obvious bad faith and hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

It was irrelevant to the discussion which was overly personal and I was disgusted by it.  The fact that FoxNews spends more time talking about AOC than MSNBC is because Fox is not obsessed with talking about Trump and his scandals 24/7.  News is largely focused on negative, so FoxNews spends more time bashing Pelosi and the Squad while CNN and MSNBC focuses the vast majority of their time on bashing Trump.  It is noteworthy to note MSNBC and CNN still talked about AOC quite often, from the data it would appear second only to Pelosi.....just like FoxNews....Nobody talked about the dude from Wisconsin.   

jon_mx said:

It was irrelevant to the discussion which was overly personal and I was disgusted by it.  The fact that FoxNews spends more time talking about AOC than MSNBC is because Fox is not obsessed with talking about Trump and his scandals 24/7.  News is largely focused on negative, so FoxNews spends more time bashing Pelosi and the Squad while CNN and MSNBC focuses the vast majority of their time on bashing Trump.  It is noteworthy to note MSNBC and CNN still talked about AOC quite often, from the data it would appear second only to Pelosi.....just like FoxNews....Nobody talked about the dude from Wisconsin.   

Click to expand...

Another way to look at it would be to ask what the odds are that a liberal quotes any of the squad unprompted, versus the odds that a conservative person makes a comment bashing one of the squad unprompted.