Hispanic Woman Cannot Join Congressional Hispanic Caucus

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2022, 02:49 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Oh Dino and dill trained me to not read articles.

Wha?

Quote:Also even my first impression is Crazy right winger induced. Although I wait for actual judgement until more info is given.

See, this is a perfect example of my issues with journalism today.  If I'm investigating this as a journalist I would find out that the GOP has their own Hispanic caucus and report that in my article.  After all, this would seem to be pertinent information, no?  The fact that this wasn't mentioned in the article, an article on a left leaning site btw, rather reinforces my general position on the state of journalism.


EDIT: For those that are likely to pounce on this point, the article does mention another caucus, but that the split was in regard to policy towards Cuba, not a party line split. And if that's the GOP caucus being mentioned by others then my original point stands.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-28-2022, 03:13 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Who's a hateful wild conspiracy theorist? Flores? How so?

Yep. Q people are no good. Not good for my country and definitely shouldn’t be in leadership positions.

A group of people dumb enough to believe the things they peddle that get as extreme as labeling your opponents satanic pedophile cannibals.

I don’t know what it would take for you to label someone a hateful wild conspiracy theorist. But I found my threshold.

[Dill]

(10-28-2022, 02:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Since it's you, I'll put in terms you'll prefer;

1.  Person A makes thread about subject.  Person draws conclusions from available information and makes logical argument based on said information.

2.  Person B points out an unknown fact that contradicts some of the points made by person A.

3.  Person A acclimates new facts and modifies their position on the thread subject in response to this new information.

That you appear to find this process an "own" is rather disturbing.  See, the process above is called learning.  In it we incorporate new information and apply it to our existing knowledge base, changing thoughts or opinions when applicable.  You appear to find that process a subject of ridicule.  Like I said, disturbing.

1. Person A reads a news article about Dems excluding a Hispanic, then fills in the blanks with assumptions about trending Hispanic votes and Dem petty bigotry.

2. Person GmdinoB researches the matter before jumping to a conclusion and informs the group there are two Hispanic caucuses based on party affiliation, and Flores tried to join the wrong one--but in a long post most probably didn't read closely.

3. Person A "acclimatizes" to the new fact, first by claiming person B "made my point for me" (?? ??), then asserting the Dem's "feeling of entitlement to the votes of non-Whites (also racist)" and still calling the HCH "deliberately misleading" as plain conclusions. 

Finally after Person C distills the longer article into the essential point, the learning begins. Person A invokes "adult" behavior as the standard now and his "adjustment" makes him the exemplar thereof, as he goes on to complain that the problem with journalism today is that journalists do what he just did. Cherry on top: person A ascribes to Person C a belief that merely "incorporating new information" and "changing thoughts and opinions when applicable" would be the object of ridicule here. Person A is no doubt "sad" for him. 

So, not my term, but yes. A kind of "self own." 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2022, 06:33 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. Person A reads a news article about Dems excluding a Hispanic, then fills in the blanks with assumptions about trending Hispanic votes and Dem petty bigotry.

No assumptions needed, actions speak louder than words and all.

Quote:2. Person GmdinoB researches the matter before jumping to a conclusion and informs the group there are two Hispanic caucuses based on party affiliation, and Flores tried to join the wrong one--but in a long post most probably didn't read closely.

3. Person A "acclimatizes" to the new fact, first by claiming person B "made my point for me" (?? ??), then asserting the Dem's "feeling of entitlement to the votes of non-Whites (also racist)" and still calling the HCH "deliberately misleading" as plain conclusions. 

Yes, he made my point for me that the Dems specifically exclude GOP members yet still call their caucus the CHC.  Was that not the crux of my point?

Quote:Finally after Person C distills the longer article into the essential point, the learning begins. Person A invokes "adult" behavior as the standard now and his "adjustment" makes him the exemplar thereof, as he goes on to complain that the problem with journalism today is that journalists do what he just did. Cherry on top: person A ascribes to Person C a belief that merely "incorporating new information" and "changing thoughts and opinions when applicable" would be the object of ridicule here. Person A is no doubt "sad" for him. 

So, not my term, but yes. A kind of "self own." 

Like I said, Dill, I know you need your small victories now, so have it.  Also, as I pointed out, the split came over a disagreement about Cuba, the article did not mention that the CHC is strictly for the Dems by their own bylaws.


So, I will reiterate, the caucus should not be labeled as it is based on their deliberate exclusion of non-Dem Hispanics.  Do you agree this is a clear mislabeling of their caucus and that they should change their name because of it?

Also, for those who won't read the whole thread;

(10-27-2022, 07:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The title rather says it all, Mayra Flores, who is the first woman born in Mexico to serve in Congress was denied membership on the Hispanic Congressional Caucus.  Not a good look for a caucus that was originally bipartisan.  But, it's their choice, so fine.  What should absolutely be required is that their name be changed immediately to the Democratic Hispanic Congressional Caucus.  I guess the reality of Hispanics tracking GOP (something I said several years ago would happen) isn't sitting well with the Dems.  As I said, it's their right to deny her membership, but damn if it doesn't make them look petty and bigoted.

https://thehill.com/latino/3707920-texas-republican-says-she-was-denied-membership-in-hispanic-caucus/

Please try and find something in that post that is wrong.  Was Flores denied, yes.  Was the caucus originally bipartisan, yes.  Was it their choice to exclude her, yes.  Should they change their name because they don't actually represent Hispanics, just Dem Hispanics, yes.  Are Hispanics tracking GOP, yes.  Is their decision to deny her membership both petty and bigoted?  This one is the only statement up for debate, and it's clearly subjective, but my opinion based on everything that came before it is, yes.

Do you disagree with any of that?  Also, please do respond to every point, not just the ones you feel you can score petty internet points on as you are wont to do.  My thanks in advance and enjoy your weekend.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(10-28-2022, 04:28 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Yep. Q people are no good. Not good for my country and definitely shouldn’t be in leadership positions.

A group of people dumb enough to believe the things they peddle that get as extreme as labeling your opponents satanic pedophile cannibals.

I don’t know what it would take for you to label someone a hateful wild conspiracy theorist. But I found my threshold.

Well you’re saying she’s Q, but not telling me how you know she’s Q.

[Belsnickel]

(10-28-2022, 08:18 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Well you’re saying she’s Q, but not telling me how you know she’s Q.

Probably this: https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/mayra-flores-texas-republican-conspiracy-theorist-joins-homeland-security-committee-14310854

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(10-28-2022, 08:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Probably this: https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/mayra-flores-texas-republican-conspiracy-theorist-joins-homeland-security-committee-14310854

Pardon me, but I want a response from the person I asked. Not someone else.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-28-2022, 09:40 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Pardon me, but I want a response from the person I asked. Not someone else.

Your going to get the same answer.

Maybe she really did think hash tagging q and Qanon and wwg1wga on her Twitter posts was disagreeing with them. In that case again maybe she shouldn’t be in a position of power and should be sitting in a corner with a dunce cap on.

But she is not pulling the wool over my eyes. Maybe I should start teaching a class to republicans on how to identify unqualified candidates to help them stop voting for conspiracy theorist wackos.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(10-28-2022, 10:40 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Your going to get the same answer.

Maybe she really did think hash tagging q and Qanon and wwg1wga on her Twitter posts was disagreeing with them. In that case again maybe she shouldn’t be in a position of power and should be sitting in a corner with a dunce cap on.

But she is not pulling the wool over my eyes. Maybe I should start teaching a class to republicans on how to identify unqualified candidates to help them stop voting for conspiracy theorist wackos.

You don't happen to have screenshots of the twitter posts do you?

[Dill]

(10-28-2022, 06:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do you disagree with any of that?  Also, please do respond to every point, not just the ones you feel you can score petty internet points on as you are wont to do.  My thanks in advance and enjoy your weekend.

Since this post seems to address all readers, I want to jot down two notes regarding the injunction to "respond to every point." 

1. Often I construct deductive arguments; if one can secure assent to the premises, the conclusion should necessarily follow. 
Undermining one premise should tank the whole argument. That should be enough. The same can be true of inductive/abductive arguments, if they are tight enough. So I read arguments as a structure, targeting the weak points. 

2. At the other end of the spectrum, posts here don't always offer arguments. Even when they do, sometimes the kernel argument is not more than a single premise supporting multiple conclusions, with a lot of bald (i.e., unsupported) assertions thrown in for good measure, along with wholly unnecessary comments about the other posters' character and ability. Encountering such scattershot, anyone who felt obligated to answer every "point" could be easily diverted from the original issue, or away from other weak points in the argument. I.e., he could be "played." 

Better, I think, to just continue reading arguments as arguments, looking for logical weakness and weak or no evidence. Addressing weak points should be quite enough, along with eschewing personal attack.   

[Dill]

(10-28-2022, 06:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, he made my point for me that the Dems specifically exclude GOP members yet still call their caucus the CHC.  Was that not the crux of my point?

No. Hardly. The title of your thread was not "Republican Congresswoman Cannot Join Dem Caucus." 

(10-28-2022, 06:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Like I said, Dill, I know you need your small victories now, so have it.  Also, as I pointed out, the split came over a disagreement about Cuba, the article did not mention that the CHC is strictly for the Dems by their own bylaws.

So, I will reiterate, the caucus should not be labeled as it is based on their deliberate exclusion of non-Dem Hispanics.  Do you agree this is a clear mislabeling of their caucus and that they should change their name because of it?

No. Don't agree. This is a tempest in a very tiny tea cup, triggered by a Republican's attempt to join a Dem caucus, and your readiness to read Dem "racism" into her exclusion rather than by laws already in place for years.

The latter was the "crux" of your point.  And Dino didn't "make it for you"; he undercut it by revealing you had no clue the Repubs had their own caucus and that the CHC had been only Dem for years.  

And I don't think CHC is "clear mislabeling" in need of repair anymore than the forum owner should rename Jungle Noise "Bengals Fan Only Jungle Noise" because some provocative Browns fan jumped in there once and started posting.

[Dill]

(10-28-2022, 06:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The title rather says it all, Mayra Flores, who is the first woman born in Mexico to serve in Congress was denied membership on the Hispanic Congressional Caucus.  Not a good look for a caucus that was originally bipartisan.  But, it's their choice, so fine.  What should absolutely be required is that their name be changed immediately to the Democratic Hispanic Congressional Caucus.  I guess the reality of Hispanics tracking GOP (something I said several years ago would happen) isn't sitting well with the Dems.  As I said, it's their right to deny her membership, but damn if it doesn't make them look petty and bigoted.

Please try and find something in that post that is wrong.  Was Flores denied, yes.  Was the caucus originally bipartisan, yes.  Was it their choice to exclude her, yes.  Should they change their name because they don't actually represent Hispanics, just Dem Hispanics, yes.  Are Hispanics tracking GOP, yes.  Is their decision to deny her membership both petty and bigoted?  This one is the only statement up for debate, and it's clearly subjective, but my opinion based on everything that came before it is, yes.

No one disagrees that Dems "denied" Flores membership in a Dem caucus or that the caucus was "originally bipartisan."  

So "finding something wrong" starts with questions like--why choose to connect another minor GOP stunt to Hispanics "tracking GOP" and Dems "feel[ing] entitled to the votes of non-white people (also racist)"? How does leaving the caucus name the same for 46 years amount to "deliberate mislabeling" which makes Dems "petty and bigoted" for not opening a Dem caucus to a disruptive Republican?  (Was Flores tricked?) 
 
It doesn't. A hypothesis: You projected your highly partisan vision of Dems onto a few bare facts and spun them into an angry condemnation of Dem "racism" and "petty bigotry.”  When you recognized that new evidence exposed the one-sidedness of the Dem focus, damage control took the form of "easy" non-partisan "consistency": Repubs should change their name as well as the bigoted Dems.   
 
What speaks for this hypothesis? First, the constant juxtaposition of bare facts ("denied membership" and "Hispanic) with unrelated claims about "tracking" and "racism." Second, Once the bare facts fit the Repubs just as well as Dems, then it’s all damage control for the guy who regularly accuses others of partisan vision: The article should have told you more; though you spun this thread out of anti-Dem anger, you want credit for "consistency" because now you apply your naming demands to “both sides”--while continuing to affirm your “subjective opinion” Dems are petty and bigoted; and finally, there is dill's "disturbing" behavior, criticizing poor you, not for trying to gaslight your partisan pre-judgment away, but for your adult “learning” behavior. 


What speaks against that hypothesis? 

[BengalYankee]

(10-27-2022, 07:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The title rather says it all, Mayra Flores, who is the first woman born in Mexico to serve in Congress was denied membership on the Hispanic Congressional Caucus.  Not a good look for a caucus that was originally bipartisan.  But, it's their choice, so fine.  What should absolutely be required is that their name be changed immediately to the Democratic Hispanic Congressional Caucus.  I guess the reality of Hispanics tracking GOP (something I said several years ago would happen) isn't sitting well with the Dems.  As I said, it's their right to deny her membership, but damn if it doesn't make them look petty and bigoted.

https://thehill.com/latino/3707920-texas-republican-says-she-was-denied-membership-in-hispanic-caucus/

She doesn't have to worry anymore, she lost. 

[GMDino]

(11-10-2022, 07:37 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: She doesn't have to worry anymore, she lost. 

Publicity stunts just don't give a candidate the same push as they used to!