Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
Pete Buttigieg speaking at a recent conference didn't make any mention of the Ohio train derailment and toxic waste zone it created. But he did have time to talk about the skin color of construction workers, lamenting that people with the good paying construction jobs often "don't look like they come from the neighborhoods they are working in" and we can build generational wealth by tearing down those barriers preventing people from getting those jobs.
Quickly googled this and the first thing that comes up on demographics of construction workers
White - 52.9% Hispanic - 27.7% Black - 11.1% Unknown/Asian/Other - 8%~
I don't know, seems pretty ethnically diverse to me. If anything hispanics might be a little overrepresented. Maybe the point he was making was that there are too many hispanics working construction and they don't look like they come from the neighborhoods they are working in? Hmm... probably not. I think most likely his point was that any time is a good time to use identity politics regardless if it makes sense or not.
Seems like you’re struggling to understand the point he was making. I’ve noted this has been a recurring issue for you, you mischaracterize a point and then try to gotcha it in a way that shows you’re not getting it. You shouldn’t feel afraid to ask for help when this happens in future, I’m sure people would be willing to dumb it down for you. That’ll prevent this issue where you try to interject without really understanding it.
Pete Buttigieg speaking at a recent conference didn't make any mention of the Ohio train derailment and toxic waste zone it created. But he did have time to talk about the skin color of construction workers, lamenting that people with the good paying construction jobs often "don't look like they come from the neighborhoods they are working in" and we can build generational wealth by tearing down those barriers preventing people from getting those jobs.
Quickly googled this and the first thing that comes up on demographics of construction workers
White - 52.9% Hispanic - 27.7% Black - 11.1% Unknown/Asian/Other - 8%~
I don't know, seems pretty ethnically diverse to me. If anything hispanics might be a little overrepresented. Maybe the point he was making was that there are too many hispanics working construction and they don't look like they come from the neighborhoods they are working in? Hmm... probably not. I think most likely his point was that any time is a good time to use identity politics regardless if it makes sense or not.
Seems like you’re struggling to understand the point he was making. I’ve noted this has been a recurring issue for you, you mischaracterize a point and then try to gotcha it in a way that shows you’re not getting it. You shouldn’t feel afraid to ask for help when this happens in future, I’m sure people would be willing to dumb it down for you. That’ll prevent this issue where you try to interject without really understanding it.
Sure do you want to explain how I'm mischaracterizing his point? Or do you just want to make condescending posts at people.
Pete Buttigieg speaking at a recent conference didn't make any mention of the Ohio train derailment and toxic waste zone it created. But he did have time to talk about the skin color of construction workers, lamenting that people with the good paying construction jobs often "don't look like they come from the neighborhoods they are working in" and we can build generational wealth by tearing down those barriers preventing people from getting those jobs.
Quickly googled this and the first thing that comes up on demographics of construction workers
White - 52.9% Hispanic - 27.7% Black - 11.1% Unknown/Asian/Other - 8%~
I don't know, seems pretty ethnically diverse to me. If anything hispanics might be a little overrepresented. Maybe the point he was making was that there are too many hispanics working construction and they don't look like they come from the neighborhoods they are working in? Hmm... probably not. I think most likely his point was that any time is a good time to use identity politics regardless if it makes sense or not.
Seems like you’re struggling to understand the point he was making. I’ve noted this has been a recurring issue for you, you mischaracterize a point and then try to gotcha it in a way that shows you’re not getting it. You shouldn’t feel afraid to ask for help when this happens in future, I’m sure people would be willing to dumb it down for you. That’ll prevent this issue where you try to interject without really understanding it.
Sure do you want to explain how I'm mischaracterizing his point? Or do you just want to make condescending posts at people.
1. The people who work certain jobs in an area are not always the people who live in an area because America has class divides. For example household cleaners are unlikely to live in the same neighbourhood in which they work.
2. Class and race are generally correlated in America.
3. These divides lead to a society that lacks cohesion.
That's the whole of what he's saying. It's so absolutely obvious it's baffling that you couldn't get it but somehow you managed it. I'll be less condescending when you're less worthy of it.
The lowest paid employees on a construction project in a rich white area are likely to be disproportionately nonwhite. The highest paid construction employees working in a poor Hispanic area are likely to be disproportionately not Hispanic. That’s it. It’s neither complex nor controversial.
Pete Buttigieg speaking at a recent conference didn't make any mention of the Ohio train derailment and toxic waste zone it created. But he did have time to talk about the skin color of construction workers, lamenting that people with the good paying construction jobs often "don't look like they come from the neighborhoods they are working in" and we can build generational wealth by tearing down those barriers preventing people from getting those jobs.
Quickly googled this and the first thing that comes up on demographics of construction workers
White - 52.9% Hispanic - 27.7% Black - 11.1% Unknown/Asian/Other - 8%~
I don't know, seems pretty ethnically diverse to me. If anything hispanics might be a little overrepresented. Maybe the point he was making was that there are too many hispanics working construction and they don't look like they come from the neighborhoods they are working in? Hmm... probably not. I think most likely his point was that any time is a good time to use identity politics regardless if it makes sense or not.
Seems like you’re struggling to understand the point he was making. I’ve noted this has been a recurring issue for you, you mischaracterize a point and then try to gotcha it in a way that shows you’re not getting it. You shouldn’t feel afraid to ask for help when this happens in future, I’m sure people would be willing to dumb it down for you. That’ll prevent this issue where you try to interject without really understanding it.
Sure do you want to explain how I'm mischaracterizing his point? Or do you just want to make condescending posts at people.
1. The people who work certain jobs in an area are not always the people who live in an area because America has class divides. For example household cleaners are unlikely to live in the same neighbourhood in which they work.
2. Class and race are generally correlated in America.
3. These divides lead to a society that lacks cohesion.
That's the whole of what he's saying. It's so absolutely obvious it's baffling that you couldn't get it but somehow you managed it. I'll be less condescending when you're less worthy of it.
The lowest paid employees on a construction project in a rich white area are likely to be disproportionately nonwhite. The highest paid construction employees working in a poor Hispanic area are likely to be disproportionately not Hispanic. That’s it. It’s neither complex nor controversial.
"“We have heard way too many stories from generations past of infrastructure where you got a neighborhood, often a neighborhood of color that finally sees the project come to them but everyone in the hard hats on that project looking like, you know, doing — doing the good paying jobs don’t look like they came from anywhere near the neighborhood,” said Mr. Buttigieg."
So obviously I totally misinterpreted his point then. When he talked about a workforce in neighborhoods, often a neighborhood of color, that doesn't look like they are from anywhere near the neighborhood, I thought he was primarily making a point about skin color. I guess I made this error because I wouldn't be able to look at a guy in blue jeans and a high-visibility vest and think "this guy doesn't look like he came from anywhere near this neighborhood" unless the guy was a different skin color than most of the people in the neighborhood.
On February 16 2023 08:52 BlackJack wrote: Sure do you want to explain how I'm mischaracterizing his point? Or do you just want to make condescending posts at people.
Hey, even though Pete here is clearly pandering, it's just one clip, from his whole guest speech / event. Buttigieg should be criticized for not taking swifter action and messaging for sure, but this isn't helpful.
Speaking at the annual National Association of Counties conference, Buttigieg praised ongoing infrastructure projects across the nation, calling it an "exciting time" to watch the $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law roll out over the transportation sector.
This event stop was probably scheduled 6 months ago.
Focusing in on a 10 second clip and painting it as "the woke left cares more about race than safety"
It's simply a distraction so that right wingers can ignore the fact that we need more regulations and better worker environments. Which to be fair, democrats and Biden also fucked up by caving to the rail companies.
Pete Buttigieg speaking at a recent conference didn't make any mention of the Ohio train derailment and toxic waste zone it created. But he did have time to talk about the skin color of construction workers, lamenting that people with the good paying construction jobs often "don't look like they come from the neighborhoods they are working in" and we can build generational wealth by tearing down those barriers preventing people from getting those jobs.
Quickly googled this and the first thing that comes up on demographics of construction workers
White - 52.9% Hispanic - 27.7% Black - 11.1% Unknown/Asian/Other - 8%~
I don't know, seems pretty ethnically diverse to me. If anything hispanics might be a little overrepresented. Maybe the point he was making was that there are too many hispanics working construction and they don't look like they come from the neighborhoods they are working in? Hmm... probably not. I think most likely his point was that any time is a good time to use identity politics regardless if it makes sense or not.
Seems like you’re struggling to understand the point he was making. I’ve noted this has been a recurring issue for you, you mischaracterize a point and then try to gotcha it in a way that shows you’re not getting it. You shouldn’t feel afraid to ask for help when this happens in future, I’m sure people would be willing to dumb it down for you. That’ll prevent this issue where you try to interject without really understanding it.
Sure do you want to explain how I'm mischaracterizing his point? Or do you just want to make condescending posts at people.
1. The people who work certain jobs in an area are not always the people who live in an area because America has class divides. For example household cleaners are unlikely to live in the same neighbourhood in which they work.
2. Class and race are generally correlated in America.
3. These divides lead to a society that lacks cohesion.
That's the whole of what he's saying. It's so absolutely obvious it's baffling that you couldn't get it but somehow you managed it. I'll be less condescending when you're less worthy of it.
The lowest paid employees on a construction project in a rich white area are likely to be disproportionately nonwhite. The highest paid construction employees working in a poor Hispanic area are likely to be disproportionately not Hispanic. That’s it. It’s neither complex nor controversial.
"“We have heard way too many stories from generations past of infrastructure where you got a neighborhood, often a neighborhood of color that finally sees the project come to them but everyone in the hard hats on that project looking like, you know, doing — doing the good paying jobs don’t look like they came from anywhere near the neighborhood,” said Mr. Buttigieg."
So obviously I totally misinterpreted his point then. When he talked about a workforce in neighborhoods, often a neighborhood of color, that doesn't look like they are from anywhere near the neighborhood, I thought he was primarily making a point about skin color. I guess I made this error because I wouldn't be able to look at a guy in blue jeans and a high-visibility vest and think "this guy doesn't look like he came from anywhere near this neighborhood" unless the guy was a different skin color than most of the people in the neighborhood.
I don’t think you’re making whatever point you think you’re making.
On February 16 2023 08:52 BlackJack wrote: Sure do you want to explain how I'm mischaracterizing his point? Or do you just want to make condescending posts at people.
Hey, even though Pete here is clearly pandering, it's just one clip, from his whole guest speech / event. Buttigieg should be criticized for not taking swifter action and messaging for sure, but this isn't helpful.
Speaking at the annual National Association of Counties conference, Buttigieg praised ongoing infrastructure projects across the nation, calling it an "exciting time" to watch the $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law roll out over the transportation sector.
This event stop was probably scheduled 6 months ago.
Focusing in on a 10 second clip and painting it as "the woke left cares more about race than safety"
It's simply a distraction so that right wingers can ignore the fact that we need more regulations and better worker environments. Which to be fair, democrats and Biden also fucked up by caving to the rail companies.
On February 15 2023 21:27 DropBear wrote: Can someone from the states give us internationals a quick rundown on Nikki Haley? I had a look through her Wikipedia and it seems she is much more moderate than Trump. It initially looks to me like she has worked with him because she had to.
Her public vetting process has begun, and people have already dug up old videos of her promoting Confederate History Month and supporting the Confederate flag. Topics of treason/sedition (pro-Confederacy, Jan. 6th insurrection, etc.) poll pretty well within the Republican party though, so Haley and her supporters probably won't be particularly embarrassed by these interviews (plus, she could walk them back if she really wanted to, although she probably doesn't want to):
On February 15 2023 22:07 Ryzel wrote: Thoughts on Trump nickname for her? I’m thinking Tricky Nikki.
Her first name is Nimarata, so I have a feeling that Trump can just make some racist/inappropriate remarks about her actual name without needing a nickname.
On February 17 2023 01:23 Gorsameth wrote: To a Republican nothing says Patriot like literal traitors to the country.
I disagree. Republicans don't view them as traitors, because they view the Confederacy as the real nation that is just experiencing some unfortunate circumstances right now.
Powell wishing so bad the economy would crash so poor people will be slaves forever. Unfortunately, the war in ukraine is helping the global economy. Poooor powell.
I've been following the reveal of Team Jorge. It hasn't had anything much to do with US politics, but I was asked by Blackjack the other day if I would want a bunch of stuff that was probably just fake news, but could hurt a politician I disagree with banned from Twitter. I agreed that I did, but the discussion is a bit broader than that. Maybe this Guardian article will give people a window into the pernicious world of fake news generation.It's an opinion column, but it discusses some of the main "achievements" of Team Jorge, and draws conclusions from that.
The healthy functioning of democracies depends on the quality of the information that frames debate within them. But digitalisation, the rise of social media and increasingly sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence are delivering new opportunities to poison the well of public discourse. Unfortunately, as a Guardian investigation this week illustrates, exploiting these is a 21st-century growth industry.
Alongside state-sponsored actors, increasing numbers of private firms are profiting from the dissemination of disinformation on behalf of political and corporate clients. Undercover research, in conjunction with 30 other media organisations, has exposed the inner workings of one such outfit – an Israeli black ops unit which combines the use of automated disinformation on social media with hacking and the seeding of fabricated stories in mainstream news outlets. The resulting revelations offer the deepest, most detailed insight yet into evolving forms of digital malpractice.
On February 18 2023 18:57 Acrofales wrote: I've been following the reveal of Team Jorge. It hasn't had anything much to do with US politics, but I was asked by Blackjack the other day if I would want a bunch of stuff that was probably just fake news, but could hurt a politician I disagree with banned from Twitter. I agreed that I did, but the discussion is a bit broader than that. Maybe this Guardian article will give people a window into the pernicious world of fake news generation.It's an opinion column, but it discusses some of the main "achievements" of Team Jorge, and draws conclusions from that.
The healthy functioning of democracies depends on the quality of the information that frames debate within them. But digitalisation, the rise of social media and increasingly sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence are delivering new opportunities to poison the well of public discourse. Unfortunately, as a Guardian investigation this week illustrates, exploiting these is a 21st-century growth industry.
Alongside state-sponsored actors, increasing numbers of private firms are profiting from the dissemination of disinformation on behalf of political and corporate clients. Undercover research, in conjunction with 30 other media organisations, has exposed the inner workings of one such outfit – an Israeli black ops unit which combines the use of automated disinformation on social media with hacking and the seeding of fabricated stories in mainstream news outlets. The resulting revelations offer the deepest, most detailed insight yet into evolving forms of digital malpractice.
I think it's also worth mentioning the difference between disinformation and minsinformation. I think most people are actually on board with not allowing some black ops group to completely fabricate news to spread disinformation in an effort to influence foreign countries. What's baffling to some people is when you want to go many steps further and suppress news stories for reasons like you disagree with the editoralization of the subject matter or whatever reason you actually use. I think most people are actually not on board with that type of suppression for good reason.
I think you're right about that, but I think there's a gray zone (pun intended?) where some will consider a source disinformation while others think 'it's wrong, but we can't prove they know it is' (in addition to the people thinking it is correct, of course). As often is the case, I think what might look like a battle of principles is actually a battle of where to draw the line.
I think this is one of the more important ongoing discussions, tbh.
On February 18 2023 18:57 Acrofales wrote: I've been following the reveal of Team Jorge. It hasn't had anything much to do with US politics, but I was asked by Blackjack the other day if I would want a bunch of stuff that was probably just fake news, but could hurt a politician I disagree with banned from Twitter. I agreed that I did, but the discussion is a bit broader than that. Maybe this Guardian article will give people a window into the pernicious world of fake news generation.It's an opinion column, but it discusses some of the main "achievements" of Team Jorge, and draws conclusions from that.
The healthy functioning of democracies depends on the quality of the information that frames debate within them. But digitalisation, the rise of social media and increasingly sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence are delivering new opportunities to poison the well of public discourse. Unfortunately, as a Guardian investigation this week illustrates, exploiting these is a 21st-century growth industry.
Alongside state-sponsored actors, increasing numbers of private firms are profiting from the dissemination of disinformation on behalf of political and corporate clients. Undercover research, in conjunction with 30 other media organisations, has exposed the inner workings of one such outfit – an Israeli black ops unit which combines the use of automated disinformation on social media with hacking and the seeding of fabricated stories in mainstream news outlets. The resulting revelations offer the deepest, most detailed insight yet into evolving forms of digital malpractice.
I think it's also worth mentioning the difference between disinformation and minsinformation. I think most people are actually on board with not allowing some black ops group to completely fabricate news to spread disinformation in an effort to influence foreign countries. What's baffling to some people is when you want to go many steps further and suppress news stories for reasons like you disagree with the editoralization of the subject matter or whatever reason you actually use. I think most people are actually not on board with that type of suppression for good reason.
Should it be allowed to interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it?
EPT
