Skip to main content

View Diary: 0.1%er Latina suffers 'USA! USA!' jeers from GOP crowd (350 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What did I lie about? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What did I distort?

    Please enlighten me.

    •  Watch the entire video (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thaddeus74, WFBMM, JVolvo

      and note that you and I both know that the shouting had to do with the rule change that was rammed through on a specious voice vote and that there was yelling at Priebus already long before the next speaker took the stage.

      You know all that, of course, but choose to ignore it because it doesn't support your pet narrative.  

      Willfull ignoring of the context and meaning to score cheap political points is a total karl Rove move and it is in large measure why we have millions of voters who are disgusted with the tone of the political debate. I'm going to say to you what Jon Stewart said to Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson:  "Stop hurting America" just for entertainment's sake.

      Stick with reality.  it's a lot more compelling.

      Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

      by Mindful Nature on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 12:55:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please note that the chant changed (0+ / 0-)

        to USA USA when Fonalledas was introduced and went to the podium.

        That is the context I am referring to as I explained in my post.

        That is not something you see as requiring an explanation.

        I disagree.

        I am discussing reality. You disagree with my opinion. No problem there. But now you are trying to shout me down.

        And that is not ok.

        •  That's not what happened though (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WFBMM, ltsply2, bnasley

          The issue is of course that the chant didn't change (in the sense that people switched from oe to the other), but rather  that a second group (and larger) of chanters joined the first group of chanters, who didn't change and were still chanting "Seat them now"

          In fact, NPR had a piece yesterday morning (I think) about how the California delegation had been assigned the role of shouting down any protests from the Maine Paul delegation and any other paul delegations.   That is in fact, exactly what appearss to have occured.

          And yes, in an age of climate change denialism and false equivalencies, there's no reason to be tolerant of disinformation.  So, yes, in a sense I am trying to get you to retract this diary, insofar as it has been demonstrated to be inaccurate, has been shown why is misrepresents the context, and now seems to be in danger of becoming another  front page zombie meme in which the facts are ignored in favor of scoring a political point.

          Personally, I think we need to give this kind of thing a very wide berth, because we have so many solid facts to point to instead.

          Anway, as I said above (since we have like six exchanges going!), let's just shake hands, dust off, and move on.  

          Sorry I got rather heated (again).  I'm chalking it up to male menopause, personally.

          Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

          by Mindful Nature on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:43:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But the USA USA chant did not start (0+ / 0-)

            until Fonalledas was introduced and at the podium.

            Is there an innocent explanation? Certainly. Is there a less innocent explanation? Certainly.

            Neither of us knows the real explanation.

            My argument is that given their history, the benefit of the doubt is not appropriate.

            YM varies.

            •  Let's follow this thread (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Armando, bnasley

              This is maybe what this is about:

              My argument is that given their history, the benefit of the doubt is not appropriate
              Here's why I think that's not a good way to go.  It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you interpret everything in a way to support your own preconceptions.  What that means if applied broadly is that one becomes maximally closed off to any countervailing evidence, because confirmation bias (which this would be a form of) discounts or explains away everything that conflicts and every interpretation is made to reinforce preexisting beliefs.

              Two problems flow from that.  First, that means one can become increasingly detached from reality.  Second, if reality does change, one would be unable to respond.

              In this case, there's an innocent explanation and a less innocent one.  (as you know I find the innocent one greatly more credible, especially the history over the last few months and days) So the root of the disagreement probably stems from the approach to handling such ambiguity.  For my part, I'm such an empiricist that I try not to believe anything unless I've solid foundation, and I try to be most skeptical (consciously that is) when something appears to confirm my ideas.  

              I should fess up that I'm a former scientist, and a significant part of that training is to develop alternative explanations that run counter to ones own interpretations.  It's not an advocacy way of thinking (though there's plenty of advocates in the scientific world who seem to feel their job is to support their pet ideas come hell or high water).  

              Anyway, it's good to think about this in a new analytical framework, for me anyway.

              Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

              by Mindful Nature on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:04:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The problem with the approach you espouse (0+ / 0-)

                is 2 fold in my view.

                First, it amounts to de facto unilaterla disarmament in thr political fight. The GOP won;t play by your rules.

                Second, it seems wrong to me at least as a way of evaluating events. Past events and attitudes matter. They inform.

                I can;t believe past findings are irrelvant to scientific thought.

                Certainly, as a lawyer, character evidence is important.

                •  I suppose (0+ / 0-)

                  On the fist point, I think part of what the political difference between the right and left is the commitment to evidence.  While the right is used ot pandering with false stereotypes, the left seeks to base judgments on evidence and reality.  While it might be seen as disarmament is you opt to use bias-driven analysis (for lack of a better term), in my estimation, engaging in it undermines the basis for the strength of ones argument.  If "both sides do it" then one isn't in a position to call out both the Republicans and the media for their sloppiness and lack of commitment to evidence.  I guess I see style here as the substance of the difference.  

                  That'sprobably just a difference in preferred tactics more athan anything.  Hard to say what's better, simply because the data's so complex.

                  On the second, past evidence clearly matters, but while it may inform the hypotheses, it can't relieve one of the requirement to form a null hypothesis and refute it (that is, lprove your statement by disproving the alternative that there's no effect here.).  Again, that may be just a methodological difference.

                  And finally, I thought character evidence wasn't admissible so as not to bias the jury into finding a defendant guilty based on who they are, rather than what they did.  That's based on 2L classes, and the bar, since I practice admin law and never get near evidentiary rules these days!  

                  and thanks for turning on a dime to have an interesting conversation!

                  Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                  by Mindful Nature on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:10:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Looks like an attempt to shout down Paulistas (0+ / 0-)

            I'm the last one to give GOPers a free pass on the widespread racism and xenophobia in today's Republican Party, but from looking at the video it seems that the Paulites were shouting "Seat them now! Seat them now!" and then another bunch of people then started shouting "USA! USA" to drown them out. The people shouting USA! are visibly not the Paulistas, and the Ron Paul delegates are visibly not shouting USA!

            You could argue about why the non-Paul delegates picked USA! as their drown-out chant. The simplest explanation is that it is (a) in the same three-beat form as "Seat them now!" and (b) a chant that everybody else in the convention would be likely to join in, thus effectively shutting down the Paul supporters. Indeed, it sounds to my ears like Fonalledas herself joined in after a couple of beats.

            That said, the optics (or is it sonics?) aren't good.

    •  Um, your title? You are asserting your opinion (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emidesu, bnasley

      that those were "jeers."  Several here have pointed out the context of that moment: pissed Paulies booing and chanting because Preibus had just stripped Paul delegates via a subjective voice vote.  The GOP drones eventually figured out USA USA USA would cover the dissenters chants.  Rep Fonalledas was the unlucky person to be speaking immediately after Reince's delegate purge.

      But keep flailing away in your own subjective outrage.

      This reminds me of the Larry Johnson "Whitey" bullshit: no context, just emotion to assert a predetermined outcome.

      Note: I think many GOPers are bigoted, racist and/or misogynists.  FUCK THEM.

      I also think that this wasn't a Freudian/Bircher slip.  There's plenty to hit them with.

      The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

      by JVolvo on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:11:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They were clearly jeers (0+ / 0-)

        To compare this to the whitey tape demonstrates a level of well, I don't know what to call it, that is bizarre.

        •  The "whitey" comparison is YOU --> Johnson (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          for willfully ignoring context and flailing away to your emotionally satisfying conclusion.

          NOT the actual events.  But you knew that, too.

          And with this, I'm done (6:54 CDT).  You get the opportunity for the last comment.

          Enjoy yelling about your strawman.

          The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

          by JVolvo on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:54:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site